Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Ugh.

When this happened, Ireland belonged to England. It had no independent government of it's own.

It even says in WHAT YOU QUOTED that it was the British Army that drafted/recruited these people.

Anglo Irish were the only people rich enough to own slaves, because everyone else was too poor to actually afford slaves.

The british brought slaves to ireland. it was sympathising b*stards that got the slaves, and they were the anglo irish because they had ties to britain, and therefore were looked upon kindly by their british rulers.


Just for anyone who doesn't know:

the irish language was made ILLEGAL in ireland by the british occupying forces, and to this day is primarily a dead language because of it.

Irish customs, our traditions, even OUR SPORTS, were either banned outright or ended up like the massacre at Croke Park

So you're honestly going to claim that while we couldn't speak irish, practice our traditions or live free from british rule, we were allowed to own slaves? SERIOUSLY?

Irish troops in the British army were not forcibly recruited; there was no conscription. They were all volunteers and there was always this interesting area of Irish volunteers fighting for a nation that was technically occpuying their country. Other than the fact that the typical person needs a bed at night and the British army was a way to get that, they very often fought against the French out of simple national pride. The Connaught Rangers are a fascinating unit to study.

It is also deeply simplisitc to imply that all rich or powerful Irishmen were somehow the responsibility of the British- that is obvious nonsense. Belfast came entirely to prominence on the back of the slave trade based on entitely internal Irish mercantalism, after the British allowed free trade there.

Pr, simply no-one is going to believe you when you say something so outrageous. Blaming the whole thing on the British is... poor. Irish businessmen were in on the slave trade. They were not forced to do so by the British; the only thing that had stoppped them was the British not allowing Irish trade. As soon as that was relaxed, they were in. If you are going to say that a few Irish businessmen don't make a slave trade, then ok... a few British businessmen don't make the British as a whole into slavers either on that logic. The fact of the matter is that the concept of slavery in Ireland massively predates the British- like nearly all of Europe, the culture of slavery was there from the very beginning, and was not disrupted until the mass acceptance of Christianity.

It is simply wrong to deny that the Irish had a noticable slave trade involvement. Not to mention that early Irish immigrants to the Americas owned slaves just like eveyone else there did. Any idea of Ireland being entirely morally clear on the slavery front and all possible wrongs being at the door of the British is pathetic. Your idea of the existence of collaborators who owned slaves, but only because of the existence of the British, is also an absurd fantasy.

Ireland's involvement in the slave trade only ended when Britain compelled it. Not that the British can claim a great moral superiority, as they were still making a ton from the drugs trade (and British ports were just as complicit as Belfast in slavery).

ya, white identity politics are way dumber than black identity politics

Irish people had british slaves wayyyy back when. St. Patrick was a british slave in Ireland.

White people have ****ed everyone, including each other.

Originally posted by One Free Man
Irish people had british slaves wayyyy back when. St. Patrick was a british slave in Ireland.

White people have ****ed everyone, including each other.

White people? Wasn't it Africans who sold other Africans into slavery?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
White people? Wasn't it Africans who sold other Africans into slavery?

yup, white nations had no hand in the Atlantic slave trade.

Originally posted by inimalist
yup, white nations had no hand in the Atlantic slave trade.

Getting that from what I said is like getting gold from lead.

Didn't the white slavers buy there slaves from African tribes, that had captures, and enslaved their enemies?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Getting that from what I said is like getting gold from lead.

Didn't the white slavers buy there slaves from African tribes, that had captures, and enslaved their enemies?

supply v demand

and i was being sarcastic

Originally posted by inimalist
supply v demand

and i was being sarcastic

Then we are all in this together.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Irish troops in the British army were not forcibly recruited; there was no conscription. They were all volunteers and there was always this interesting area of Irish volunteers fighting for a nation that was technically occpuying their country. Other than the fact that the typical person needs a bed at night and the British army was a way to get that, they very often fought against the French out of simple national pride. The Connaught Rangers are a fascinating unit to study.

It is also deeply simplisitc to imply that all rich or powerful Irishmen were somehow the responsibility of the British- that is obvious nonsense. Belfast came entirely to prominence on the back of the slave trade based on entitely internal Irish mercantalism, after the British allowed free trade there.

Pr, simply no-one is going to believe you when you say something so outrageous. Blaming the whole thing on the British is... poor. Irish businessmen were in on the slave trade. They were not forced to do so by the British; the only thing that had stoppped them was the British not allowing Irish trade. As soon as that was relaxed, they were in. If you are going to say that a few Irish businessmen don't make a slave trade, then ok... a few British businessmen don't make the British as a whole into slavers either on that logic. The fact of the matter is that the concept of slavery in Ireland massively predates the British- like nearly all of Europe, the culture of slavery was there from the very beginning, and was not disrupted until the mass acceptance of Christianity.

It is simply wrong to deny that the Irish had a noticable slave trade involvement. Not to mention that early Irish immigrants to the Americas owned slaves just like eveyone else there did. Any idea of Ireland being entirely morally clear on the slavery front and all possible wrongs being at the door of the British is pathetic. Your idea of the existence of collaborators who owned slaves, but only because of the existence of the British, is also an absurd fantasy.

Ireland's involvement in the slave trade only ended when Britain compelled it. Not that the British can claim a great moral superiority, as they were still making a ton from the drugs trade (and British ports were just as complicit as Belfast in slavery).

not what i said, and i honestly can't believe you misquoted me like that.

first of all, i said drafted/recruited, meaning both were done. both were. irish men were still voluntarily joining the british army up until, well, the present day. one of my relatives is actually part of the army.

the only irish people that had influence and power under british rule were loyalists to the queen, or wealthy landowners/businessmen (like you said) who again, worked with the british. the average irish person had neither the opportunity nor wealth required to be a slave owner. any irish person that opposed british rule (and there were a few of them) were executed pretty quickly.

did the irish make each other slaves before british rule? yes. that's not what i'm talking about here. i'm talking strictly about african slaves.

yes, irish people owned slaves. but was it an irish idea, and irish way of life, and collectively, independently an irish decision? no.

ireland was f*cked up in the past. its f*cked up now. the FACT is, though, what the british did in ireland was abhorrent, whether you want to pretend it was or not. so yes, they deserve some of the blame.

Originally posted by inimalist
yup, white nations had no hand in the Atlantic slave trade.

White people (by which I will mean Europeans) were just new customers. Americans didn't invent slavery, and neither did British, Spanish, Portuguese, French...

Many tribes went to war with each other to get slaves to sell them for profit. When did this become new phenomenon?
It has existed throughout human history and practised by almost every tribe, culture, civilisation, racial group and religion.

It amazes me that people, particularly in North America, just ignore the slave trades across Sahara, The Red Sea and the Indian Ocean.

While European slave trade lasted just over 3 centuries, Arab-African slave trade, lasted 14 centuries (somewhere still practised).

Just in 19th Century, 1.2 million slaves were brought from Africa via Sahara to Middle East, further 450, 000 down the Red Sea, 442 000 down east African coasts. Total 2 million.
That is just in 1800.

While the tarns-Atlantic slave mortality was as high as 12.5%, the slave trade across Sahara, Red sea and East African coast was as high as 80%.

While majority of slaves in American slave trade were shipped for agricultural work, the majority of slaves shipped to Middle East were for military (slave armies) and sexual slavery.

In America 2 in 3 slaves were men, while in Middle East, 2 in 3 were women.

While in America slaves could get married and have children, in Middle East all men were castrated and children born of femals usually killed at birth.

While it is estimated that between 10 and 12 million slaves from Africa were transported to Americas, 95% went to South and Central America, mainly to Spanish and Portuguese colonies.

Right now, 20% of Saudi Arabia's populations are slaves! Origin : Sudan, Africa.


Noone denies the horrid nature of trans-Atlantic slave trade - but selective history irritates me to no end.
If you don't care about Arabs or about their enslavement of Blacks and would rather talk about terrible Europeans - you should be attacking Spaniards and Portuguese...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
White people? Wasn't it Africans who sold other Africans into slavery?

..

if you were a merchant and you took out a loan, hired a boat and enlisted a private army equipped with the latest in weapons tech and ammunition, then sailed halfway accross the world to get slaves, would you turn back and return empty handed if the people you targeted as slaves said they were very happy you came to visit but weren't really interested in your offer.

Originally posted by shiv
..

if you were a merchant and you took out a loan, hired a boat and enlisted a private army equipped with the latest in weapons tech and ammunition, then sailed halfway accross the world to get slaves, would you turn back and return empty handed if the people you targeted as slaves said they were very happy you came to visit but weren't really interested in your offer.

As far as I know that reaction wasn't very common. African tribalism ran/runs very deep. They were already enslaving each other as part of the spoils of war, selling those slaves for awesome new weapons didn't take much prompting.

Originally posted by -Pr-
not what i said, and i honestly can't believe you misquoted me like that.

first of all, i said drafted/recruited, meaning both were done. both were. irish men were still voluntarily joining the british army up until, well, the present day. one of my relatives is actually part of the army.

the only irish people that had influence and power under british rule were loyalists to the queen, or wealthy landowners/businessmen (like you said) who again, worked with the british. the average irish person had neither the opportunity nor wealth required to be a slave owner. any irish person that opposed british rule (and there were a few of them) were executed pretty quickly.

did the irish make each other slaves before british rule? yes. that's not what i'm talking about here. i'm talking strictly about african slaves.

yes, irish people owned slaves. but was it an irish idea, and irish way of life, and collectively, independently an irish decision? no.

ireland was f*cked up in the past. its f*cked up now. the FACT is, though, what the british did in ireland was abhorrent, whether you want to pretend it was or not. so yes, they deserve some of the blame.

Brilliant. So the Irish were involved in colonisation and the slave trade. So basically you're wrong. Instead of just admitting you're wrong you're just waffling.

I will repeat myself for the second time not interested wether the British were treating the Irish badly (not that I think it was a joke just not the point of the thread) the point of the thread was wether they were involved or not...thats IT.

You also don't need to own slaves to be involved in the slave trade. Even if the British weren't giving the Irish people a hard time they would have still got involved in the slave trade and would have tried to make Irish colonies abroad.

Nobody saying that what happened in Ireland wasn't horrible thats you just trying to put Ush on the defensive.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
As far as I know that reaction wasn't very common. African tribalism ran/runs very deep. They were already enslaving each other as part of the spoils of war, selling those slaves for awesome new weapons didn't take much prompting.

Y'know that kinda sounds like oversimplification as to what happened. Im not even entirely sure wether they needed guns from Europeans. Africans were part of an Islamic Empire and they could have got guns from the Arabs. I don't know that just sounds like you watched some Western on Tv and equated what happened in America as to what happened in Africa.

You do know that before things really got bad in Africa that we had an Empire traded and intermarried with Europeans and we were well known? As far as I know it wasn't like that for the American Indians or Aboriginals.

The British didn't conquer Africa because they were primitive its because of the lack of unity. If they were unified im pretty sure they could have stopped it from happening and even made the neccesary weapons themselves.

I was talking about white slavery. Long before the "discovery" of africa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain_and_Ireland#Before_1066

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
As far as I know that reaction wasn't very common. African tribalism ran/runs very deep. They were already enslaving each other as part of the spoils of war, selling those slaves for awesome new weapons didn't take much prompting.

maybe it is important to define "types" of slavery, or how the Atlantic trade route cemented the racist colonialism that gives the West its power today.

I get the point, whites aren't the only people to hold slaves, nor were blacks the only slaves, but there were fairly significant historical consequences to the Atlantic passage that separate it as an entity from the sort of tribal slavery that existed in Africa and most other "uncolonized" locations.

Originally posted by Deadline
The British didn't conquer Africa because they were primitive its because of the lack of unity. If they were unified im pretty sure they could have stopped it from happening and even made the neccesary weapons themselves.

thats not quite correct. Even the Zulu empire suffered huge losses to the British, and it is certain they didn't have the technological advancement at the time of contact. The Zulu are an excellent example of asymmetric warfare, however.

Originally posted by Deadline
Y'know that kinda sounds like oversimplification as to what happened.

Given that we're not writing academic papers anything we say will be a horrendous over simplification.

Originally posted by Deadline
Im not even entirely sure wether they needed guns from Europeans. Africans were part of an Islamic Empire and they could have got guns from the Arabs.

That's your mistake. The group "Africans" is not a meaningful one, even today. When European sailors found Africans that were already part of some empire they just went and found Africans that weren't part of an empire.

Originally posted by Deadline
You do know that before things really got bad in Africa that we had an Empire traded and intermarried with Europeans and we were well known? As far as I know it wasn't like that for the American Indians or Aboriginals.

Who? Africans?

Originally posted by Deadline
The British didn't conquer Africa because they were primitive its because of the lack of unity. If they were unified im pretty sure they could have stopped it from happening and even made the neccesary weapons themselves.

I pointed out the lack of unity. Tribalism is almost certainly what made the Atlantic slave trade possible.

As for the weapons they would have been useless without the proper infrastructure to produce the right sort of gunpowder.

The zulu war was Incredibly brutal for the british. Proof that muskets are not total outmatches for speed, agility, cunning, and strength.

Originally posted by One Free Man
The zulu war was Incredibly brutal for the british. Proof that muskets are not total outmatches for speed, agility, cunning, and strength.

Truth. Good weapons will never compensate for poor tactics.

Originally posted by One Free Man
The zulu war was Incredibly brutal for the british. Proof that muskets are not total outmatches for speed, agility, cunning, and strength.

Speed, agility, cunning and strength were far less important than sheer numbers in any of the engagements that the Zulu actually won.

The Zulu won the Battle of Isandlwana by sheer force of numbers (some 10 times that of the British). Same at Hlobane

They were hammered at Kambula despite having 10 times the numbers of British. Same at Gingindlovu. Same at Eshowe and the same at Ulundi

They lost Rorke's drift despite putting 4000 warriors against 140 British.

Originally posted by jaden101
Speed, agility, cunning and strength were far less important than sheer numbers in any of the engagements that the Zulu actually won.

The Zulu won the Battle of Isandlwana by sheer force of numbers (some 10 times that of the British). Same at Hlobane

They were hammered at Kambula despite having 10 times the numbers of British. Same at Gingindlovu. Same at Eshowe and the same at Ulundi

They lost Rorke's drift despite putting 4000 warriors against 140 British. I didn't say that they won, I said that the war was brutal. I also stated "not total outmatches," implying that there is still an outmatch between technology and skill.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Given that we're not writing academic papers anything we say will be a horrendous over simplification.


True.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's your mistake.

Its my mistake that Africans didn't neccsarily need guns from Europeans? If thats the case please point out how im wrong.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The group "Africans" is not a meaningful one, even today. When European sailors found Africans that were already part of some empire they just went and found Africans that weren't part of an empire.

I was mainly concerned with West Africans. If im refering to Africans that were part of an Islamic Empire you should know specifically what Africans im talking about. Im obvoulsy not refering to the Zulus or Africans from Central Africa who were pagan as far as I can remember.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Who? Africans?

See above post.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I pointed out the lack of unity. Tribalism is almost certainly what made the Atlantic slave trade possible.

Ok fair enough.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
As for the weapons they would have been useless without the proper infrastructure to produce the right sort of gunpowder.

How do you know they lacked the infrastructure to do that?

Originally posted by inimalist
thats not quite correct. Even the Zulu empire suffered huge losses to the British, and it is certain they didn't have the technological advancement at the time of contact. The Zulu are an excellent example of asymmetric warfare, however.

Im not refering to the Zulus.

Originally posted by inimalist
thats not quite correct. Even the Zulu empire suffered huge losses to the British, and it is certain they didn't have the technological advancement at the time of contact. The Zulu are an excellent example of asymmetric warfare, however.

Im specifically thinking of the Mali Empire. How did they lack the technological advancement in the 16th and 17th century?

Originally posted by Deadline
Im specifically thinking of the Mali Empire. How did they lack the technological advancement in the 16th and 17th century?


fixed

Originally posted by One Free Man
I didn't say that they won, I said that the war was brutal. I also stated "not total outmatches," implying that there is still an outmatch between technology and skill.

There was only 2 skirmishes where it was brutal "for the British" and none of those had anything to do with Cunning, Speed etc. 1 was to do with the shit way the British had set up their defences and being hugely outnumbered (Only 80 died though) and the other was sheer weight of numbers to an even larger degree. (Not to mention that the Zulu actually had muskets and other rifles at Isandlwana).

Originally posted by lil bitchiness

It amazes me that people, particularly in North America, just ignore the slave trades across Sahara, The Red Sea and the Indian Ocean.


I would ask you to not get upset with North Americans, although I can only speak for U.S. education, but they don't teach anyone about those slave trades here period, at all (I'll be entering graduate school next semester to receive my teaching license. Public schools are mostly like "get these kids the hell out of here"; private schools are more like "let's teach them how to think", but not a varied, diversified education by any stretch unless you choose to do so as an individual teacher).

I learned about them after getting into college but that was after doing research that had nothing directly with my classes.

Originally posted by -Pr-
not what i said, and i honestly can't believe you misquoted me like that.

first of all, i said drafted/recruited, meaning both were done. both were. irish men were still voluntarily joining the british army up until, well, the present day. one of my relatives is actually part of the army.

the only irish people that had influence and power under british rule were loyalists to the queen, or wealthy landowners/businessmen (like you said) who again, worked with the british. the average irish person had neither the opportunity nor wealth required to be a slave owner. any irish person that opposed british rule (and there were a few of them) were executed pretty quickly.

did the irish make each other slaves before british rule? yes. that's not what i'm talking about here. i'm talking strictly about african slaves.

yes, irish people owned slaves. but was it an irish idea, and irish way of life, and collectively, independently an irish decision? no.

ireland was f*cked up in the past. its f*cked up now. the FACT is, though, what the british did in ireland was abhorrent, whether you want to pretend it was or not. so yes, they deserve some of the blame. [/QUOTE


You dirty bastard. That sig is AweSome dude.

Everything that "lil bitchness" says is true, the sahara or arab slave trade was the longest, 2-3 times of the slavery in the americas and it was primarily for personal use of people as property than business use of property. They made euniches of the men (chop off penis) and use them as soldiers to fight for their interests, the women as concubines( secondary wives, lovers, or sex slaves). These people came from across the gruelig trip by way of the sahara desert, the vast majority of them didn't surive the trip.

It was so rough that 4 out of 5 people died. These people came from north africa, also eastern africa in the north east like eqypt, sudan, and further down eastward the zani or bantu. They were very cruel, the cruest. The people must have been like nothing to them. They did this everywhere, in europe as well as africa took millions of people but in africa, a lot more due to the fact that tribelism did exist largely in africa. The people lived in nomes(the greeks later adopted this idea and call it them in greece, city-states)didn't bother each other and one person didn't control a hold country, there were many kings.

Also, at this time European controlled the world as they do now. All the recent world superpowers were from europe at that time and the world powers of africa had cease being a factor, you just had very wealthy people living by community when arabs as well as europeans were fighting over who was to ruled the world. They used africa's welcoming attitude and hostility to guests to see there many riches, wealth, internal struggles and use this as an opportunity to further divide them. This is what is happening now, they all play "kind" to take advantage of you as the european did or become your susposed friend as if they could never do cruel things to you and do the worse as the arab have done. Both sides play on the disadvantages of africans today which are all deeply due to them, for whatever problems african have had they could have long move past, I mean they were never that bad as in europe where they just raided like it was a job, some nations more than others or in arabia where all they did was war since ancient times.

They have purposely kept struggles in africa so it would be easier today to steal their resources, with africans to die from crime and violence, mal-nutrition other diseases and even still be sold as slaves by other african or africans brainwashed to thinking they are arabs. A crime of the greastest kind, against man and greater, God who made humans. Two groups of the human family in greed and hate, slowly, mischieveously, seemly without blame trying to kill off the other group by any means through genicide and assimulation to get their rich land, talents but make it look like its not their fault or wish, the people are just messed up. They are but with other peoples problems, not their own. With their own problems, they would do just fine.