“White Cargo: The Forgotten History of Britain’s White Slaves in America”
Yes, America. The first slaves brought to North America were overwhelmingly white, mostly Irish and Scottish war prisoners, British convicts, and many other "undesirable" groups.
Recommended reading: https://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963
The First Slaves in the US were White!~
I suppose your non-white..but read it anyway. Good History Book
you're wrong. look up the difference between penal indureship and contractual
You can also read White Cargo.
The reason it was called indentured service rather than slavery is because it wasn't 'chattel' (children weren't property of the owner).
>Please provide a source for that.
It's a well known fact that not all the slaves were black. http://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963
Lets not lose focus here. The reason this was brought up was because I asked what part of the constitution was racist and horrible. I'd still like to hear that because you haven't made your case.
You're wrong, it's not. Maybe you should look up the definition of xenophobic. You can say it a million times in a million different ways. It'll never make it xenophobic or any other ridiculous adjective you want to come up with.
You're completely blowing this out of proportions. Because we don't accept Muslims into the country until we can vet them properly it's going to ruin foreign relations? I doubt it. No one is calling China, Japan, and Korea xenophobic for their laws on foreigners. It has yet to ruin their foreign relations.
I guess you just can't tell what's pragmatic and what's foolhardy. It's foolish for leads to allow people in their country who will kill civilians. It's pragmatic to setup safe zones in other countries to protect civilians. I think a good analogy to this would be eating beef during the mad cow disease epidemic. It's pragmatic to swear off all beef because a certain percentage of the beef has a deadly pathogen. Would you call it cowardly to stop eating beef because there's a chance it would kill you?
No, I'm not. The majority of indentured servants dies in servitude due to how poorly they were treated. Very little ever made it out if any, and whole families that were sent as servants died out before their unfair terms were met. Indentured servants were seen as less than a chattle slave. Why? Because it had an end date. A slave was an investment, an indentured servant was a burden and was treated like one. The majority of servants were worked to death via starvation over long periods if not killed outright for disobedience.
Look, I'm aware chattle slavery was awful, but so was Irish slavery (again, referring to the 300,000, not indentured servants). They experienced the same things. The fact that you're so hung up on numbers is worrying. You're trying to say "Oh, it wasn't that bad because your numbers were so small in comparison!" But to an island whose population isn't even over 5 million in modern times, 300,000 people is a LARGE portion. And lets not forget, suffering is suffering regardless of who or how many experience it.
Read these books to educate yourself on the matter:
https://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963
https://www.amazon.com/Hell-Barbados-Ethnic-Cleansing-Ireland/dp/0863222870
https://www.amazon.com/Irish-Slaves-indenture-Contract-Immigrants/dp/145630612X
Your source doesn't actually say they weren't slaves, it just incorrectly argues the indentured servant angle again.
My heritage has nothing to do with this and doesn't discount what happened to the Irish people. You need to do some reflection.
It was sarcasm, you dunce. r/woosh/
You can read it for free. Go ahead, read it, and realise how wrong you were.
Here, I'll make it easier for you: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Chinese_Slavery_in_America
>A young Chinese girl, from nine to twelve years of age, in San Francisco to-day has a market value of from $150 to $500. A girl from twelve to sixteen, if attractive, is quoted on change among the high-binders, who constitute the brokers in this unique American Exchange, at from $500 to $1,500, while for girls over this age the prices range up to $3,500, which has been paid on teh very ground that such an investment will return a profit of twenty or thirty per cent.
>Slavery has existed among the Chinese in California for years, and continues almost unrestricted. As these lines are written the courts of San Francisco are fighting over the case of a slave named Fong, who claims to have been kidnapped in China, brought to America, and sold to the highest bidder. She finally escaped to one of the mission, that has so far successfully defied her owners, and, as a result, the question of Chinese slavery will undoubtedly be thoroughly ventilated.
>The investigation of this and other cases, and examination of the records of the Chinese-American missions, show that slavery of the most horrible and debased nature is being carried on wherever the Chinese have a foothold. From authoritative sources it has been learned that slaves are, as a rule, badly treated, and the court and mission records abound in citations showing cross cruelty. The slaves are of two classes - young girls, used as household drudges, and adults, held for immoral purposes by their owners, who rent or sell them.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/humanity/slaves.txt
>Estimates vary between 80,000 and 130,000 regarding the amount of Irish sent into slavery in America and the West Indies during the years of 1651 - 1660: Prendergast says 80,000(17); Boudin 100,000(18); Emmet 120,000 to 130,000(19); Lingard 60,000 up until 1656(20); and Condon estimates "the number of Irish transported to the British colonies in America from 1651 - 1660 exceeded the total number of their inhabitants at that period, a fact which ought not to be lost sight of by those who undertake to estimate the strength of the Celtic element in this nation..."(21)
"last time I checked people didn’t have auctions for Chinese or Irish people" - an ignorant twerp
(that one, you can buy: amazon /White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963)
Now do what reparations would look like fer white people ....
>Slavery in America, typically associated with blacks from Africa, was an enterprise that began with the shipping of more than 300,000 white Britons to the colonies. This little known history is fascinatingly recounted in White Cargo (New York University Press, 2007). Drawing on letters, diaries, ship manifests, court documents, and government archives, authors Don Jordan and Michael Walsh detail how thousands of whites endured the hardships of tobacco farming and lived and died in bondage in the New World.
Following the cultivation in 1613 of an acceptable tobacco crop in Virginia, the need for labor accelerated. Slavery was viewed as the cheapest and most expedient way of providing the necessary work force. Due to harsh working conditions, beatings, starvation, and disease, survival rates for slaves rarely exceeded two years. Thus, the high level of demand was sustained by a continuous flow of white slaves from England, Ireland, and Scotland from 1618 to 1775, who were imported to serve America’s colonial masters.
https://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963
your welcome, I also saw on another persons comment that the first american slaves were white: by 7-t-7:
The First Slaves in the US were White!~ link Good History Book
btw what I told you I got from this book: https://www.google.com/search?q=the+oxford+illustrated+history+of+ireland&rlz=1CAUSZT_enUS913US913&oq=The+oxford+illustrated+history+of+Irela&aqs=chrome.0.0i355j46j69i57j0i22i30.12794j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
you came to the right place to ask!
Read this: https://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963
It's NY Univ Press and it's legit.
Anti-Irish sentiment. Irish slavery.
Keeping a culture going by participating in it is a choice. It doesn't matter where that culture came from; it matters whether it persists when there is no actual reason for it to persist. Plenty of people have abandoned that culture and done quite well for themselves. So the obvious conclusion is that if you don't act like a thug, make better choices, and stop acting like a whiny, entitled retard, you'll be just fine.
It's not genetics. I don't believe anyone is inherently more or less capable of success based on their ethnic background. It's bad choices and a lack of personal responsibility. If you can't manage those two things, don't fucking live in America. Because this is not a society that shields people from their decisions. If you fuck up, you're going to feel it.
And before you go into the whole, "rich people don't feel the consequences of their fuckups as hard" line, duh. Wealth is power. It just so happens that the people with the most wealth are the people whose cultures aren't based on being a bunch of criminal-worshiping degenerates. Racial superiority isn't a thing, but you can bet your ass cultural superiority is. Anyone who says otherwise is a fucking liar.
You're not absolved of your responsibility to make sound life choices just because you don't have as many do-overs as someone else.
My bad, I forgot to list the 5% link.
"Anglo-Saxons, whose influx began around AD 450, account for 10 to 40 per cent of the DNA in half of modern-day Britons."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0719_050719_britishgene.html
"Isotope analysis has begun to be employed to help answer the uncertainties regarding Anglo-Saxon migration. However, the number of studies is small. Strontium data in a 5th–7th-century cemetery in West Heslerston implied the presence of two groups: one of "local" and one of "nonlocal" origin. Although the study suggested that they could not define the limits of local variation and identify immigrants with confidence, they could give a useful account of the issues.[98] Oxygen and strontium isotope data in an early Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Wally Corner, Berinsfield in the Upper Thames Valley, Oxfordshire, found only 5.3% of the sample originating from continental Europe, supporting the hypothesis of acculturation. Furthermore, they found that there was no change in this pattern over time, except amongst some females." - Wiki
Also on white slavery in the US:
http://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963
> It's a well known fact that not all the slaves were black. http://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963
Okay. Not all slaves were black. But like i said before, does an addition of 300,000 white slaves specifically from Britain's classism and indentured servitude diminish people being racist towards black people because they view black people less than them directly because of slavery? (and by directly i mean a multi generational perspective. like someone who lived in the era where it was still common place to drop the N word, they then have kids and teach that mentality, purposefully or not purposefully, to their kids, and so forth and so forth.
Also, according to your source, white slavery was abolished once America got its independence. Which i believe is before the formation of the constitution, which kind of makes this point invalid.
Um, I blatantly, and might I add, very clearly pasted direct quotes from 2 parts of the constitution that upheld slavery. And then mentioned the 13th amendment, which was made directly to stricken slavery from the constitution.
1) This argument you have just made is equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ear and saying "Na na na na na Im not listening". WHY do you think it's not xenophobia. I have explained why i think it is, in detail. You just keep shaking your head. If you can't analytically explain why its not, then you're disagreeing for purely emotional reasons not logical ones.
2) Well, neither China nor Korea bans Muslims from their country. 2% of the muslim population is in China. Japan makes it very hard for muslims to get into their country, yes. No one is out right calling them xenophobic for that, but people often don't point and laugh at the smelly kid in class either. They just talk about it behind closed doors. Japan also has a history of trying to keep their borders purely japanese. But then there's America, on the other side of the spectrum, a country literally made of immigrants. Wait, what? You mean America wasn't always just white people? Are you saying people came here because they wanted a new life? What? Are you saying the statue of liberty was gift we got which doubled as a welcoming sight to immigrants entering country? What, did we wrestle away our independence on the principle that all men are created equal? If you were wondering, the answer is yes to all the above. I would like to make the argument that the more welcoming they are to everyone else, the better their foreign relations would be, but that would be purely speculative and i have no proof. But i can say this much, this country is literally founded on the concept of welcoming anyone who wants to succeed. Banning and entire group of people directly conflicts with our countries narrative. Isn't that called flip flopping. Don't we hate flip floppers. Im pretty sure that lessens our foreign weight if we're just a bunch of flip floppers.
3) Yes, you're right, it is pragmatic to swear off all beef. That was a simple option. Because dead beef doesn't have a life to live, or kids to feed, or just general human feelings. So i can throw beef on the floor, and it won't cry, because it's dead. But refuges aren't slabs of dead beef. They are human beings. So it's not as simple as swearing off Muslims.
>cis-gendered male I think you are mixing up comments, I made no comment of that.
I brought this up because much of our history has been distorted about slavery. It is a much greater evil than simply racism. I bring it up because if we don't know the truth about our history, we are not going to learn from it.
My ancestors were in fact enslaved, though you may be surprised to know they were white; they were Irish slaves. This book talks about it.
I am not trying to belittle the horrors experienced by african slaves, but rather expose that slavery was much worse than we are taught.
If you have the time, this video is worth watching about slavery.
Here, you can read this book. http://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1328562236&sr=8-5
And post a link and I'll win? All you did was say "nah." You are a fucking idiot.
Also White Cargo, about indentured servitude and the bifurcation of slavery from a class system to a race system.
An informative read on slavery in general:
https://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963
Look, the guy is a nut, but this thread needs a history lesson. The idea that some people would be counted as 3/5 of a person did not originate with slave owners in the US South. When the nation was being founded in the late 1700's the Southern states that had more slaves^1 that the Northern states wanted everyone to be counted equally in the census, because the number of representatives in the US House of Representatives was based on the adult population of the state (the population of the states also determined the number of Presidential electors and the amount of direct taxes levied on the states). The Northern states that had fewer slaves didn't want slaves to count at all, since it shifted the balance of political power away from them and toward the states that had more slaves, which were concentrated in the South. The two sides compromised by counting slaves as 3/5 of a person for purposes of the census. The compromise was rendered moot in 1865 when slavery ended - and was repealed at that time.
^1 Slavery was not confined to the Southern states, nor was it confined to people of African descent. When the "3/5 Compromise" was enacted even New York still had slavery at the time - and it is worth noting that a large number of slaves were, in fact, <em>Irish</em>. Some states had no slavery at all - but only a few states in the South had enough to "matter" in the sense of shifting the balance of power in elections - thus the requirement for the "3/5 Compromise."
> What the fuck are you talking about? You do realize that African slavery in the Americas predates meaningful Irish immigration by hundreds of years?
It's clear you're arguing from a position of ignorance. Crack a history book.
> Even if we're talking about pre-colonial indentured servitude, that fact that you would conflate a handful of Irish that willingly got on a boat with the 25 million Africans that were kidnapped and forcibly taken is absurd
Tsk tsk. The Irish did not voluntarily enter into indentured servitude, they were placed in it by the English for political reasons, not debt. It was called indentured servitude, and people like you use that as a cover to pretend it was a minor issue, but in actual fact it was slavery.
They weren't as "pure" as other whites, and were ridiculed in America for quite some time - some even being used as slaves alongside african slaves. If you played the recent game Bioshock Infinite you may have noticed how the Irish were objectified alongside blacks in the depiction of Columbia.
Also see:
"Irish Americans were not always considered white."
and
http://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963
Edit: The marginalization of the Irish really began during the Plantation of Ulster by the English, where King James stole Irish land and gave it to wealthy brits. Also, the Potato Famine wasn't because there wasn't enough food, but because the English stole it all.
haha. Actually, i'm African-American. Why does it matter though? I'm not pushing an agenda. I'm not a trumpet here trolling, i didn't even give an opinion about slavery, just commenting that there seems to have been white slaves. It's not just Irish people either. Here's an excerpt from its page on amazon. I thought you'd want to be privy to this information since you're saying it isn't true and there is documentation that disagrees with you.
"White Cargo is the forgotten story of the thousands of Britons who lived and died in bondage in Britain’s American colonies.
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, more than 300,000 white people were shipped to America as slaves. Urchins were swept up from London’s streets to labor in the tobacco fields, where life expectancy was no more than two years. Brothels were raided to provide “breeders” for Virginia. Hopeful migrants were duped into signing as indentured servants, unaware they would become personal property who could be bought, sold, and even gambled away. Transported convicts were paraded for sale like livestock.
Drawing on letters crying for help, diaries, and court and government archives, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh demonstrate that the brutalities usually associated with black slavery alone were perpetrated on whites throughout British rule. The trade ended with American independence, but the British still tried to sell convicts in their former colonies, which prompted one of the most audacious plots in Anglo-American history.
This is a saga of exploration and cruelty spanning 170 years that has been submerged under the overwhelming memory of black slavery. White Cargo brings the brutal, uncomfortable story to the surface."
https://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963
I wrote : "at the very begining" https://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963