White people Who Mention “Irish Slaves” are Racist Liars.

An examination of a popular white supremacist’s lie.

White People and American Slavery

I’ve said it before; white people will do whatever it takes to NOT talk about American Slavery. It’s almost like every white person other than Tim Wise wish they could perform Jason Bourne escape and evasion techniques when the topic shows up. White people practically become Matrix agents, programmed to duck and dodge race discussions, especially slavery discussions, as if they were bullets out to kill them.

Things get even more strange when the white person attempts to continue the discussion. The white person, who for some strange reason feels he needs to uphold white supremacy at all costs, typically will engage by mentioning “Irish Slaves.” Yeah, that.

When an American white person mentions Irish Slaves, they usually do it to gaslight black people, and legitimize the suppression/oppression of black people in America.

Typically, the white person poses this statement in the guise of a “debate”, and will have the most polite posture as if his calm-by-way-of-white-privilege self needs to have his calmness mirrored by the minority, who is getting gaslit. This white privileged calm disposition is a measure of tone policing, but there’s a lot written on that already.

Nowadays, I’m becoming less likely to debate alt-right, Americanized Nazi, confederate, American Taliban, racist, bigoted, white supremacist, Trumpian Ku Kluxes. A debate assumes that their position is legitimate when it’s far from being so. White people have this notion in their heads that anger/frustration of the non-privileged, suppressed minority makes that minority’s humanity less valid. So no; I have no reason to entertain any radically stupid white person.

There is a myriad of reasons why the Irish slaves myth as a deflection is so horrendously stupid.

Technically, the list of demands of equivalence can continue: can someone show me the schematics of an Irish slave ship?

What about the follow-up racism that continues today? Where are these photos of Irish being lynched for just existing? Where’s the Irish Emmett Till? The Irish George Stinney? Where’s the anti-Irish KKK who murdered, mutilated, lynched, incinerated and otherwise terrorized the Irish from the South?

Where are the photos of Irish women being raped and lynched from trees? White supremacy had the audacity to place these lynchings on postcards even — so where’s the proof of oppression, my historical revisionist friend?

Take a Look at why I don’t bother

Enter Adam Defibaugh, a random white supremacist I just so happen to bump into. I don’t care to deal with white people this willfully ignorant but if I did, this is what it would look like. Here, I’m going to objectively lay down all the faults and flaws of his position.

The first (1) lie was the fact that he for some reason thought that the American institution of slavery was not a deciding factor in building this (United States) nation. Um, wrong. Super wrong. Adam, often clad in fatigues and confederate flags when he’s not trolling with a face that’s not his own, seems to be from the Bible Belt South. With that being said, he can most certainly do his research to find that his Klancestors most certainly felt that up-keeping American Slavery was of the utmost importance. Anyone with a brain can research the Declarations of Secession from any confederate state and see them in plain sight agree with their white selves, that Slavery was more than a “deciding factor”.

“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery- the greatest material interest of the world.” ~ Declaration of Causes which Justify the Secession of Mississippi

The second (2) flaw in his reasoning was the fact that he tried to say that black slaves were a minority, as if numbers of black slaves were so minute that American Slavery was a ridiculously tiny thing. Once again, anyone with the sense of due diligence would look up census information to confirm this; Mississippi in 1860 boasted a 55% black population, for starters. But then again, being a backwoods American white conservative fundamentalist, facts are not something that are routinely checked. One must realize that a person like this hails from the Steve Bannon School of Disinformation. A white person like Adam here, is not going to give a damn about confirming the status of his lies, and frankly he’s more interested in tiring you out when you point out his lack of critical thinking over a thousand times.

The third (3) problem was that Adam became sociopathic on how adamant he was when he says, “It wasn’t free labor; we paid for it”. These are the things that white people say online, but never in a black person’s face. One shouldn’t have to demand that this country, backwoods white guy have a human soul. Also, with that being said, I highly suggest to every minority… if you see a white guy (or anyone) display that level of sociopathy… if you can’t kill them immediately, walk away. From that point, realize you are talking to a complete monster, who honestly, doesn’t deserve your attention.

I’ll also point out that Adam with his sociopathic self, is not the majority of white conservatives (sociopaths are roughly 2% of the population), but he does provide a convenient example what to watch out for when discussing race relations. If you do identify a sociopath, just know that they really don’t give a damn about being honest, finding the truth, in addition to being highly manipulative. If you can’t kill him, walk away. Backwards. Never turn your back on a sociopathic white confederate.

One more thing — that thing you call “white guilt”? That is your conscience speaking.

Problem number (4) four: “Slaves were allowed to own businesses.” Here, Adam seeks to conflate things like selling your own teeth for dentures white people can use as “business”. At this point, he’s not even trying. I picture a slim red-necked white guy laughing his ass off, trolling through his iPhone. Similar to a person selling cigarettes in prison, that’s not a fucking business in the spirit of the word. To act like black slaves’ “businesses” were bustling metropolises, is flat out asinine. One could demand the guy to provide proof of such a stupid claim, but why bother? He’s clearly bullshitting.

Problem (5) five: Most being agricultural doesn’t subtract from the FACT that in many places/times in the South, they were a (A) numeric majority; and (B) that agricultural FREE LABOR made America very wealthy nation at break-neck speeds. The fact that most were on plantations were just testimony of how large some plantations were; how important plantations were to the American economy; and how dependent whites were on slave labor.

And here we have the part where he mentions “Irish Slaves”.

Actually, this last portion has a compound error in logic (problems 6 and 7) being that he tried with the “blacks sold blacks” argument, and then went with the Irish slaves myth.

The SELLING argument is asinine, because it seeks to diminish the responsibility and accountability of the OWNER when the owner owns said merchandise. As a conservative in the backwoods with his guns, I’m sure he wouldn’t blame gun violence in the fact that guns of sold, and then turn his argument against gun sellers. This point I tried to have him realize, totally evades him, but before I speak on the Irish slave bit, I have a lot more to say about the selling argument.

“Blacks Sold Blacks into Slavery”

There’s a internal error (6a) in reasoning white supremacists like himself suffer from when even mentioning Africa. You see, white supremacists talk about Africa as if it’s one homogeneous ethnic group, or one entire nation. From this position, they speak as if “ by golly wow, those Africans sold themselves!” Technically, Africa, much like pre-white America, had millions of nations within it. Africa currently has more languages within it than any other continent, so one must at least see a clue that Africa isn’t a homogeneous mass of people. You never see white people act like “by golly wow, those whites did it to themselves,” when it came to the myriad of intra-European wars that took place, the mass murders of tribes between Anglos, Saxons, Gauls, Celts, etc. For some strange reason white supremacists always understand the fact that European is a collection of nations, but never get that EVERY CONTINENT share that same trait.

The bigger problem (6b) with his selling argument is that the seller has NOTHING TO DO WITH AMERICAN LAW AND CUSTOMS. The Africans who sold blacks to whites, did not also draft loopholes in the Constitution, or created slave codes for America to abide by. Africans never sold whips and chains to those whites (and actually it was the whites who sold guns and weapons of war to those Africans which helped perpetuate war in the region and the slave trade). African slave sellers never told whites what to do, and how to do racism in America.

African slave sellers also, if one is not tracking, never invented Jim Crow, and placed systems of rewards and punishments to continue racial separations in America. And just in case anyone is wondering, African slave sellers never invented the Ku Klux Klan, which sought to terrorize and murder people on a racial basis, to upkeep white supremacy.

And sure, of course slavery existed all throughout the history of mankind. But if the Italians (Romans) are not actively suppressing/oppressing Gauls (French) and Celts (Irish-Scottish), then there’s no fucking context to bring it up. CLEARLY, America has a racism problem today, that draws massive context from the Slavery Codes of the old.

Stop. Playing. Stupid.

“But But But, Suzy and Billy stole cookies too!”

It’s also a ridiculously asinine position (problem 6c) to seek to nullify the problem with something by announcing that someone else did it too. At this point, you have to realize how childish and infantile white people get when American Slavery is of discussion; “I stole cookies from the cookie jar because Suzy and Billy stole from a cookie jar too. Thousands of years ago. Even though Suzy and Billy have no context to our house and home.” Yeah.

Where does this logic ever work!? Can you for example, get out of a speeding ticket by claiming other people have been speeding, for thousands of years? Can you get out of a speeding ticket by pointing out the fact that speeding has always existed throughout mankind? Does this makes sense anywhere?

This is the type of guy who would rape someone, and then claim that rape has always existed all over the world, throughout world history, as if that exonerates him.

Fun Fact: Someone else having done the crime before doesn’t exonerate YOU when you have committed that same crime.

Just simply not on my level

The first problem (7a) with Adam’s nonsensical argument, is that his flawed point #6 (blacks sold blacks into slavery, and therefore are to blame) effectively neutralizes his point #7 (Irish slaves).

If his argument against mine is “black sold blacks so take that!”, then he effectively killed his own argument. Irish slaves, were really indentured servants who agreed with their subjugation.

The Irish were a set of people who, under no duress, literally signed contracts to bind themselves to 6–10 years of indentured servitude. So if his argument was “blacks did it do themselves”, then how can he prop up the Irish indentured servitude argument? The Irish “did it” to themselves, literally.

Adam’s foot, meet Adam’s mouth.

So no, I don’t engage fools like these. But since I never do, I’ll continue to lay out the problem with white people talking this nonsense.

The Big Difference in Indentured Servitude and Slavery in America

“Indentured servitude that lasts a lifetime is still slavery.” ~ Random ignorant white supremacists.

^ That rarely ever happened, and no, it still wasn’t. It was the difference between legal personhood and being legally considered property. Allow me to demonstrate…

THIS is a bill of sale for two slaves, Woman and child, Francis and Hannah, (New York, 1716):

Know all [men] by those presents that I William Willis of Hempsted in Queens county on nassaw Island yeoman Have for the valuable sum of sixty and three pounds of good and currant mony of new york in hand payed & [illegible] to be paid by David Seaman of Lusam in the Bounds of oyster Bay in the county & on the Island aforesaid yeoman the Receipt whereof to full content and satisfaction I doo hereby acknowledge & doo acquit and Discharge him the said David Seaman his Heirs Executors & Administrators & Every of them by those presents hath [illeg.] agreed and bargained and sold unto the said David Seaman & to his Heirs and Asignes forever one negro woman named Francs & her child named Hannah the child being something more than two years old for him the said David Seaman his Heirs Executors & Administrators and [Signees] to have & to hold the said negro woman and negro child from hence forth & forever and the said William Willis doth hereby declare that at the time of the ensealing and delivery of those presents he is the true sole & lawful owner of the above negro woman and child aforesaid & stood lawfully [illeg.] of them in his own proper Right and further the said Williams Willis doth hereby bind and oblige himself his Heirs Executors & administrators from henceforth and forever hereafter to warrant and defend the said David Seaman in the Quiet and peaceable possession of the abovesaid negro woman named frans & negro girl named Hannah against the lawfull claims pretences & demands of all and every person or persons whatsoever or whomsoever that shall lay any lawfull claim unto them or unto either of them in [illeg.] where of he hath so [illeg.] to his hand and signed his seal the sixteenth day of July in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and sixteen.

Signed sealed & Delivered

In the presence of

William Willis

Wm Powell

Jacob Willits

THIS, is a contract signed by a man named William Buckland, who was employed into indentured servitude (Virginia, 1755):

This Indenture, Made the Fourth Day of August in the Twenty ninth Year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Second King of Great-Britain, &c, And in the Year of our Lord, One Thousand Seven Hundred and fifty five Between William Buckland of Baford Carpenter & Joiner of the one Part, and Thomson Mason of London Esq. of the other Part, Witnesseth, That the said William Buckland for the Consideration herein after-mentioned, hath, and by these Presents doth Covenant, Grant, and Agree to, and with the said Thomson Mason Executors and Assigns, That He the said William Buckland shall and will, as a faithful Covenant Servant, well and truly serve the said Thomson Mason, his Executors and assigns in the Plantation of Virginia beyond the Seas, for the Space of Four Years, next ensuing his Arrival in the said Plantation, in the Employment of a Carpenter & Joiner. And the said William Buckland doth hereby Covenant and Declare him self, now to be the Age of Twenty two Years Single and no Covenant or Contracted Servant to any other Person or Persons, And the said Thomson Mason for himself his Executors or Assigns, in Consideration thereof, doth hereby Covenant, Promise and Agree to and with the said William Buckland his Executors, and Assigns, that He the said Thomson Mason his Executors or Assigns, shall and will at his or their own proper Costs and Charges, with what convenient Speed they may, carry and convey, or cause to be carried and conveyed over unto the said Plantation, the said Wm Buckland and from henceforth, and during the said Voyage, and also during the said Term, shall and will at the like Costs and Charges, provide for and allow the said Wm Buckland all necessary Meat, Drink, Washing, Lodging, fit and convenient for Wm as Covenant Servants in such Cases are usually provided for and allowed and pay and allow the said William Buckland wages or Salary at the Rate of Twenty Pounds Sterling per Annum Payable Quarterly And for the true Performance of the Premisses, the said Parties, the these Presents bind themselves, their Executors and Administrators, the either to the other, in the Penal Sum of Forty Pounds Sterling, firmly by these Presents. In witness whereof, they have hereunto interchanged by set their Hands and Seals, the Day and Year above-written.

Sealed and Delivered

in the Presence of

Tho Hayes

Wm Buckland

W Kidd

^ Make note of the differences in language.

With the slave, the WOMAN AND GIRL were the ones being bought and paid for. With the servant, it’s his PASSAGE that is being agreed to.

Likewise, the servant is working off a debt for a temporary contract of service until the debt is paid, whereupon his contract states he will be a “free man.” Whereas the girl and her child are being sold to a man “forever.”

And finally, there’s the difference in agency. With the contract, it is written with the servant and his welfare in mind. He is the one agreeing to serve and honor the conditions of the contract. Whereas with the girl and her child, the bill of sale is written FOR them, with no written evidence of input or agreement to the exchange. They have ZERO say in the entire process. Zero agency.

Other considerations

Many of the problems of the Irish slaves myth were already mentioned, but just in case I wasn’t clear, here’s a couple of facts concerning:

1. Irish indentured servants were not born into servitude; the contract binded the person who agreed to it, not his children. Black slaves however, were born into slavery when offspring gave breath on American soil. Big difference there.
2. This brings us to our next point: Irish indentured servants were not bred only to be slaves sold like cattle; black slaves were. This means that Irish indentured servants didn’t suffer from any forced breeding (read: rape) that was against their will. In addition to this, families weren’t separated by selling families apart… you know, like how they did black slaves.
3. Branching off of the last point, Irish indentured servants kept their self-identity and all ethnic artifacts pertaining to their people. The fact that Irish Americans claiming they were descendants of “Irish slaves”, while still holding Irish surnames in the face of majority of black people of America who clearly are not sporting names from their actual ethnic group is pure ignorance. Irish indentured servants were not renamed, as black slaves were.
4. Irish indentured servants were permitted to read and write, black slaves were not. This is among the most significant differences, because black slaves suffered the pain of death if they were able to read. Historical documents hold that whites figured that a person able to read would be technically impossible to keep as a slave, so this fact alone kills any notion that Irish were slaves in America. It’s easier to make a man a slave if that man cannot read the wealth of information concerning equality or warfare.
5. Indentured servants were temporary; 5–6 to 10 years. Slavery upon blacks was not. It was the difference between legal person-hood and being legally considered property.
6. “Slave” and “Indentured Servant” are legal terms. It doesn’t matter how badly someone was treated, as in, “they were treated like slaves bro”. Even if one were to attempt to act like treatment of a few equals a total legal status change, consider the fact that…
7. An indentured servant can testify in the court of law; a black slave could not. The fact is so salient even Black indentured servants sued their masters in court before, and won. So it is a fact that the indentured servant was afforded more rights toward citizenry. Because legal statuses, matter.
8. When indentured servitude was up, many Irish took low-lying jobs — such as the overseer job at black slave plantations, and slave patrols, ensuring the the Irish will soon join the rest of the Anglo-Saxons into that thing called white privilege.
9. Irish indentured servitude took place primarily under the British Crown, not under the American Constitution. I don’t give a damn about what took place under the British Crown; I give a damn about what took place under AMERICAN RULE OF LAW because from there, AMERICA was responsible for herself, and should be held accountable as such.
10. Most importantly, there was no follow-up, modified, mutated, refined, adapt-to-the-times form of suppression/oppression placed onto Irish people after indentured servitude. This is why there’s no Irish Emmett Tills, no Irish George Stinneys, no Irish Malcolm Xs, no Irish MLKs, no Irish Rosa Parks, no Irish Booker T. Washingtons, no Irish Harriet Tubmans or Irish Sojourner Truths. In addition, there was no Irish Frederick Douglasses, no Irish Marcus Garveys. No Irish Eldridge Cleavers, no Irish James Baldwins. For those who deem the facts ambiguous, there was no Irish terrorizing KKK equivalent, no antagonizing flags or symbols aimed at Irish progression, no Irish hands-up don’t shoot, no Irish Tamir Rices, no Irish Sandra Blands. There’s no white ladies yelling at Irish girls because of school integration. There’s no such thing as an Irish Lives Matter, because it would be impossible to racially profile people of Irish descent without profiling white people as a whole. No one gives a damn about oppressing Irish (in America) because to be Irish is to be white, and America is a white supremacist nation. The long this list goes, the more stupid you realize this Irish slaves false equivalence is.
11. The American Irish were more than willing to oppress black people in order to join Whiteness, to join white supremacy, and that did in fact happened. Whiteness, in return, was more than happy to accept the Irish, due to the fact that if Whiteness didn’t accept the Irish and the Italians, white would be a minority today.
12. Can you show me a schematic to an Irish slave ship? Don’t rack your brain, there wasn’t any.
13. You won’t find any AMERICAN law stating that an Irish “indentured servant” is deemed 3/5ths human;
14. You won’t find any AMERICAN laws written in order to prevent Irish-Americans from voting which haven’t been neutralized until the Civil Rights Act;
15. You won’t find AMERICAN Fugitive Slave Laws which stated any white person can snatch any “free” northern Irish-American and throw them into Southern Slavery;
16. You won’t find any AMERICAN amalgamation laws which is a Jim Crow variant which prevented whites from mating and marrying Irish-Americans which got neutralized by Loving vs. Virginia.
17. They were NOT slaves, they were indentured servants. This exist today; Americans traveling to Korea can find indentured Russian and Filipino indentured servants all around U.S. military bases. Those people signed contracts, just like those Irish of the past.
18. This Irish slaves lie is so stupid even actual Irish folk (real Irish folk, not the American variant that’s more watered down than that happy-hour cocktail) such as Irish-history Historian Liam Hogan actively condemns this lie, and consistently makes an attempt to eradicate this stupidity.

“The Irish slave myth is not supported by the historical evidence. Thousands of Irish were sent to colonies like Barbados against their will, never to return. Upon their arrival, however, they were socially and legally distinct from the enslaved Africans with whom they often labored.

While not denying the vast hardships endured by indentured servants, it is necessary to recognize the differences between forms of labor in order to understand the depths of the inhumane system of chattel slavery that endured in the region for several centuries, as well as the legacies of race-based slavery in our own times.” ~ Liam Hogan, Irish Historian (a real one)

I’m tired of whupping white ass when they say stupid shit.

Overall, I’m tired of beating the crap out of confederate historical-revisionism whites, who get all their alt-facts from the alt-right who have no idea how flat out wrong they are. So no, I’m done talking to confederate whites, racist conservative whites, alt-right whites, neo-Nazi whites, Richard Spencer Nazi-in-a-suit whites, polite yet still racist whites, toxic liberal whites. I’m tired of whipping all of their asses and never being credited in doing so. They don’t shut up, and they are woefully ignorant. Like, why on earth would a confederate flag waving white male think they know black history (which is by the way, honest white history), more than a black person?

So, no thanks. You can have your worthless debate.