6 Likes
Yeah this whole thing is getting increasingly weird. Indenture is definitely a form of slavery, and in terms of the Irish it was seldom voluntary and a lot more frequently applied than most people assume. But its characteristically different than what we talk about with chattel slavery. It was temporary, non-hereditary, a lot of protections and rights came with it that donāt exist with chattel slavery, and it never represented a massive industry unto itself in the way that chattel slavery did in the Americas. Then there are all the other horrid, opressive aspects of Irish history, some of which can be likened to slavery.
But this whole āIrish Slavesā meme is getting really strange. It takes those facts of history, deliberately obfuscates them, and increasingly claims that the Irish were chattel slaves just like Africans, That there were somehow more Irish Slaves in the Americas (and the US specifically). That they were somehow treated worse. That this situation persisted longer. And that it all some how excuses chattel slavery of Blacks specifically (without mentioning chattel slavery of anyone else, or anywhere else). Its disturbing. It takes arguments Iāve always seen as arguing for solidarity with other oppressed peoples. Removes the facts. And flips them into an argument for oppressing other people. In increasingly bizarre ways. The argument seems to come entirely from American white supremacist/racist sources, and increasingly the people making it arenāt even Irish American.
The Norse took slaves from everywhere they raided, including Ireland. They had no special focus on any one people or place. Also a fair lot of Vikings were Irish. Viking is a profession/action not a people or culture. Irish people/groups often worked for or with Norse groups in Viking raids. And had a long history of carrying out their own. Even before the Norse colonized Ireland (where they founded most of the cities still extent today).
A fairly important aspect of that is that no-matter how non-white/ethnic out group the Irish were in the new world. They were too white to suffer complete political disenfranchisement (the way Blacks and Native Americans did). Particularly in the US, where the Irish were never denied the vote or land ownership rights. Thatās another big difference between indenture and chattel slavery as it existed in the Americas. If you managed to get out of the indenture period you had (on paper) the same legal and land ownership rights as anyone else. Chattel Slavery not so much, and not just in the English Colonies. The Spanish had that whole over complex caste system based explicitly on race/skin color.
That was specifically a reference to the issue of human trafficking as it relates to domestic servants in the US. These people are presented with a job offer that is essentially indenture (or just kidnapped). They pay a people smuggler x amount of dollars to get them (usually illegally) into the US (or other wealthy Western nation) and to be placed in a job. The deal is that their wages are taken/garnished to repay that dept. Upon arrival their passport or any other ID are taken (often as ācollateralā). They are placed in a domestic servant job where they will be paid well less than the minimum wage, what little they make will be taken by the organization that brought them over, and every excuse is used to increase the money they owe. They are charged (exorbitantly) for rent, uniforms, work materials, food etc. To ensure they never pay off whatās owed, recover their passports, or seek help. Thatās pretty much how human trafficking works. In domestic servants, the sex trade, and even down to the ladies at your local nail salon. Its also basically the same thing, with the same operating principals and abuses, as indentured servitude. The major difference I can see being any contract is for an amount of money, rather than for a length of time.
11 Likes
2 Likes
A temporary form, perhaps. But it was not chattel slavery.
Why do you keep telling me things I already know?
What is the value for you in insisting that indentured servitude is also slavery?
What is the value in preserving the accurate definition of words generally?
I ask because most people already know the difference between the two terms. They also know that while indentured servitude was often horrible, and sometimes people were even forced into it,
Iām not so sure they do, most people I come across seem to believe in the naive whitewashed version that it was just a form of paying passage for immigrants, this was only a small part of it.
it was not nearly as horrific in effects (both immediate and generationally, through to today) as chattel slavery.
yep, I agree totally.
1 Like
Iām sympathetic to that view but it is not entirely correct.
Ireland was a particularly violent country, as you can see not only from reading the Tain but also from the way that the 5 countries sometimes turned into 4 as Mide was wiped off the map. The conflict between Armagh and the rest of Ireland partly relates to the fact that the nearest neighbour country to Ireland is in fact Scotland - and the links across St. Georgeās Channel were, and are, strong.
The Plantation was not really part of British imperialism as we normally understand it. It was a conscious takeover of Northern Ireland as part of Jamesās Protestantising mission, and his need to reward his Scots followers. And that followed from the use of Ireland (as also happened in Scotland earlier) by the Spanish to try to take over Britain.
Even more confusingly, as a result of the English Civil Wars, an attempt was made to reduce the Scottish presence in Ulster - the Presbyterians were major troublemakers.
A lot of bad things happened to the Irish, but I donāt think that they can be summarised as due to British colonial imperialism. It was due to their being an unsinkable naval base that got involved in a number of complicated conflicts at the bottom of which were wars between England, Scotland, Spain and France. The Irish have an unfortunate habit of choosing the losing side (including their Nazi-shading neutrality in WW2), influenced in part by Catholicism. They also have an unfortunate habit of keeping conflicts going long after everybody else has stopped, as is happening in NI right now. Joyceās comments on the subject, voiced by Stephen Daedalus, are instructive.
4 Likes
That may be trueā¦ But thatās a general problem with history education that also seeks to white wash slavery.
4 Likes
The famine was very much a product of English imperial control of Ireland. I donāt think you can say otherwise, even as the Irish are certainly agents in their own history. But to think that the famine, which killed a million and sent a million fleeing was some mistake of history rather than imperial policy is really to ignore history.
3 Likes
This thread is great, BTW!
6 Likes
Australia. See The Fatal Shore, byā¦ umā¦ Hughes? Yes, Robert Hughes. But actually the vast majority of Irish transportees to Australia were fairly well treated, if they survived the passage; extreme abuse was rare even though it did exist.
African American slaves still had it worse anyway. Much worse, both in the general case and the specific worst cases.
But itās weird for me to see people nit-picking terms for slavery. Isnāt it enough to know that the sufferings of one group of our ancestors does not magically invalidate the sufferings of another group, and vice versa? Iām an American, and therefore American slaves and indentured servants were all my forbears, and Iāll honor that. Cue Afro-Celt Sound System!
9 Likes
if i sounded like i was nitpicking, i apologize. i was simply categorizing, and none of it removes the horror of losing ones agency and self determination.
1 Like
At the height of the British Empire, they had to keep more soldiers in Ireland than anywhere else.
Slaves? Blarney.
2 Likes
How is it anyone elseās responsibility to keep track of what you already know, Lord Grantham?
2 Likes
I think youāre making a good point hereā we canāt agree on whether the English or the British were to blame, and until we hash this out, weāll make no progress.
2 Likes
Are you having a laugh? 
But the British, yes.
So why do you think it is that the term āindentured servitudeā has gained such currency?
My experience is that dictionaries and other authoritative sources do not contain descriptions or definitions of Indentured Servitude that begin, "A form of slavery in which . . . " etc.
You seem to be advocating that they do so, and if so, Iām still wondering why. And Iām wondering that because the only reason other people do so is to say that the Irish had it bad too, so blacks today shouldnāt complain, and so on.
2 Likes
I think this is they key point. 9 times out of time, itās meant to censure discussions of racism (and how complicit the Irish American working class were in helping to create that) rather than to correct some mistaken notion of how indentured servitude was all kitten and rainbows.
3 Likes
So why do you think it is that the term āindentured servitudeā has gained such currency?
Indentured servitude itself is not slavery, it is a freely agreed to contract. Forced indentured servitude is a different matter.
1 Like
Yes ā one of the most common ways for Europeans immigrants to join the white club has been to express disdain and hatred for black people, and to treat them accordingly whenever possible.
Okay, so again, why is that a difference that makes much of any difference? Who would even dispute that? In other words, why do you think itās important to point that out?
2 Likes
I would think thatās the responsibility of anyone participating in good natured discussion.
Where this meme fails, even if it was true, was that after that period, and the brief period of anti-immigration lash back, the Irish werenāt systematically discriminated against and marginalized.
Fun fact - did you know the two exceptions to Social Security when it was first implemented were specifically made to exclude southern blacks? The two were agricultural workers and domestic workers.
6 Likes
