The Incompatibility of Green and Orange

by Cael Wed Mar 05, 2008 20:28

Socialist, a chara, I would like to see you spend seven years cutting sugar cane as an 'indentured servant' then come back and tell us all about the fine distinction between your experiences and slavery. Your arguments sound more like those of Margret Thatcher than any socialist I know.

In fact one English officer wrote back to England that the planters treated Black Slaves much better than the Irish as Africans cost a lot more money. The Irish were tortured to death on the slightest pretext as they cost next to nothing to replace:

he Proclamation of 1625 ordered that Irish political prisoners be transported overseas and sold as laborers to English planters, who were settling the islands of the West Indies, officially establishing a policy that was to continue for two centuries. In 1629 a large group of Irish men and women were sent to Guiana, and by 1632, Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat in the West Indies. By 1637 a census showed that 69% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves, which records show was a cause of concern to the English planters. But there were not enough political prisoners to supply the demand, so every petty infraction carried a sentence of transporting, and slaver gangs combed the country sides to kidnap enough people to fill out their quotas.

Although African Negroes were better suited to work in the semi-tropical climates of the Caribbean, they had to be purchased, while the Irish were free for the catching, so to speak. It is not surprising that Ireland became the biggest source of livestock for the English slave trade.

There has been a lot of whitewashing of the Irish slave trade, partly by not mentioning it, and partly by labelling slaves as indentured servants. There were indeed indentureds, including English, French, Spanish and even a few Irish. But there is a great difference between the two. Indentures bind two or more parties in mutual obligations. Servant indentures were agreements between an individual and a shipper in which the individual agreed to sell his services for a period of time in exchange for passage, and during his service, he would receive proper housing, food, clothing, and usually a piece of land at the end of the term of service. It is believed that some of the Irish that went to the Amazon settlement after the Battle of Kinsale and up to 1612 were exiled military who went voluntarily, probably as indentureds to Spanish or Portuguese shippers.

However, from 1625 onward the Irish were sold, pure and simple as slaves. There were no indenture agreements, no protection, no choice. They were captured and originally turned over to shippers to be sold for their profit. Because the profits were so great, generally 900 pounds of cotton for a slave, the Irish slave trade became an industry in which everyone involved (except the Irish) had a share of the profits.

Full text at related link:

by socialist Wed Mar 05, 2008 17:14

Cael indentured servants were not the same as slaves, even if captured unlawfully, they could not be sold, and had a tariff usually between 5-7 years, although most died before this. After this they were freed and given a plot of land.

Do you accept indentured service (what you call slavery), was not unique to Ireland and many English people(as well as other nationalities) were also shipped to the west Indies, America and Australia ?

by SHé Wed Mar 05, 2008 15:10

a republic in the purist scence of the meaning means the abscence of monarchy, there is no oblogation to be democratic . In ireland the word evolved from the french revolution meaning as was understood in the end of the 19th century i.e liberty, equality, fraternaty. it also as a reaction to the government of the days responce to it, forceing it underground became intertwined with militerism in the irish context. So while in Ireland the word evolved to mean one thing an english speaker in another part of the world might understand it as something slightly different, so on that your both right.

caels claims regarding indentured sex slaves are taken from a recently published book called to hell or barbabous. the book is sold in easons. judge for yourself if you believe it's true. but taking human nature in to account that today 100,000's of women are still being trafficed for the same reason all be it illigaly, personaly i don't think it's beond belief

by Sceptic Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:26

For Seamus: Cromwell did not create an alternative royal dynasty. He may have appointed his son as his successor but the son did not inherit the position as of right. There is the crucial difference. A case of nepotism rather than the royal blood or it might have been because there would not have been agreement on who else could succeed.

For Cael: Are you sure about all of this sex slave stuff? It reads like the kind of racist and false propaganda the Nazis retailed about the Jews. Incidentally the English did not introduce slavery to Ireland. It was a feature of Celtic Irish society of the type so beloved of our Tara protestors and presumably would have involved the widespread sexual abuse that is a feature of slavery.

by Cael Tue Mar 04, 2008 23:34

I might also point out that it was the practice to have young Irish girls raped by black slaves as the offspring were 'Slaves' rather than 'indentured servants' (in practice the same thing, except that an indentured servant might, one day, be released) and the English planters found the 'half-caste' children to be more sexually submissive than the Irish children, who had to be beaten into performing sexual acts for their masters.

by Cael Tue Mar 04, 2008 23:26

Socialist, a chara, you really should try to read more carefully. The article says:

"Subsequently some 52,000 Irish, mostly women and sturdy boys and girls, were sold to Barbados and Virginia alone. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were taken prisoners and ordered transported and sold as slaves. In 1656, Cromwell’s Council of State ordered that 1000 Irish girls and 1000 Irish boys be rounded up and taken to Jamaica to be sold as slaves to English planters."

It doesnt say that the 30,000 were taken at Drogheda. The slavers ran amock all over the country.

The article also contains the following:

"Privateers and chartered shippers sent gangs out with quotas to fill, and in their zest as they scoured the countryside, they inadvertently kidnapped a number of English too. On March 25, 1659, a petition of 72 Englishmen was received in London, claiming they were illegally “now in slavery in the Barbados”' . The petition also claimed that "7,000-8,000 Scots taken prisoner at the battle of Worcester in 1651 were sold to the British plantations in the New World,” and that “200 Frenchmen had been kidnapped, concealed and sold in Barbados for 900 pounds of cotton each."

So much for the attempt to claim that only the Irish were targeted.

by Séamus Tue Mar 04, 2008 20:55

most people are aware of the activities of Seán Russell, Francis Stuart, Frank Ryan and many others

I'd like to know, what were their activities that you're referring to, especially in the case of Frank Ryan?

by Séamus Tue Mar 04, 2008 20:54

You have it the wrong way around on Cromwell. He was offered the crown but turned it down.

I stated that, I also mentioned that the generals in the New Model Army had threatened to rise up against Cromwell if he accepted, so obviously there was concern that he was interested.

He was a republican and a pioneer of same in that he first contemplated a form of governance in England not based upon an hereditary regent.

Which explains why he he was succeeded by his son.

by socialist Tue Mar 04, 2008 17:51

The problem is Cael I read the hysterical link posted and most of it is sensationalism and lies such as 30,000 Irish people were killed at Drogheda and 100,000 Irish catholic children were deported as slaves.

In reality they went there as indentured servants, infact more went from England, many were convicted of minor crimes, such as stealing instead of the death penalty they were sent to the colonies.

I dont dispute that or the fact it was barbaric, what I do dispute is your attempt to claim it only applied to irish people and the exaggerated numbers and your attempts to use it to further your ultra nationalist agenda.

by Mike - Judean Popular Peoples Front Tue Mar 04, 2008 17:31

Umm the extent of "republican" collaboration with Nazi Germany ran far deeper than buying a few guns and despite their attempts to whitewash over this particular grubby little episode of history most people are aware of the activities of Seán Russell, Francis Stuart, Frank Ryan and many others

by Cael Tue Mar 04, 2008 16:58

Socialist, a chara, it would be better to actually read some history before you begin to write. And, please, do not limit yourself to Irish Republican sources. The shipping records and letters recommending the kidnapping and trafficing of Irish children for the "comfort" of the English settlers in the West Indies are extant. Cromwell's son personally recommended that 1,000 Irish girls, around the age of twelve, should be kidnapped and sent to Jamiaca alone for this purpose. The traffic to Barbados was in the tens of thousands. Neither he, not his father had any compunction about profiting personally from this traffic. It seems that profit always wins over moral considerations.

by socialist Tue Mar 04, 2008 16:46

The problem is Cael RSFs history, is from a nationalist perspective, why no mention of the fact English royalist supporters were also deported as indentured servants, not just Irish supporters of the confederacy ? Thousands were also deported from England.

Instead groups like RSF seek to inflame nationalism.

The rules of conflict at this time were, that a garrison was given the chance to surrender, if it never and was taken, those inside were at the mercy of the commander of the conquering forces, In the case of Cromwell, those spared (as I sated many were actually English), were send as indentured servants to the west Indies with a tariff. Obviously this was barbaric, but this was warfare at that time.

RSFs tales of Cromwell sending Irish children off as Prostitutes are highly dubious.

Cromwell was a purtitan who banned gambling and Christmas, yet your claiming he a pimp.

The reality is Cael once we get beyond the historical catholic ultra nationalist analysis, the histories of English and Ireland are not that different, its not about good Irish v bad English, its more about oppressed peoples exploited by the ruling classes, and yes Cael in pre Cromwellian Ireland that also means the Gaelic artisocracy.

by Cael Tue Mar 04, 2008 15:48

There is a little problem with your theory, socialist, in that Cromwell and his supporters had a genocidal hatred of all the Catholic Irish - rich or poor. Its difficult to give your support to someone who just wants to send you to hell, Connaught or Barbados and thinks your children make very nice sex slaves for English planters in the West Indies.

Anyone doubting Cromwell's profiteering from child sex trafficing should read the accompaning link.

by socialist Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:14

Cromwell was indeed a republican, the problem in Ireland is because history has been taught by the church, things like Norman feudalism, have been downplayed and Cromwell made the bogeyman.

The reality is the poor Irish at the time of Cromwell the rural poor Irish never owned any land they were serfs of the old Norman English and their Gaelic atristocratic counterparts.

The tragedy is the rural Irish supported the Royalist confederacy instead of sideing with Cromwells republican army, who were fighting for one man one vote, the end of monarchy and the end of feudalism. Alas the reformation did not get to Ireland.

It will never cease to amaze me that Irish republicans historically support the side that was fighting for monarchy and feudalism.

One of the cornerstones of anti Cromwellian history are events like Drogheda, in reality most killed in Drogheda and Wexford were English royalist forces.

The impression I get is many Irish republicans are in reality simply ultra nationalists, who don't like monarchism.
.

by Cael Mon Mar 03, 2008 21:05

Is that why he made his son his second in command?

by Sceptic Mon Mar 03, 2008 20:56

You have it the wrong way around on Cromwell. He was offered the crown but turned it down. He was a republican and a pioneer of same in that he first contemplated a form of governance in England not based upon an hereditary regent.

by disapointed Mon Mar 03, 2008 20:23

although all republician groups from psf through to rsf 32's eirigi and the irsp manage to punch above there wait, numericaly there numbers are small, even when add'd together. logisticaly the only way to force britain out of ireland, millitarily or peacefully is through unity of all the people. the logic of the broad republician movement takeing into there ranks the people who make up the orange tradition in large numbers is the knock on effect it has on britians civic and military capability in ireland. There is nothing new in the thinking in quote in the passage "my aim was to unite catholic protestant and disenter. my means was to brake the connection with england" That has been the thinking for two long and left us in a situation when a war broke out, britian again had a ready made junta class in this country that provided there military with invaluable local intelligence and support and allowd the ba dig in with relitive security.

In recent years through conversation with individuals i had hoped the IRSP were moving in a new direction of taught. Sadly reading this speach they seem content in the relitive security of a maginalized and divided position.

The battle for this generation of republicians is a battle of ideas. we need to engage the people who uphold the status quo on an intullectual level. It won't be easy and theres nothing more danerous than one man talking about change, but if it dosen't happen, the next time the pressure cooker boils over it will end exactly the same as the last time.

by tomeile Mon Mar 03, 2008 18:55

The 1921 truce was signed under the British threat of immediate and terrible war . It created an Irish Free State which was a denial of Irish national rights . If the majority of people in Yorkshire or Cumbria were of Irish descent and voted to leave Britain to take up Irish citizenship while discriminating against and launching pogroms against English people living in those counties they wouldn't be tolerated for a moment .

The “fact” that republicans allied themselves with Nazi Germany during the 1940’s proves to you that Irish republicans are Nazis today .Isn’t that the case you’re making ? Irish republicans may have tried to get guns from Germany during WW11 ,but that didn’t make them Nazis. Anti-imperialists in India were prepared to take arms from the Japanese - -that didn’t make them supporters of Japanese imperialism . They were fighting for independence .
The fact that Irish republicans fought against fascism in the Spanish civil war while supporters of the free state sided with Franco’s forces ,doesn’t that prove anything to you?

by Mike - Judean Popular Peoples Front Mon Mar 03, 2008 18:01

I specifically referred to an IRISH monarchy. (High kings, Clans and all that rest of it) Wheras the monarchy I presume you are referring to is British (nominally anyway)

Nobodys rights are being denied by the "British military occupation" of a region where the majority of the population identify themselves as British. Northern Ireland is no more "occupied" than Yorkshire, Cumbria or Northumberland.

For what its worth "Irish national rights" have been established since 1921.

"Britain and its orangemen never get branded British nationalists by people who like to equate republicans with nazism ."

Orangemen (or at least the ones living in the UK) ARE Briish nationalists. Republicans arent Nazi's (The Nazi's overthrew a Republic and invaded several others) However many of the Ultranationalists labelling themselves Repubilican are Nazi's. While this should be self evident nevertheless the fact that they allied themselves with Nazi Germany in the 1940's proves it.

"The nationalism of an imperialist country preaches that , for that country to be great ,it must expand beyond its own borders... ."
The Republic of Ireland for example ?

by Séamus Sun Mar 02, 2008 15:36

Cromwell wasn't a republican, he was a religious puritan and the Lord Protector of England, basically King. The only reason he didn't accept the crown was that generals in the New Model Army threatened to rise up against him if he did.

And if there is an element of unionism that is anti-monarchy, it certainly hasn't made itself visible. Even supposedly 'progressive' unionists like David Ervine couldn't cross that rubicon. Unionist identity has always been wrapped up in notions of empire and monarchy, even amongst the 'socialist' unionists.

by tomeile Sun Mar 02, 2008 14:59

" I mean I wasnt aware of any significant level of support for the (re)introduction of an Irish monarchy (Apart from some lunatic with a website)??

But there is a monarchy in part of Ireland Mike .So long as there is , socialists wlll be republicans . And so long as national rights are denied by the British military occupation of six counties of Ireland , Irish republicans will commit themselves to establishing Irish national rights . It's noteworthy that Britain and its orangemen never get branded British nationalists by people who like to equate republicans with nazism .
It's wrong to equate the nationalism of countries where national integrity has been denied with the nationalism of countries that have historically denied others their national rights . The nationalism of an imperialist country preaches that , for that country to be great ,it must expand beyond its own borders . When it does that , it tramples on the rights of smaller or less developed countries and keeps them underdeveloped .It usually does so while trumpeting on about bringing civilization and enlightenment to backward countries .
That's what British nationalism has done in Ireland for centuries When we say just says get out and leave us alone we are accused of being uber nationalists .

by Barry - 32 csm Sun Mar 02, 2008 13:39

do we have socialists condemning opposition to imperialism , the suppression of democracy and the violation of national sovereignty as fascism .
Whilst Id have criticisms of some of Jim Dalys opinions his central belief that sectarian division on this island is inextricably linked to the British occupation of this islands national territory , encouraged and maintained by that occupation in order to cement the occupation , and can only be rooted out by putting an end to the violation of our national sovereignty is a sound and logical thesis .
Too many ultra marxists and even bourgeouis leftists have used the "European" lefts analysis of nationalist chauvinism emanating from the former colonial powers as a fig leaf to cover their resolute opposition to opposing colonialism in this colonised and occupied country .
Its the very same thesis used by the nationalist right and centrist parties , and the new micro bourgouisie which emerged from the undemocratic leadership echelons of the former insurgent movement which seek to maintain the system of institutionalised sectarianism and the personal and political advantages to their respective cliques .
Either socialists concede foreign imperialists have the right to subvert democracy and violate the sovereignty of small nations , or they oppose their right to do so . Orangism and the promotion of and sustaining of instituionalised sectariainism is simply a means they utilise to do so.

by Mike - Judean Popular Peoples Front Sun Mar 02, 2008 08:46

"Why is it in this country that lefties when talking about 'Republicanism' automatically equate it with 'nationalism'?"

Because in Ireland the term has been hijacked to effectively mean ultranationalist (the phenomenon is hardly confined to "lefties" either)

Its actually rather silly that there are these people in Ireland (or the United States come to think of it) insisting that they are "republicans" I mean I wasnt aware of any significant level of support for the (re)introduction of an Irish monarchy (Apart from some lunatic with a website)??

In theory there is nothing to stop one being a Republican AND a Unionist (or even a Neounionist). Support for the monarchy amongst the Unionist community is not as universal as is commonly assumed.

Cromwell was a Republican too dontcha know

by Socialist Sun Mar 02, 2008 00:09

Why is it in this country that lefties when talking about 'Republicanism' automatically equate it with 'nationalism'? In their abstract notions of trying to 'uber-Marxist' they completely distance themselves from the reality. The reality here being Radical Republicans cannot compromise to Orangism/Loyalism. The two being opposites. Much like Labour and Capital.

by Blue Sat Mar 01, 2008 20:39

We have moved beyond green and orange. I am fed up with yesterday's people thinking that they "own" a part of you because of where you were born.

It's lazy thinking. People can be what they want. And we all know now that a life spent in misery and poverty is not the best training for government.

by Mike - Judean Popular Peoples Front Sat Mar 01, 2008 19:23

"Only in Ireland do you get people at so called socialist events preaching nationalism"

Not just in Ireland. It also used to happen a lot in 1920-30's Germany

by question(s) Fri Feb 29, 2008 19:56

He is not a member of the IRSP today, is he?

by Red not green Fri Feb 29, 2008 19:08

Only in Ireland do you get people at so called socialist events preaching nationalism.

Surly if this guy is a socialist Irelands colour is red.