Irish Slaves

[Morty Vicar]

Can anyone think of a scenario where there was a widespread use of the irish as slaves?

There was a history of Irish taking slaves from England and selling them to the Berbers. St Patrick was an English slave taken to Ireland. I suppose you could have a role reversal of that somehow. If you could keep Ireland Pagan that would definitely justify their enslavement in the mindset of the time. The transatlantic slave trade was basically initiated by the catholic church in Portugal.

The whole "Irish slaves" thing OTL tends to be overblown recently. A lot of Irish became indentured servants in the Caribbean, some of whom were kidnapped, and no doubt their lives were hell, but most of their descendants became small-time slave owners, rather than slaves. And oddly enough the Caribbean became one of the better places to be Irish (if they survived the initial tropical diseases, a big if) because lower-class whites were in such high demand in the Caribbean as slave overseers and for other jobs that were only entrusted to the small white population that being Irish mattered less than it did elsewhere in the British empire. Most mixed-raced Irish ancestry in the Caribbean traces to Irish slave-owners and African slave women, not Irish who were supposedly slaves.

Agreed, all history is subjective, but in these cases I think there is a clear political agenda. Not necessarily with the OP, but in general with Irish history it tends to be written from an Irish nationalist perspective, which often results in a caricature evil Britain and poor oppressed but valiant and heroic Ireland.

 

[BELFAST]

And I am sure it was. Provided the importation numbers you listed were accurate, if the Irish survived in the Caribbean as well as Africans they should have begun having natural increases in population, which would basically preclude any reason to import further African slaves. Instead the white populations on the islands - even ones which were majority white - basically died out save for a small minority in places like Jamaica and Barbados. On most islands, the black population isn't even notably mixed-race to a significant degree - generally speaking they're more African than blacks in the U.S.A. measured as a percentage.

A lot depended on what the health of the Irish were that were being transported. Many of the Irish may not have been on good health before being shiped. The Irish were sent to get rid of them live or die did not matter much to the English.
Irish labour was also need by the English in Ireland and they was not enough to supply the needs of the Slave trade.
African slaves would have only been bought f they were in good health and were seen as a valuable investment.

 

[BELFAST]

Agreed, all history is subjective, but in these cases I think there is a clear political agenda. Not necessarily with the OP, but in general with Irish history it tends to be written from an Irish nationalist perspective, which often results in a caricature evil Britain and poor oppressed but valiant and heroic Ireland.

Agreed all history is subjective and each generation tends to reinterpret history to fit he needs of the present.

 

[Redhand]

Oh no, there were occasional Barbary raids on English and Irish villages. Very occasionally, compared to the southern European countries, where the slave raiding was so bad that entire stretches of coast were abandoned, but it happened. Most of the time European captives were ransomed, but those who weren't or couldn't pay ended up as slaves. Until the 18th century, the English navy wasn't strong enough to do much about it, and the state was forced to either pay tribute or endure raids.

I've always wondered why Irish slavery and the North African slave trade got so little (read: none at all) attention in my High school history classes. There is the obvious point that throwing a wrench into the diversity portion of the education by pointing out parallels between cultures is counterproductive to the outcome of destroying ethnocentrism but I feel it is a valid and important enough historical event that it needs more awareness.

As far as the English navy goes, did they have the ability to raid the coasts of North Africa in return? They may not have been the fleet of Nelson and Jellicoe yet but I believe they could probably enforce their will on an area that the US Navy could reach during the Jefferson administration.

 

[Redhand]

Agreed, all history is subjective, but in these cases I think there is a clear political agenda. Not necessarily with the OP, but in general with Irish history it tends to be written from an Irish nationalist perspective, which often results in a caricature evil Britain and poor oppressed but valiant and heroic Ireland.

That part about Irish history seems maddeningly true up until present day as well. Almost any discussion of the Troubles will either paint the IRA as terrorists or more likely as nationalist revolutionaries while the Loyalists seem to be looked down as thugs almost always and the UK gets a similar politically charged narrative for its role. One of the best movies on this subject, Fifty Dead Men Walking, sort of falls into this trap.

Honestly, if I could find a decent source on the motivations and structure of Loyalist paramilitaries outside of their religion I think the conflict would actually make more sense to me.

 

[LSCatilina]

I've always wondered why Irish slavery and the North African slave trade got so little (read: none at all) attention in my High school history classes.

Well, for starters, they are simply less documented. With less litterary sources, it's harder to make the History of something.

Then, Atlantic slave trade had an at least as important impact worldwide than the Arabo-Islamic equivalent in Africa (at the contrary of the former, the latter picked slaves a bit everywhere, Europe, Africa, Asia) and of course in Americas.
Related to this, it had a more important impact on European civilisations, up to their evolution itself than the Arabo-Islamic trade consequences (while they existed, as the desertification of mediteranean shores)

And of course, that the existance of this slavery served as one of the reasons for colonialism : saving natives (or Europeans) from slavery. The whole concept being loaded, it was hard to really talk about it safely.

Now is it enough to not give enough focus on it? Probably not, but it's not exactly a baseless situation : I tend to observe, though, that the Arabo-Islamic slavery is getting more focus than, say, 10 years ago, in popular knowledge (while it was quite known

As far as the English navy goes, did they have the ability to raid the coasts of North Africa in return?

Probably not. Remember we're talking of slavers, merchants, in a word : independents. Not a nation or a distinct area you could raid the hell up to peace.
It's a bit, if you allow me the parallel, as a terrorist organisation based in a country : you can't launch a punitive expedition just like that. What was more practiced was to attack pirates ships, but it wasn't a given to do that (and even less in period of wars or crisis as the Civil War).

Furthermore, alliances or treaties as such passed between England and Morroco made it acceptable : the focus was Spain not the slave trade, and if people couldn't pay their ransom, and if England couldn't pay...

 

[carlton_bach]

I've always wondered why Irish slavery and the North African slave trade got so little (read: none at all) attention in my High school history classes. There is the obvious point that throwing a wrench into the diversity portion of the education by pointing out parallels between cultures is counterproductive to the outcome of destroying ethnocentrism but I feel it is a valid and important enough historical event that it needs more awareness.

There are so damned MANY important historical events that need more awareness. You have to draw the line somewhere. Now, I do think that limiting 'slavery' to race-based chattel slavery is a problem, but given its importance in US history, I can see why it gets preferred treatment there. Most of the rest of the world imports US TV productions, so that's just fallout. Ultimately, history education needs to address the part of the past that is in the public conscuiousness.

The other problem is who writes history curricula and schoolbooks. Hint: it's rarely historians. I would not be surprised of the majority of curriculum developers were simpokly unaware that, say, slaves were a mainstay of the Carolingian empire's economy, that the knights of St John (the guys with the ambulances) were once dedicated to piracy or that the Chinese weren't thought of as yellow until the nineteenth century.

As far as the English navy goes, did they have the ability to raid the coasts of North Africa in return? They may not have been the fleet of Nelson and Jellicoe yet but I believe they could probably enforce their will on an area that the US Navy could reach during the Jefferson administration.

The English actually had a base at Tangier for a considerable time in the seventeenth century. Everybody raided the Barbary coast, regularly. It just didn't help matters much.

 

[Morty Vicar]

Because of the scale of operations, it's inevitable that the transatlantic slave trade would be uppermost in the minds of Americans, even if Europeans have largely washed their hands of it. It's a shame that the USA is linked in people's minds so closely with slavery when in fact many South American nations were equally built on slavery, not to mention oppression of native peoples. What I find most ironic perhaps is that African Americans embraced Islam, or a form of Islam (Nation of Islam) because they felt it was more progressive somehow, when in fact North African Arabs still perpetuate slavery and segregation.

 

[LSCatilina]

There are so damned MANY important historical events that need more awareness.

I beg to differ : while Arabo-Islamic slavery had a limited (while still existing) on Western Europe, it had more clearly more for Eastern Europe and was something insanely big for the whole of Africa, even more than transatlantic trade.

Remember that it touched not only West Africa but East Africa as well (being named Slaves Coast gives it a hint). It's as big that, say Great Migrations for Europe.
That is not that decisive in European history doesn't mean it's not one of the most important feature in worldwide history, particularly Africa.

The other problem is who writes history curricula and schoolbooks. Hint: it's rarely historians. I would not be surprised of the majority of curriculum developers were simpokly unaware that, say, slaves were a mainstay of the Carolingian empire's economy, that the knights of St John (the guys with the ambulances) were once dedicated to piracy or that the Chinese weren't thought of as yellow until the nineteenth century.

Maybe in America, but there they are (and actually spoke of all kinds of slavery generally, including European involvement in Saqaliba trade).

To say slave trade was a mainstay of Carolingian Economy, on the other hand, is a statement I won't follow that easily.
First slavery in Carolingia itself was declining, being more and more associated with other layers of peasantry. The main drain was for Arabo-Islamic markets, Spain but North Africa and Levant as well.
Not only this trade, inside Carolingia, was mainly controlled by Jewish traders and even this trade declined a lot after Charlemagne.

Saracenic raids in Mediterranea probably answered to a real economical need; or the slavery in Aragon that lasted up to Renaissance (while it virtually disappeared elsewhere).
Long story short, while slavery was one, if not the only, objective of Vikings, Saracenic, or Catalan raids, it was more a by-product of Carolingian conquests.

 

[Richard V]

Because of the scale of operations, it's inevitable that the transatlantic slave trade would be uppermost in the minds of Americans, even if Europeans have largely washed their hands of it. It's a shame that the USA is linked in people's minds so closely with slavery when in fact many South American nations were equally built on slavery, not to mention oppression of native peoples. What I find most ironic perhaps is that African Americans embraced Islam, or a form of Islam (Nation of Islam) because they felt it was more progressive somehow, when in fact North African Arabs still perpetuate slavery and segregation.

Well the slavery narrative is different depending on where you're from. Certainly Brazilians have a different perspective than US Americans. Russians might think of Russian slavery in the Crimean and Khiva Khanates if the topic came up. In the United States the history of Irish slavery just don't have the modern relevance to attract scholarship.

 

[funnyhat]

Because of the scale of operations, it's inevitable that the transatlantic slave trade would be uppermost in the minds of Americans, even if Europeans have largely washed their hands of it. It's a shame that the USA is linked in people's minds so closely with slavery when in fact many South American nations were equally built on slavery, not to mention oppression of native peoples. What I find most ironic perhaps is that African Americans embraced Islam, or a form of Islam (Nation of Islam) because they felt it was more progressive somehow, when in fact North African Arabs still perpetuate slavery and segregation.

Only about 1% of African Americans are Muslim. There was a trend of conversion to the faith in the 1960s and '70s but it petered out after that.

I agree that it seems like the U.S. gets singled out about slavery when it was almost hemisphere-wide. Only something like 5% of slaves that survived the trans-Atlantic voyage ended up in the United States. A much larger number ended up in the Caribbean or Brazil.

 

[Salamander]

Slavery has been a bane afflicting all of humanity for centuries. The only time it (and piracy) has come close to being eradicated was when Britania ruled the waves and even then only after a century of concerted effort. Sadly, both slavery (or human trafficking as it is now known) and piracy have returned following the waning of British power and the failure of any other nation or supranational power to take up the mantle.