This is a very interesting blog post from the blog Exploring My Culture, Exploring Myself. The piece makes some great points to consider and is worth discussing. Here is an excerpt:
Why do some people think that acknowledging the suffering of others somehow diminishes their own? That in order to validate their suffering, they must deny the suffering of others?
Was the African slave trade a blight on the face of humanity? Was the African slave trade a horror that none of us can truly comprehend? Is there anyone at all who will argue that the answer is anything but a most emphatic yes?
Since that is so, why isn’t the Irish slave trade similarly acknowledged as even existing, let alone acknowledged as that same blight, that same horror? Why are the white slaves taken in Africa not likewise acknowledged as existing?
Why is acknowledging European slavery in Africa a threat to the memory of black slavery?
I’m not talking about racism, discrimination, civil rights issues. I’m not talking about comparing the suffering as if one can be found to be more worthy of notice.
I’m talking about slavery. Real slavery.
When the population of Ireland was cut by nearly two thirds within a single decade (1641 to 1652), with an estimated 300,000 Irish slaves shipped to the New World to work for English masters and another 500,000 killed outright, that is a reality of history. They were every bit as much slaves as the Africans brought to the Americas.
During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.
And don’t kid yourself. These were not indentured servants who labored for some years and then were set free. They were slaves. Every bit as much as the Africans were slaves. They were slaves who were sent to the Americas to labor and die by the master’s hand, to be seen as property and chattel, not people.
In time, the English thought of a better way to use these [Irish] women (in many cases, girls as young as 12) to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves.
To read the full piece click here.