O'Reilly compared Irish immigration to enslavement of African-Americans
On the October 4 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly equated trans-Atlantic Irish immigration in the 19th century to the historical enslavement of African-Americans and their forced removal from Africa. The Irish coming to the United States "had to leave the country, just as Africans had to leave -- African-Americans had to leave Africa and come over on a boat and try to make in the New World with nothing," O'Reilly said.
O'Reilly was commenting on a caller's response to his assertion that the prison population is "disproportionately African-American." The caller said that the "reason for that" is "slavery," adding, "If you take someone's language, someone's history, and someone's culture, and then you just release them out into the world, you think they're going to be successful as a people?"
From the October 4 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
CALLER: But what they fail to tell you is that most of the people in jail are actually -- are white.
O'REILLY: Yeah. The majority of people in jail are white, but it is disproportionately African-American -- I don't need --you know, I don't even --
CALLER: There's a reason for that --
O'REILLY: Can we get that stat? Can we get that stat?
CALLER: There's a reason for that, you know that.
O'REILLY: Yeah, I mean, the reason is --
CALLER: Because of slavery. If you take someone's language, someone's history, and someone's culture, and then you just release them out into the world, you think they're going to be successful as a people?
O'REILLY: All right. But let me counter that, [caller], and you can comment on my comment. That's the prevailing wisdom in a lot of the precincts, is that because blacks were in slavery in the United States, they were never able to develop an infrastructure of education and culture to compete with the white majority. That is the prevailing wisdom in lots and lots of places. Let me submit this to you, and then you can comment on it.
My people came from County Cavan in Ireland. All right? And the British Crown marched in there with their henchman, Oliver Cromwell, and they seized all of my ancestors' lands, everything. And they threw them into slavery, pretty much indentured servitude on the land. And then the land collapsed, all right? And everybody was starving in Ireland. They had to leave the country, just as Africans had to leave -- African-Americans had to leave Africa and come over on a boat and try to make in the New World with nothing. Nothing. And succeeded, succeeded. As did Italians, as did -- and I'll submit to you, African-Americans are succeeding as well. So all of these things can be overcome I think, [caller]. Go ahead.
"They had to leave the country, just as Africans had to leave -- African-Americans had to leave Africa and come over on a boat and try to make in the New World with nothing. Nothing." --B.O.
------------------------------------------------------
Ya think BO is oversimplifying the plight of African-Americans just a wee bit? Nahhhh.
Bill O'rielly exaggerating, surely you jest. I think this is from a chapter in a new history book he's writing. His chapter on slavery will fo something like this. "The Africans saw some boats passing by one day and being bored in African and craving adventure they bartered for a ride to the new world. They agreed to become slaves as exchange for their passag. Their new masters treated them extremely well. Some treated them just like family; in fact some masters treated the slave girls like wives. After just 400 short years of slavery the Blacks were freed and become equal citizens to the White people. They were allowed unfettered access to pursue the American dream. THE END
sorry for the spelling mishaps
"Ya think BO is oversimplifying the plight of African-Americans just a wee bit? Nahhhh."
You think that Media Matters, our schools, the media, encyclopedias, historians might... um... gloss over the plight of Irish Americans just a wee bit? Nahhh.
Okay, let me elaborate. When the Irish first came to America, they were looked down upon as inferrior just like African-Americans. The only difference was that African-Americans were mostly slaves and Irishmen weren't (oh, and to "desimplify" the "plight of African-Americans just a bit," I should state that there was never a time when every black man in America was a slave and... heads up... some blacks themselves owned slaves), but that doesn't mean there's no comparison.
If you spend some time researching, you'll find that the Irish were often subjected to bigotry. Many stores had signs that said "Irish need not apply." This was true of many ethnic groups.
It should also be noted that many Irish people are/were Catholics. In some points in time, the KKK put Catholics on the list with blacks, Jews and other targets.
Is there a difference between African and Irish treatment in the U.S.? Yes. But to say that the two aren't comparable is just wrong. But you see, Media Matters won't tell you that. In fact, they know that all they have to do is say that he compared one apple with another and that that's enough for their die-hard readers. Their obsession with a man who is a journalist that David Brock will NEVER be able to hold a candle to seems dangerous... until I realize that there aren't that many of you Media Matters Mindpuppets out there to begin with, so it's just kinda funny.
Oh, and I guess this post is racist, too. I mean, I didn't put anybody down, I just said that one group had it almost as bad as another. EEEVVVVIIIIIIILLLLLL!!!
"but to say the two aren't comparable is just wrong". the two aren't comparable.
Racist? Most likely not. Stupid? One hundred percent.
/Family is of Irish decent
I agree.
Apples and oranges argument epiphone is making.
/I am a descendant of potato famine refugees, myself. Damn that Dan Quayle, I keep wanting to spell it potatoe. Stop it! (smacks hand)
Both sides gave a valid argument, what is the problem with this segment.
"Both sides gave a valid argument, what is the problem with this segment."
You're kidding, right? What is valid about O'Reilly's argument? It is a bogus, flawed analogy. The Irish may have been "forced" to leave, but they chose their destination, and arrived in America as free people. Africans did not choose to come to America, nor did they arrive here free. The Irish may have arrived with nothing, but they were at least able to work for wages, and improve their lives. Certainly, the Irish had hard times, but to compare it to the experience of African slaves is ridiculous.
Your insight on history is very flawed bub. Do some research the Irish were slaves as well and that was the point he was making.
The African-Americans are not the only ones every to be slaves. That is the point.
This topic as a whole is rediculous to say the least. How this is a media screw up is beyond me.
Apache25, I think you need to look into history a little more. The Irish came to America on their own volition. Famine and the British cerainly were good reasons to leave. Those that were "slaves" were indentured servants. IS's signed a contract to work for someone that would pay their way over to America. The Irish were certainly prejudiced against, but that does not compare to the millions of AA's that were forcefully taken from Africa to America and sold and treated as chattel. After a generation, once they lost their accent, the Irish could blend into society. Even a freed AA that spoke perfect english would still have been seen as a slave or sub-human.
Did you know that the worst riot in American history was the Irish Draft riots in NY during the CIvil War. The Irish rioted because they did not want to be drafted to fight a war to free the slaves. They felt it would have dergraded their job prospects.
"Your insight on history is very flawed bub. Do some research the Irish were slaves as well and that was the point he was making.
The African-Americans are not the only ones every to be slaves. That is the point." --apache25
------------------------------------------------
If that was the point, he could not have been more wrong in trying to make an analogy to african slavery. Here is a link to wikipedia that discusses indentured servitude. Do some research yourself.
"In North American history, employers usually paid for European workers' passage across the Atlantic Ocean, reimbursing the shipowner who held their papers of indenture; in return the servants agreed to work for a specified number of years. The agreement could also be in exchange for professional training; after being the indentured servant to a blacksmith for several years, one would expect to work as a blacksmith on one's own account after the period was over. During the 17th century most of the white laborers in Maryland and Virginia came from England this way. Their masters were bound to feed, clothe and lodge them. An indentured servant's lot in the establishment was often no harder than that of a contemporary apprentice, who was similarly bound by contract and owed hard, unpaid labor while "serving his time." At the end of the allotted time, an indentured servant was given a new suit of clothes and set loose."
How is this analogous to slavery where families were routinely split up, slaves were rarely set free, the vast majority did not know the culture or the language coming over and they were commonly not allowed to learn to read or write?
Correct. To defend where Billy went is horrible. If you want to easily get an idea of what African slaves went through then rent the film "Amistad" and tell me what part depicted in the film relates to the Irish coming to this country. I am sure we would all be curious to know.
Off-topic, but Amistad is an excellent movie.
Yeah, I must have missed the movie about Irish slaves being captured, put in chains and shipped off to the US. Maybe Bill knows where I can rent it?
Ugh, it pains me to say this, because I truly do love this website, and I can't stand Bill O'Reilly, but whomever posted this as a legitimate topic needs to go back and re-read their world history, because, (and I feel Hades freezing over as I state this), O'Reilly is correct. After the British conquered the Irish, large segments of the Irish populace were reduced to slave-laboring serfs, and it remained that way for hundreds of years, and while the Potato Famine was one of the primary justifications for many Irish wanting to immigrate to the U.S., escaping the brutal condition imposed upon them by the British was also another.
You guys are so good at buttressing your threads with research, but this is just a bit far-fetched. Other races and ethncities have been subjected to slavery besides African Americans - the Irish, the Sinti and Roma, Koreans, Native Americans (especially in Latin America), the Jews, and just about every country that was subject to conquest and colonialism. Don't allow your dislike of O'Reilly affect the quality of your research, then, you're no better than he is.
But the caller was making the point that due to the total dissimilarity between the negroes and Irish in language and culture, the negro had a much harder time assimilating into western culture after being freed. Yet O'Reilly seemed to be saying that his Irish descendants had the same handicaps -- which simply isn't true.
Were the Irish kidnapped and dragged to America in chains? I don't think so.
"and while the Potato Famine was one of the primary justifications for many Irish wanting to immigrate to the U.S., escaping the brutal condition imposed upon them by the British was also another."
Shawn, your own words obliterate your argument. The Irish were escaping brutal conditions; African slaves were conscripted into brutal conditions. The comparison gets more absurd by the minute.
First of all, it was 'negroes' who had to leave Africa (even Martin Luther King, Jr. used the word negro to describe his people; "African-American" is of relatively modern vintage (1970's)). Secondly, comparing the enslaved negro with indentured whites from Ireland is absurd. The Irish had generally the same culture and language so, after release from slavery, their lot in the new world was much easier.
"The Irish had generally the same culture and language so, after release from slavery, their lot in the new world was much easier." -- Publius
--------------------------------------------------------------
Um...not quite to the extent you might imagine! Being of Irish ancestry myself (albeit considerably diluted), I can tell you about the signs that were by no means uncommon when the Irish first began emigrating to the U.S.. They read: NO IRISH NEED APPLY. Cartoons in many newspapers of the period depicted the Irish as coarse, violent, slovenly, ignorant, indolent, and insubordinate drunkards. Here's a site which provides more detail on the early experiences of Irish immigrants in America -- [link to www.historyplace.com]
Mind you, I'm by no means trying to excuse the latest piece of drivel from O'Reilly -- far from it! However, there appears to be an assumption in your comment that it was fairly easy for the Irish to assimilate into American culture -- and this is simply not true, although I realize that you may not have been aware of it. Nevertheless, for O'Reilly to claim that the experience of Irish immigrants was equivalent with that of African slavery is to say the least farfetched!
The NINA signs may be a myth: [link to tigger.uic.edu]
Interesting. I have been brought up to believe this was absolutely true by respected Irish teachers of mine as well as my father's side of the family. I don't believe the Irish had it easy compared to some other European groups, but it further undermines any possible similarity to the terrible way the African slaves were treated.
BO says "African-Americans had to leave Africa..."
First, they weren't African Americans, they were Africans.
More importantly, I think anyone, regardless of national origin, would have "had to leave" if they were chained to the person in front of them.
It sucks to have to actually state the obvious. However, I am sure that is news to some people.
As a 2nd generation Irish American, O'Reilly has a point abut the horrible conditions the Irish faced due to British Imperialism. The major difference and where he is wrong is that the children of immigrants were considered white Americans while the children of slaves were what? Slaves.
Also Irish children in America could not be separated from their parents like black slave children could.To compare the 2 is an absurd comparasion designed to avoid a discussion of race because,"My people suffered too!"
Every time O'Reilly says "beyond the pale," he shows just how un-Irish he really is. And, note, he uses the phrase "beyond the pale" a great deal. A real Irishman would know that that was a slur against the Irish. O'Reilly is a faux Irishman. You simply do not say "beyond the pale," as an Irishman without knowing it is a slur.
To say that the Irish "had it easy" when they got here is a bit far-fetched, have you ever seen Gangs of New York? The Irish were perceived as the scum of the Old World, and when they got here, they were treated as such. They built the railroads side by side with blacks and Chinese immigrants, they pulled twelve to fourteen hour shifts in garment factories making twenty-five cents a day, scores of them died working in the Appalachian coal mines, and tens of thousands of them were impressed into the Union army and sent of to die in the Civil War the minute they stepped off the boat, boats in which often a quarter or a third of the passengers had died in transit.
I am a devout liberal, but one thing that I cannot stand, and that I will not tolerate, are liberals who try to view history through the lense of political correctness. Go back and read your nineteenth century American history if you want to see how "easy" Irish immigrants had it when they came here.
Can I be the first to state the obvious? Nobody on this list said the Irish had it easy, just you. But more importantly, what is your point? Because most immigrants had a tough time, are you saying that all of them had the same experience as the slaves?
Do a search for "easy" in this thread and the MMFA text. Are you having a dialog with yourself again?
"they pulled twelve to fourteen hour shifts in garment factories making twenty-five cents a day"
How much did slaves get paid for picking cotton?
The big hole in your argument is that the Irish were technically free, slaves were not. Yeah the Irish suffered, but they weren't dragged from their homeland and sold like animals for generations the way Africans were.
by nerzog - Thursday October 6, 2005 02:05:12 PM EST
To be sure, a few Slave-masters "farmed" their slaves out and actually shared the profits with them. Unusual but it is recorded as happening.
At the time, EVERY blue collar employee worked 12-14 hrs./day for minimal wages.
Did factory owners had the unquestioned right to demand sex from their employees wives? Were they allowed to determine where the children of their employees worked? If an employee quit, was he hunted down with dogs and dragged back to the factory?
If not, then it wasn't like slavery.
Shawn,
Through out history many groups have suffered at the hands of their fellow beings. I hate comparing suffering, but you can't equate the discrimination that the Irish and other early European immigrants faced in American to that of African Americans. First of all the immigrants were free people. If they didn't like it in one place they could move. If they were treated horrifically at a place of employment they didn't have to stay. African Americans were legally enslaved for 400 years followed by 100 years of Jim Crow. Moreover legalized discrimination against African Americans persisted until the 1960's. It's been forty short tumultuous years that AA have been allowed to fully participate in society.
by shawn - Thursday October 6, 2005 01:50:50 PM EST
Which US Cities had Irish Slave markets?
"...have you ever seen Gangs of New York?"
Have you ever seen Far and Away?
Shawn, You are the one looking through a skewed lens. I did not see where anyone said the Irish had it easy. The qualifier is ier, as in easier than AA's. You keep telling everyone to read history, but it seems that most already have. What I can't stand and will not tolerate is a liberal that is trying to be so tolerant that they allow a guy like O'Reilly to diminish the slavery issue so that they can absolve all of the factors that still haunt us today over the issue.
Let me try again to make this clearer.
The first Irish-American President was elected in 1960.
In 1960, most AA's were unable to vote.
The thing is, nearly every ethnic group: Irish, Italian, Chinese, etc., can argue that their ancestors came here and worked under horrible, even deadly, conditions.
Yes, they would have likely died (or at the very least, lived in total poverty) had they stayed where they were. But they still came to America of their own accord. Because of their hard work, their children, grandchildren, etc. were able to prosper. But unlike blacks, they did have a choice in coming here.
Perhaps an historical timeline would best help you, Scooter. The large waves of Irish immigrants who came to this country came in the latter-half of the nineteenth century, both during and after the American Civil War, after African Americans had been liberated. Hence, you have BOTH races at the bottom of the socio-economic system, BOTH races having been subjugated to enslavement, BOTH races facing EXTREME racism, and both races having to do the most savage, exploitave, and back-breaking labor in order to survive. To say that, "Well, the Irish were white, so they really can't relate to African Americans," is sheer nonsense. Yet again, I implore you, read your history. When compared to French, Scandanavian, British, or Germanic immigrants, the Irish were perceived as drunken, violent, asocial parasites (attributes and stereotypes which were spawned and created during their enslavement). For god's sake man, pull your head out of your rectum. Forced bondage is forced bondage, whether it be white enslaving white, white enslaving black, or black enslaving black.
Gee, Shawn, teach us about your research methods. After about two minutes of searching, I found these little factoids:
"Although Irish immigration to America didn't reach its peak until the mid 1800s, during the revolutionary war, there were enough Irish soldiers to account for nearly half of General Washington's Continental army, including 1492 officers and 22 generals."
And this:
"The majority of Irish immigrants from 1780 to 1820 were tradespeople, artisans, teachers or professionals, and for them assimilating was fairly easy and many prospered at a pace that was virtually unheard of back in Ireland."
[link to www.ailf.org]
Now, Shawn, where is YOUR head?
First, maybe learn how to click "respond" so people know what you are responding to. In this case, readers would learn that your response has absolutely nothing to do with what I had written. I gew up in a minig town, so don't tell me that I don't know about ethnic separation. You also can't claim to have read more history than me, so lighten up.
You may be able to find a few angry white men like O'Reilly who believe there is a comparison between slaves and the free, but it sounds like they would be the very same people who are pushing for Intelligent Design.
When you have read as much AND understand as much as me, write back. And be sure to click the respond button.
Shawn, saying that the Irish were slaves in this country, and by proxy, had it as bad as Africans coming to this country, is like saying Eminem is a good rapper, and by proxy, white people are as good at rapping as black people.
The exception does not prove the rule. Irish people as slaves in this country were the exception, Africans as slaves in this country were the rule. Irish as immigrants in this country were the rule, and they had it way better than the slaves.
I did a report on Cromwell when I was a sophomore in High School and he didn't seem to me such a tyrant. He was pro parliamentary government. This dissatisfied the Cavalier class of the English as I remember. Cromwell did a lot to take power away from the monarchy and make it representative. If it hadn't been for this turn toward parliamentary government it would have been foolish for the American Revolutionaries to even talk about representation.
The Cavaliers were mostly catholic and Cromwell a protestant which must have made a great problem in Ireland which even today is conflicted about protestantism and catholicism.
I never read much about Irish oppression in England, at least as concerns Cromwell.
Did you also study Sir Thomas Moore? I doubt he was a big Cromwell fan since Cromwell's treachery resulted in the loss of his head. You ought to watch the movie "A man for all seasons".
Different Cromwell.
You're thinking of Thomas Cromwell, 1489-1540.
The other was Oliver Cromwell, 1599-1658.
whoops.... I retract my error. See O'Reilly, it doesn't hurt that bad.
Interesting you brought up Cromwell. Have you heard of the Curse of Cromwell. For better or worse, my ancestors fought along side Cromwell, ani-papists, and, sad to say, slave traders. I learned a lot about these events while studying my ancestry.
[link to www.irelandseye.com]
Bill makes it sound like the Africans sailed in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty and were processed on Ellis Island. Irish were not happy and they left because they had to. While Africans were relatively happy making a life for themselves in their native land before they were captured by their fellow Africans, traded to whites for western wares, shackled, flogged, chained into the bowels of crowded ships, given little food, thrown overboard if their health deteriorated too much during the journey, and forced into servitude upon arrival.
To say "Africans had to leave Africa and come over on a boat and try to make in the New World with nothing" sounds like they left by choice and, upon arrival, had the same opportunities, as limited as they were, that the Irish had. That's what makes this comparison so freakin' nutty and worthy of note.
How coneniently O'Reilly and other conservatives disregard the devastating economic effects of institutionalized racism and segration (which they fought damn hard to KEEP!) on black people.
"How coneniently O'Reilly and other conservatives disregard the devastating economic effects of institutionalized racism and segration (which they fought damn hard to KEEP!) on black people."...by rjc
Jeez does this ever STOP here? D#mn it rjc STOP blaming ALL Conservatives for EVERYTHING...
BTW wasn't it Robert Byrd, a DEMOCRAT, who FILIBUSTERED for 14 hours to STOP the Civil Rights Act of 1964????????????
And wasn't it Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, a REPUBLICAN, who pushed the bill through Congress?
"Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come. The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!" ...Everett Dirksen (said after passage of Bill)
MAYBE it's time SOME of you STOP with this REVISIONIST HISTORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And BEFORE any of YOU chime in about "Dixiecrats"....Richard Russell, Mendell Rivers, Clinton's mentor William Fulbright, Robert Byrd, Fritz Hollings and Al Gore Sr. remained Democrats.
==================
Now to the subject at hand:
Ok for ALL the OBVIOUS reasons O'Reilly's comparison is wrong. One group came HERE of their own FREE WILL...the other didn't. One group, as hard as it may have been for them at first, were FREE. The other group were slaves, and NOT free.
Certainly African-Americans got a MUCH later start (basically just the past 40years) at chasing the "American Dream" and achieving success than other ethnic groups, HOWEVER, I don't agree with the caller when he BLAMES slavery for the disproportionate % of Blacks in prison...Not saying things are perfect or there isn't STILL racism or there is NOW an "Even Playing Field" (for the record I don't believe there ever will be) BUT things have IMPROVED greatly for Blacks in America since the 1960's, and it's time to look ahead, NOT backwards. And hopefully to discontinue the "slavery" excuse in 2005 and beyond.
"BTW wasn't it Robert Byrd, a DEMOCRAT, who FILIBUSTERED for 14 hours to STOP the Civil Rights Act of 1964???????????? "
He was a Democrat, and he was a conservative.
"He was a Democrat, and he was a conservative."...by bleacherdave
Byrd a Conservative in 1964? Or ever?
Nope, that's too rigid a description. While Byrd and other Democrats have occasionally voted "conservative", to describe them as Conservatives is a misleading BLANKET STATEMENT.
I understand SOME historians have "chosen" to use the term/label "Conservative Democrats" when describing the Dixiecrats. Others historians DON'T....it's up for INTERPRETATION. However the "litmus test" (for those that refer to them as Conservative) seems to be based SOLELY on their stand on "racial" issues, even when their views on most other issues was clearly Liberal or Moderate. IMO the term Moderate or Centrist would be a fairer description.
Byrd can be described as being somewhat more "Independent" on some issues-- but a Conservative? Please direct me to ANY site that states that as an ABSOLUTE. Unless of course YOU are suggesting his participation in the KKK makes him a Conservative in YOUR mind? If that's the case, then there's no point in discussing this any further with you BECAUSE you are obviously under the impression that only Conservatives can be RACISTS...so therefore since Byrd was an KKK member he MUST be a racist Conservative. Even though he's a Democrat and almost always votes as other Liberal Democrats.
ALSO please remember that Byrd belonged to the KKK between the years of 1942-1943, which means his days as a Klan member were long behind him by 1964 when he FILIBUSTERED for 14 hours to STOP the Civil Rights Act.
To be fair, in more recent years Byrd has held a few "conservative positions" such as opposing President Clinton's efforts in 1993 to allow gays to serve in the military, affirmative action, and abortion rights. BUT you could go through almost any former&present lawmakers voting records and FIND they didn't always VOTE strictly Liberal or Conservative, no matter whether or not there was a "D" or "R" after their name.
But this guy was NOT and is NOT a Conservative.
IF you have creditable info proving otherwise, I'd like to see it.
Most recent historians now brush aside the terms Conservative Democrats, using the term Moderate or Centrist Democrats instead. The term Liberal Republican has also been re-termed as Moderate Conservative or Moderate Republican.
ALSO, I find it disingenuous that many Democrats/Liberals argue in Byrd's FAVOR when the subject of his participation in the KKK comes up--saying he apologized and therefore SHOULD be forgiven. YET, use that SAME participation in the Klan to TRY to paint him as a Racist Conservative.
YOU can't have it BOTH ways.
""He was a Democrat, and he was a conservative."...by bleacherdave
Byrd a Conservative in 1964? Or ever? " - jeter
People can change over time. But, point well taken. My point, which was inarticulately made, was that Republican is not synonomous with conservative.
Jeter2
I agree with you, I don't think that the playing field will ever be leveled, at least not in my life time. You know I don't use the additional challenges I face as an AA as an excuse, but I don't deny the existenece of them either. But let's just be honest about our history. What happened happened, and it can't be wished away or minimalized as BO is attempting to do here. Even Pat Buchanan a staunch conservative says the same. He acknowledged that the way Native Americans were treated was horrible and every day that slavery existed in this country he said was a mark against the principles of our constitution.
P.S.
I see you're getting irritated with the "all of you people" as in references to Conservatives and Republicans. Welcome to my world, you can imagine how I feel when I tune in to MMFA and some knuckled head is telling Blacks to ‘get of your collective asses and stop collecting welfare and get a job’
"I agree with you, I don't think that the playing field will ever be leveled, at least not in my life time. You know I don't use the additional challenges I face as an AA as an excuse, but I don't deny the existenece of them either. But let's just be honest about our history. What happened happened, and it can't be wished away or minimalized as BO is attempting to do here. Even Pat Buchanan a staunch conservative says the same. He acknowledged that the way Native Americans were treated was horrible and every day that slavery existed in this country he said was a mark against the principles of our constitution."...by Lynn
==============
Hi Lynn, on another thread a long time ago we were all discussing the "Level Playing Field"...Some believed we would one day see it, many like myself did not. There will always be those (by accident or luck of birth) who will be born into wealthy, upper-middle class or middle-class families. There will always be those destined to begin life in poverty. Some will have the added challenge of being minorities...which unfortunately does still matter. Education certainly is a way up and out for those, who through no fault of their own, were not fortunate enough to be born at the top of the rung...or at least in the middle. I do believe in "personal responsibility", but I've learned not to make "judgments" about people without knowing some background. It's always easy to say we should each be able to succeed in this country...but too often that's easier said than done. Each situation is different. And even though I'm one of those "big bad Conservatives" I've always been behind Affirmative Action and Safety Nets. I firmly believe that we who have been blessed with more should try to help those that are struggling, up the ladder. Occasionally (in a weak moment) I wonder if "socialism" wouldn't be a "fairer" system...then I remember how that too has failed.
I am old enough to remember how things were back in the '60's and '70's. I think African-Americans have made incredible progress in those 40+ years...that doesn't mean everything is now "even steven". Civil Rights Laws have helped with that progress in bringing about more "equality", unfortunately no one can legislate the purging of racism out of the hearts&minds of others.
There are moments (I confess) when I think racism is almost eraticated...but something usually comes along, and stirs me out of that mindset and makes me see that we are still not there yet. And may never be.
------------
"I see you're getting irritated with the "all of you people" as in references to Conservatives and Republicans. Welcome to my world, you can imagine how I feel when I tune in to MMFA and some knuckled head is telling Blacks to ‘get of your collective asses and stop collecting welfare and get a job’"...by Lynn
=============
Haha, so you've noticed that have you? It's just that I try really hard not to "lump" all Liberals together (though I too sometimes fail at that). No group is monolithic in the way they think, so yeah when I see certain posters refer to all Conservatives or Republicans as evil, or racist or mean-spirited or warmongers...I think--hey that's not me!!!
I sometimes don't know how you keep it together here, it must hurt badly when you read some of the stuff posted on this forum. I really admire you for not totally flipping out, though maybe I've missed you having a meltdown :-O People are all individuals...there is good and bad in every race, religion, ethnicity and of course political party ;-). I try to always judge each person I meet as "as an individual" without any pre-conceived notions about who they are as a "person", because of what "group" category they may fall under.
Well Lynn, I'm heading home...I would like you to know that you are the first poster I've replied to here without using all those "Caps" I normally use. A few people have mentioned my "overuse" of capital letters, and I'm beginning to think they always make it seem like I'm yelling or angry. Which generally I'm not. Let's see if I can really quit this habit ;-)
========================
To everyone else I "owe" a reply to, I'll try to get back to you tonight, or first thing tomorrow morning.
by jeter2 - Thursday October 6, 2005 06:27:22 PM EST
***
This was a great post jeter…hey I didn’t know YOU CONSERVATIVES did introspection and nuanced thought. (-; (Sorry, I couldn’t resist—I too noticed—and share—your frustration with this group labeling thingy).
Seriously, this Was a great post and it shows exactly why I think even though we may be on opposite sides of the aisle I don’t think we are really all that far apart in our views (much the same way most of society is when you remove the small minority of extremists).
And by the way, I don’t see a problem with your use of “caps”. I always assumed those were the words you wanted to add emphasis to—sort of a way to give inflection to your written word. I do it too. I wouldn’t worry about those who felt the need to complain about it—I would guess it had more to do with them not wanting to deal with your logical argument the how you type your posts. Then again what do I know maybe you have been meaning to shout at us all this time—I know I feel the need sometimes.(-:
by lostlogic - Thursday October 6, 2005 06:46:38 PM EST -
Aw thanks lostlogic...I think I'm blushing :-)
And I agree that BOTH sides are probably NOT that far apart on MOST issues (only the fringe from both sides are).
As YOU must have noticed by now, I'm back to using "Caps"...though maybe I'll use them more "sparingly"
Well I've got a meeting to attend...HOPE to catch up with you later :-)
==============
P.S.
Yeah most of us CONSERVATIVES are Neanderthals but even we OCCASIONALLY manage some introspection and a nuanced thought or two hahaha ;-)
Jeez does this ever STOP here? D#mn it rjc STOP blaming ALL Conservatives for EVERYTHING...
BTW wasn't it Robert Byrd, a DEMOCRAT, who FILIBUSTERED for 14 hours to STOP the Civil Rights Act of 1964????????????
And wasn't it Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, a REPUBLICAN, who pushed the bill through Congress? - from jeter2
You're confusing terms here. Liberal and Democrat are not synonymous. Conservative and Republican aren't synonymous. rjc was referring to conservatives (and, by implication, liberals), not Republicans and Democrats. Can you name a single Senator who opposed desegregation and civil rights who was a liberal at that time? Just one?
The opposition to desegregation was uniformly conservative. Those supporting it were a mix of all liberals, most moderates and some conservatives.
"BTW wasn't it Robert Byrd, a DEMOCRAT, who FILIBUSTERED for 14 hours to STOP the Civil Rights Act of 1964????????????"
Contrast that with an interview Thurmond gave Joseph Stroud of the Charlotte Observer in July 1998 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of his presidential bid on the segregationist Dixiecrat ticket. Asked if he wanted to apologize, Thurmond said, "I don't have anything to apologize for," and "I don't have any regrets." Asked if he thought the Dixiecrats were right, Thurmond said, "Yes, I do." Thurmond said this four years ago!
Chatterbox has not yet received any rude e-mails asking: What about Senate Democrat Ernest Hollings? Hollings ran for governor of South Carolina in 1958 pledging to protect "the Southern way of life," which in those days meant segregation. Once in office, though, Hollings switched sides and supported integration. When Howell Raines of the New York Times asked Hollings in 1983 about his brief career as a segregationist, Hollings didn't just say he knew it was wrong now. He said, "I knew it was wrong" then.
Have Byrd and Hollings atoned sufficiently for their previous views and policies? Probably not. But they have renounced them. Thurmond never will." slate.com
So when someone asks forgiveness, you laugh at them. Yet you probably thought that Thurmond was an honorable man.
As for Dirksen, you mislead. He did get the votes from the Republicans, but the manager was Humphrey, the President was Johnson, and northern Dems were all behind it. Johnson even stated that he had hurt the Dems in the south for generations. Look at the 1960, 1964, and 1968 electoral maps for proof that the dixiecrats left the Dems and went to the Republicans.
Oops, forgot the first part.
"Since posting an item pointing out that, contrary to Washington legend, Strom Thurmond never renounced his segregationist past, Chatterbox has been inundated with rude e-mails. The theme of these e-mails is: What about former Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd? Byrd, a Democrat who still represents West Virginia, belonged to the Ku Klux Klan when he was a young man. Past membership in the Klan is heavier moral baggage than past advocacy of segregation. But Byrd, unlike Thurmond, renounced his youthful participation in a racist cause. See, for example, this exchange with CNN's Bernard Shaw in Dec. 1993:
Q: What has been your biggest mistake and your biggest success?
A: Well, it's easy to state what has been my biggest mistake. The greatest mistake I ever made was joining the Ku Klux Klan. And I've said that many times. But one cannot erase what he has done. He can only change his ways and his thoughts. That was an albatross around my neck that I will always wear. You will read it in my obituary that I was a member of the Ku Klux Klan." -slate.com
ABC,
An Thurmond was a hipocrit to boot. While advacning his separatist theories he was hiding a bi-racial child.
MAYBE it's time SOME of you STOP with this REVISIONIST HISTORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
***************************
I never said ALL conservatives were racists, but I do believe that conservatISM lends itself very well to racism and bigotry. That's its history and denying it is dishonest.
BTW wasn't it Robert Byrd, a DEMOCRAT, who FILIBUSTERED for 14 hours to STOP the Civil Rights Act of 1964???????????? --------------------------------------
Robert Byrd has repeatedly offered his regrets for this, said it was one of the worst things he has done in his life and that he will have to live with it for the rest of his life.
I CANNOT believe I am seeing people say BO was right.
This is just a prime example of how badly our educational system has failed us in religious schools and private schools.
The blacks were NOT anything but slaves and even some forms of slavery existed AFTER the Emmancipation Proclamation.
The IRISH WERE NEVER SLAVES!
The people who defend this jerkoff BO, make it sound like the blacks just had a little rougher sea voyage. In some cases if the slaver ships were being approached they simple grabbed all the blacks who were already on a long chain and threw them overboard.
So exactly where is there ANY COMPARISION to the Irish?
Talk about revisionist history.
BUT right along with Bennett and his moronic comments about aborting black babies, BO is helping to make sure that whatever inroads Rethugs were making with the black community are totally wiped out.
Just an absolutely horrible statement by BO and for anyone to defend him is beyond the pale. There is NO defense.
While I agree with the anti-BO statements here. I have to say that this statement is wrong.
"The blacks were NOT anything but slaves and even some forms of slavery existed AFTER the Emmancipation Proclamation."
Some of the first blacks to arrive in Jamestown were indentured servants with the usual term of 5-7 years average according to record. But, yes, while the Irish experience in the U.S. was horrible, the African experience would have to be labelled as unique. Compared to the the Native peoples experience with the U.S., however, well both could be defined as two of our low points in terms of humanity.
Thanks for reminding us that, like everything, this is a nuanced issue. There were slave owning Blacks, free Blacks, and wealthy Blacks during Colonial times. Most Blacks were held in bondage.
I frequently hear conservatives point to some successful Black or another as proof that anyone can make it now that racial discrimination has been outlawed, and now that blatant racism is politically incorrect. As if there were no successful Blacks prior to changes in US law and custom. There have always been Black folk that succeeded despite the societal forces arrayed against them. As discrimination has lessened, more have escaped the lowest economic rungs of our society.
I'm not sure if Bill O'Reilly like Rush Limbaugh ever went to college. Here we have another Zero person, who has never been in the military, held a public office or anything else relating to "giving back" to the country. And yet he is an expert on African American culture. I'm sure he has selective memory about reading Alex Hailey's book Roots or even watching the television series. Yes it is a depiction, but from my view it couldn't be any closer to the truth about African slavery and the WASP's who tried to perpetuate it even after the Civil War. Here we have the same WASP's 150 years later attempting to eviscerate the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Emancipation Proclomation. These are the proud people who still fly and display the Confederate Flag in the court room and other public places. These are the same group of morons who are holding on to "White Supremacy". When I look at all of this, it's just like Europe in the "Dark Ages". This administration and the people who support its views and values are regressive. To simply what I said, "we (United States" is moving backwards into a "Dark Age".
BO has a Masters from Harvard in Public Policy or something similar. I don't know where he went to undergrad. He knows better.
According to Wikipedia, O'Reilly went to Marist College, and spent a year at Queen Mary College at the University of London. Both private schools. Bill's the ultimate common man, right?
Even scarier, he taught high school after graduating, but that was probably just to avoid the draft, because he only did it for 2 years, starting in 1971.
I am pretty certain that's what that teaching stent was about.
The really "amusing" part is that Cromwell supported the execution of the king. He did command an army sent to "crush Ireland" afterwards, though.
[link to www.olivercromwell.org]
Also, the period of time when Irish folk were coming to America as indentured servants seems to have been the 17th and 19th centuries, not the 19th. (Though they did immigrate over in unpleasant conditions in the 19th C., it doesn't seem to have been as indentured servants.)
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
Two comments.
1) The word in the mid-1800s while looking for workers to help drain the yellow-fever-infested swamps in the Southern Gulf area was: "Find me some Irishers to work in the swamps; nobody cares if they die but Negroes are too expensive."
2) Somehow the trip my grandma took from Southern Ireland to Boston 100 years ago ("Here is some money, choose one of your seven starving children and send over to live with us." said the message from her childless uncle) seems qualitatively different (to anyone but Bill) from the below-deck chained accommodations afforded many of the black slaves arriving here.
Christ Nerzog, read your own "rebuttal". Specifically, the first freaking clause of the first freaking sentence:
"Although Irish immigration to America didn't reach its peak until the mid 1800s, during the revolutionary war, there were enough Irish soldiers to account for nearly half of General Washington's Continental army, including 1492 officers and 22 generals."
And count it....
Oh, and there was also an established contingent of freed blacks in New England who were artisans, craftsmen, and professionals, but their wealth wasn't reflective of their race as a whole, was it?
Buzzramjet, have you been paying attention, yes, the Irish were slaves. Can you read the posts that have pointed that out, or do I need to bust out the crayons and color-coated construction paper to get that point across?
The Irish were the second largest ethnic group in the American Colonies, second only to the English. Your assertion that they came to America after the Civil War and started on the same footing as the freed slaves is, with all due respect, absurd.
Yes, the largest wave of Irish immigration happened in the mid 1800s, but most of them WERE NOT BROUGHT OVER HERE AGAINST THEIR WILLS. Plus, there were many successful Irish immigrants who came before that time. They also did NOT face 100 years of legal apartheid after the Civil War, a fact you seem reluctant to address.
"And count it...."
Count what?
I loathe O'Reilly as much as the next person here, but I kind of understand what he's trying to say.
I think the key difference is that the Irish weren't "owned" by the British as pieces of property like the slaves were in the US. However, as another poster pointed out, many Irish were forced to work as indentured servants on lands owned by British nobles. They worked the land, and the nobles let them live on it. If they decided they didn't want to or couldn't work the land anymore, they were evicted and had to find somewhere else to live. That's the reason most Irishmen ended up in America.
To whoever said that "Oliver Cromwell wasn't such a bad guy": you need an immediate history lesson. During his conquest of Ireland, the words "rape" and "pillage" come to mind. As his army went from town to town, they routinely killed/tortured women and children. It's even documented that they threw babies in the air only to impale them on their swords. Sound outrageous? Look it up. It's true.
While there is no doubt that some immigrants to America were, and are, discriminated against more than others, to equate the Irish experience to the African experience is ridiculous.
It was never legal to whip indentured servants. It wasn't legal to kill indentured servants. It wasn't just that Africans were discriminated against, their culture was eradicated. It was illegal to speak their native tongues, and illegal to practice their cultural traditions. It was illegal to learn, or teach, a slave to read and write.
Most damagingly, an entire (im)moral philosophy was invented to justify this treatment. Africans were not regarded as humans, they were seen as beasts. I don't think the Irish in America were ever thought of as sub-human. Africans were not only enslaved - they were psyhologically broken. And some of us still are.
I'm sure some of you have heard of the Willie Lynch letter. Does anyone know if this is a legitimate historical document?
Gentlemen:
I greet you here on the bank of the James River in the year of our lord, one thousand seven hundred and twelve. First , I shall thank you, the gentlemen of the of the colony of Virginia, for bringing me here. I am here to help you solve some of your problems with slaves. Your invitation reached me in my modest plantation in the West Indies where I have experimented with some of the newest and still the oldest method for control of slaves. Ancient Rome would envy us if my program is implemented. As our boat sailed south on the James River, named for our illustrious KING JAMES, whose BIBLE we CHERISH, I saw enough to know that our problem is not unique. While Rome used cords or wood as crosses for standing human bodies along the old highways in great numbers, you are here using the tree and the rope on occasion.
I caught the whiff of a dead slave hanging from a tree a couple of miles back. You are losing valuable stock by hangings, you are having uprisings, slaves are running away, your crops are sometimes left in the fields too long for maximum profit, you suffer occasional fires, your animals are killed, Gentleman,...You know what your problems are; I do not need to elaborate. I am not here to enumerate your problems, I am here to introduce you to a method of solving them.
In my bag, I have a fool proof method for controlling your slaves. I guarantee everyone of you that if installed it will control the slaves for at least three hundred years. My method is simple, any member of your family or any OVERSEER can use it.
(cont.)
Oh Yeah quite familiar with this.
Lynn,
turns out it's a fake.
Is that right? Do you know the story behind that?
(cont.)
I have outlined a number of differences among the slaves, and I take these differences and make them bigger. I use FEAR, DISTRUST, and ENVY for control purposes. These methods have worked on my modest plantation in the West Indies, and it will work throughout the SOUTH. Take this simple little list of differences and think about them. On the top of my list is "AGE" but it is only there because it starts with an "A"; The second is"COLOR" or shade; there is INTELLIGENCE, SIZE, SEX, SIZE OF PLANTATION, ATTITUDE of owner, whether the slaves live in the valley, on a hill, east or west, north, south, have fine or coarse hair, or is tall or short. Now that you have a list of differences, I shall give you an outline of action- but before that, I shall assure you that DISTRUST IS STRONGER THAN TRUST, AND ENVY IS STRONGER THAN ADULATION, RESPECT OR ADMIRATION.
The black slave, after receiving this indoctrination, shall carry on and will become self-refueling and self-generating for hundreds of years, maybe thousands.
Don't forget you must pitch the old black VS. the young black males, and the young black male against the old black male. You must use the dark skinned slaves VS. the light skin slaves. You must use the female VS the male, and the male VS, the female. You must always have your servants and OVERSEERS distrust all blacks, but it is necessary that your slaves trust and depend on us.
Gentlemen, these kits are your keys to control, use them. Never miss an opportunity. My plan is guaranteed, and the good thing about this plan is that if used intensely for one year the slave will remain perpetually distrustful.
-WILLIAM LYNCH-1772
Sorry, I should have done my research. As I suspected, the Lynch letter is not a legitimate historical document. Things are never quite that convenient.
Were the Irish ever bought, sold or traded as private property by another group in this country? Was there ever a law passed that stated 3 Irishmen were eqivalent to 5 white Americans? Did the Irish ever need to fight for the legal right to vote or use the same public facilities as other Americans? Any crosses burned in the front yards of Irishmen? Was it ever a common practice in any part of this country to lynch Irishmen for no reason? Just wondering.
Keep it up Billy, people are wising up to your schtick and soon enough your ratings will join your 'commentary' in the toilet.
the slaves never had the chance to "make it in the new world". their decisions were made for them. i have some irish ancestors. they didn't work their whole lives on someone's plantation. more o'reilly drivel.
According to some accounts, there were a few indentured servants whose "employers" saw to it that they never worked their way out of debt and those who worked in "factory towns" who ended up being defacto slaves, but it would have been a relatively small minority, and nowhere near enough for O'Reilly's comparison to be valid...
Listen to the song "Sixteen Tons" some day. Employers tried doing that to everybody -- not just the Irish.
Typical O'lielly, Africans were slaves not free to get jobs and have families. Africans were beaten, had their chidren sold, had their women raped should I continue Bill? God your an idiot and this analogy shows even more of what a true low life spawn you really are.
i notice billy was using his own irish ancestors as an example. is this the same story as how he grew up poor?
Part One:
Just as Africans had to leave -- African-Americans had to leave Africa and come over on a boat and try to make in the New World with nothing," O'Reilly said.
Comment: Had to leave Africa!!! They were captured and transported to America as slaves; they didn’t have a choice about leaving their homeland. O’Reilly’s surreal world of history, yet again.
I hope this helps with this historical discussion. I do wish people like O’Reilly would check the historical facts, before letting loose with all the authority of the class dunce. After his attack on the American heroes of WWII the other night, blaming them for an atrocity, which the Nazis committed, you would of thought he would be more careful in his historical recollections. I’m sure that some Americans believe that only American history is worth studying.
Chronology - Time-Line of the Scotch-Irish History:
Before 1603 - - Background: For centuries, England had tried repeatedly and constantly to subdue the island of Ireland and the Irish had stubbornly resisted. There had been attempts over the years to transplant English settlers to Ireland in an attempt to "infiltrate" and/or "control" the Irish people and their society, but these had failed. By 1603, the problem was even more acute:
From a financial standpoint, Ireland was a drain on the treasury of England. Ireland was one of the areas in Europe where the Catholic faith held steady while Protestantism had spread across much of the continent and even into England and Scotland. Aside from the missionary goal of converting the Irish was the real consideration of not having a neighbour that might hold a religion in common with its enemies.
In the closing years of the 1500's, England had sent a 20,000 man army to Ireland to quell an uprising. After an initial failure, the commander was replaced by a man named Lord Mountjoy, who was particularly ruthless. He destroyed all the food, houses, and cattle he could find. Starvation in their bellies and defeats on the battlefields finally made the Irish submit to England, again, just as Queen Elizabeth lay dieing in 1603.
An area that had been hit hard during this destruction was the north, the "kingdom" of Ireland called Ulster, consisting of nine counties.
In the meantime, in Scotland, times were never all that good, but the turn of the century saw the typical Scottish farmer in dire straits. The western coast of Scotland is only 20-30 miles from the Ulster coast.
Thus, the scene was set for a series of developments leading to:
Ireland being carved into two pieces causing disharmony and discord to this day. A "double emigration" from Scotland: to Ireland and then to the United States of hundreds of thousands of immigrants we have come to know as the Scotch-Irish.
1603.. Elizabeth I dies and James VI, King of Scotland, becomes King James I of England.
1606.. The first Ulster colonies are settled. Ironically, by private entrepreneurs, and Scottish at that. Some Scottish entrepreneurs had come up with the idea of acquiring some land and transplanting their own countrymen to farm them. These beginning colonies were successful and word quickly spread back to Scotland.
1607.. King James I declared that the land held by the defeated Irish rebel leaders, who had fled to the continent, was reverted to the Crown. This legal action was over-reaching, but when you're the King, what the heck. King James I took control of 3,000,000 acres of Ulster land.
1609.. James I inform the Privy Council of Scotland: "the King.. out of his unspeakable love and tender affection for his Scottish subjects, has decided that they will be allowed to participate in this great adventure". Remember, James I, becoming King of England in 1603, had already been King of Scotland for 35 years before that (he was crowned the King of Scotland when he was one year old.)
Part Two:
1620.. An estimated 50,000 Scottish (and some English) settlers are now in Northern Ireland (Ulster).
1625.. King James I died and his son Charles I was crowned King. King James I was a definitely pro-Anglican and anti-Presbyterian, but at least he was somewhat of a politician about trying to convert the Scots to the more traditional Church of England. Charles I, however, had no tact, he tried to force the Anglican Church down the throats of the Scottish people and deprive them of their Presbyterianism. (This is the same climate that led to the first flight of Puritans to found the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1630.)
1637.. King Charles required changes in the churches of Scotland to more closely resemble the Church of England. The Scottish people arise and overthrow the episcopacy that Charles I has tried to implement. Presbyterianism in Scotland survived.
1640.. An estimated 100,000 Scottish (and some English) settlers are now in Northern Ireland (Ulster).
1642.. England is now in a Civil War, principally over the religious issues of the day: Puritanism versus the Church of England. The Scots are on the fringes of this war. They favour the more like-minded Puritans, but, after all, Charles I is still a Scot.
1642.. The Catholics in Ireland rebel against the north. Estimates of the deaths in this uprising vary, but many thousands die. The emigration of Scots to Ireland drops off.
1650.. The English Civil War ends with Oliver Cromwell responsible for the beheading of King Charles I. Then, he invaded Scotland, conquering the Scots at Dunbar. He then set out to crush the Scottish spirit.
1650.. Meanwhile, back in Ireland, the Irish rebellion went on for ten long years, until Cromwell came from England in 1650 and crushed the rebellion. He took neither side, however. He killed both Catholics and Presbyterians alike to let them know that England was in charge and wouldn't take disobedience from either side. He was particularly cruel and vicious during his campaigns.
Whether the ends justify the means or not, at least peace did follow Cromwell's "policing action". The immigration of Scots Ireland now resumes in 1650.
1653.. Cromwell ordered venerated leaders of their church driven from their places of meeting by English soldiers and led like criminals through the streets of Edinburgh.
1660.. The Puritan Cromwell dies and Charles II resumes the crown. Here we go again, a pro-Anglican as head of the country. As bad as times were for the Scots under Cromwell, worse times were ahead. During the 1660's, the Scottish suffered through what is called the "killing times", as the English tried again to force the Church of England down the throats of the Scots. This was the time of the rise of the term "covenanter", those Scots that, in effect, were guerrillas fighting against the English landlords.
We have an example of the "killing times" that has been passed down in our family. A fourteen year old girl was arrested because of her failure to give allegiance to the English King in a way that connoted his being head of the church. This fourteen-year-old girl was ordered to DEATH BY DROWNING for refusing. This is how cruel things were getting over there at that time.
Emigration from Scotland to Ireland increased with the killing times.
1679.. The Covenanters (protestant rebels) are decisively defeated at the Battle of Bothwell Bridge in Scotland.
1690.. The King of England, William of Orange soundly defeats James II at the Battle of Boyne in Ireland. William is staunchly protestant, James is Catholic. This assures the continuation of the protestant Irish of the north, most Scottish descendants, to continue their protestant faith.
Part Three:
A result of the English victory at the Battle of Boyne is responsible for the last wave of immigrants from Scotland to England in the last decade of the 1600's. An estimated 50,000 Scots leave Scotland for Northern Ireland.
1717.. The Exodus of the Scotch-Irish from Ulster to America now begins in earnest. Five thousand Ulstermen leave for America that year. Between 1717 and the American Revolution, approximately a quarter of a million Scotch-Irish will leave Ireland for America. Approximately 100 years after the original Ulster plantations have been planted they have succeeded... and they have also failed. In 100 years, Ulster had been transformed from a totally obliterated landscape to a respectable area with an economy that produced goods. Plagued by high rents, four years of drought, English import/export policies, and the religious factor thrown in (although religion wasn't a prime motivating factor in the Scotch/Irish migration as it was, say, with the Puritans.), many Scots look for a better life in America.
It is interesting to note that even though the Catholic Irish endured many of the same hardships as their Northern counterparts, the Catholic Irish did not participate in this Exodus. The emigration was 99% Protestant, Ulster-Scots leaving for the America's. Although there were Catholic Irish who fled to other Catholic countries, principally France and Spain.
1776.. The American Revolution marks the end of this immigration era. Approximately 200-250,000 thousand Scotch-Irish have immigrated to America since 1717. There is more than that by 1776. If one is to assume the doubling of a population every 30 years, and a rateable rate of immigration, one could expect the Scotch-Irish numbered perhaps 10-25% of the 2 1/4 million Americans in 1776. At the time of the Revolution, the Scotch-Irish comprised the second largest ethnic group in America after the English, and ahead of the Germans.
(PS. As you do your census work, you may see the results of a study done by the census bureau by categorizing names based on where the name "might" have come from in estimating the ethnic make-up of the 1790 census. That study is a joke. Pay no attention to it. (How can one look at a Scottish name and tell if it is Scottish or Scotch-Irish? Or look at Smith or Taylor and tell what nationality it is?).
One parting word. All of the above history speaks in terms of generalities. As we family historians try to discover and unlock the secrets of the past of our individual ancestors, there are always individual exceptions to account for. There were English settlers in Northern Ireland. There were French Huguenots (the French protestant rebels, "roughly" equivalent to the Puritans in England and the Covenanters in Scotland) in Northern Ireland. There were German Palatine refugees in Northern Ireland. There were refugees from other parts of the world to Ireland, as well, at various times.
My recommendation is to not worry about the actual bloodline of your ancestry, but to appreciate the historical significance of the above events that your ancestor lived through, no matter how he or she got there. (e.g. your ancestor passing through Scotland for a generation or two, or three, or four, was simply one more stop on the genealogical chain of your past, just as significant as two or three generations of your ancestors living in Ohio in the 1800's.)
You also certainly cannot rely on a name to guarantee any source of your ancestry. French, English, and German names could all be "Irish'd" on coming to Ireland, as they might have been again been "anglicized' in coming to America. In fact, Scotch names were "Irish'd", as well as the other way around, on coming to America, i.e. O'Neill switched to MacNeil or vice versa. I even have one line of Scotch-Irish relatives that changed their name from Campbell to McCampbell on coming to America. There is no equivalent for McCampbell in either Ireland or Scotland - it is an all-American original made-up name!
Nice post.
The fair analogy, and Robert Williams lays this out in his book The American Indian in Western Legal Thought (Oxford UP), is between Native Americans and the Irish. The English practiced their colonial policy on the Irish, it became the model for how Native Americans were treated (pun intended).
Otherwise, O'Reilly is what O'Reilly is.
I am very curious about the response of the caller to O'Reilly's ridiculous comments. I wish MM would have continued the transcript - the caller's response and then O'Reilly's reply to his response. Did anyone hear this segment who can fill in the blanks?
Somewhat off topic but not really. To discuss African- American slavery in only a North American context leads to the type of discussion and conclusions as debated in these comments. Spain was the last country to abolish slavery in the Americas in 1886. Prior to its establishment in North America slavery flourished in the Caribbean and Central and South America.
The Dutch actually drove the early slave trades, free to pursue this commerce in their neutrality. Prior to our Civil War there were many uprisings in the Carribean. And to this day in some British territories gradations in skin color determine class.
That is the real difference here, skin-color and the widespread acceptance by all European nations of slavery as a necessity for the commercial development of the Americas.
While some comparisons can made to the Irish immigration, certainly their exploitation pales in any comparison to the brutality and death suffered by slaves over a long period of time.
Even though Irish immigrants (as indentured servants) entered the US and indeed some Caribbean nations, where they were employed as overseers, plantation managers and seamen, the barrier of skin color was absent. Class and religion in Europe and their impact on Irish immigrants were their issues. Here O'Reilly is correct.
Slavery existed in the Americas for more than 400 years. We are only four or five generations removed from its impact. To say that it plays no role in the present day dialogue is denial. To say that European immigrants faced the same challenges as African-Americans is ignorance of history. Even though small, European immigrants arrived with some infrastructure. Deliberately, slaves were introduced from different areas and cultures of Africa to reduce any threat of organization.
Rather than fog the issue by sprurious argumentsts like O'Reilly's, we would do better to candidly and critically address its role in our mythology and work towards correcting the mistakes of our forefathers.
we are all stereotypes.
The problem with his analogy is that it is flawed.Is it true that the Irish were Slaves Yes.. it is also true that Most Irish had to live in the same ghettos as blacks(Philly,NO best example)its true that we were not pals with the KKK because of our Religion Yes ..most of the coffin ships which brought the Irish to America were the very same ships that were used in the slave trade.The Whopper this Muppets would like to skip over is the fact that we kept our culture with us and WE WERE (ARE)WHITE... from a Lib with Co.Mayo ancestors
They(the Irish) had to leave the country, just as Africans had to leave -- African-Americans had to leave Africa and come over on a boat and try to make in the New World with nothing. Nothing.
Ummm, let's see, his ancestors were white Irishmen, Italians were white....blacks may have come here with nothing, but gosh, was there an ability to hide behind a skin color to possibly make something of a life over here???....I think not. Please don't tell me the table was set properly for all races over here Mr. O'Reilly because it just isn't/wasn't true. You know & many of these responders know it too!!
To bring light to one aspect of African-Americans disproportionately being jailed....I have a few questions---How do drugs get into minority neighborhoods?? Are African--Americans flying over to Columbia/Afganistan to bring these drugs into this system?? Do African-Americans have the ability to generate the kind of "bling" to finance these kind of operations?? Are "meth" labs being developed by African--Americans?? You & I both know the answer.
Give Mr. O'Reilly a afro wig/some deep tanning lotion/26' rims on a caddy & let him go driving thru the "hood" & let's see how long it takes before he's pulled over for DWB(driving while black)
"Give Mr. O'Reilly a afro wig/some deep tanning lotion/26' rims on a caddy & let him go driving thru the "hood" & let's see how long it takes before he's pulled over for DWB(driving while black"
Acutally the DWB happens when driving through predominantly White neighborhoods. At the age of 12 I moved to a predominantly White neighborhood my brother was 16. My brother was stopped on several occassions and question by the cops while waiting for the BUS. After showing ID with his address proving that he lived in the neighborhood they left him alone. The neighborhood was a low crime area so the police didn't routinely patrol it. Someone had to call the cops on him.
Wheer did you here this, Bub?
"Your insight on history is very flawed bub. Do some research the Irish were slaves as well and that was the point he was making.
The African-Americans are not the only ones every to be slaves. That is the point."
The treatment of some Irish in their homeland by the British, could certainly be compared to slavery, though the record shows their treatment wasn't EXACTLY the same as the treatment of African Slaves in the US. I think the point of the O'Reilly naysayers here is that the Irish came to America to ESCAPE the issues they had at home (including "indentured servitude"). They were not forced to come here under duress - they were escaping to a place hwhere they had a chance.
Yes, the Irish and Italians ran into bigotry and barrieres in the US, but to suggest that those barriers were as difficult as those that Africans faced is unbelieveable. The freed African slaves had to turn the tables on a 200 year system that was entrenched in every aspect of American life, including a civil war that cost 500,000 american lives (and they were blamed for that in a large swath of the country). The Italians and Irish pissed off a bunch of "Americans" because they were competing for jobs and resources - something only a free man can do.
My ancestors, Italian, ran into abuse on the east coast when they immigrated here, so they travelled west, where they set down roots, and were quicly assimilated into the community. A couple months of trouble, followed by a century of prosperity. Is this truly the same as what the freed African slaves faced? No one was rioting or lynching Italians in the 1960s.
Sorry Bill O'Reilly, the analogy sucks, though I don't think you truly meant it in a nefarious, Bill Bennet sort of way.
Does O'Reilly have a high school diploma?
It certainly does not appear that way.
Alright, being of Irish descent, I sincerely apologize to those who I've been abrasive to, as this is an issue close to my heart, but I think there has been some drastic oversimplification of this issue, in part because so many have a knee-jerk reaction to whatever Bill O'Reilly says (and I myself am more often than not in that camp).
However, between 1820 and 1880, 3.5 million Irish immigrated to the United States, and one of the major catalyst for this mass immigration where the condition they lived under. Irish serfs lived under a plantation system in which their landowners could beat, torture, and rape them with little or no legal repercussions, and in addition to that, between 1845 and 1852, over one million Irish died of starvation or disease. The loss of life was so severe, that many today question whether or not it could be constituted as a form of genocide (much like Stalin's decimation of the Ukranian population through starvation during the Soviet collectivization). Under these conditions, for people to say that the Irish "willingly" left their homeland, is, in my opinion, a gross oversimplification as to what was happening in their own country. In addition to that, Cromwell instituted policies in which whole sale slaughter of Irish settlements was coupled with Irish being sold into slavery and sent to either the West Indies (Barbados, Trinidad, and St. Kitt), or, by being labeled as "traitors," they were sent to Australia as convicts, were many were either tortured to death or died from starvation.
In pointing out the plight of the Irish, I am not being (nor have I ever condoned) relatavism, I fully understand the suffering that African Americans have gone through, not only through slavery, but through the Jim Crowe laws that completely disenfranchised them (I am from Texas, and my home town made the cover of the New York Times after a horrific race lynching in the 1930s).
However, for the people who continue to believe that the Irish people have in no way, shape, or form any means of sympathizing or understanding what African Americans have gone through is simply not true, and to put a glaring exclamation point on that, simply look at the bloodshed and blind hatred that has plagued Northern Ireland since Michael Collins. Where do you think all that animosity comes from??
Once again, I aplogize for my initial abrasiveness, but my argument still remains. Look at both the Jews and Native Americans, while their plight occured on two different continents, and while culturally they were complete opposites, they both experienced organized, systemic, and utterly brutal forms of genocidal extermination, and whereas the Jewish atrocities were carried out under Hitler's policy of "Lebensraum," those carried out against the Native Americans were committed under "Manifest Destiny." Despite their differences, similarities and parallels can nevertheless be identified.
I think I see where the disconnect is here. The implication I get from O'Reillly's comments is that the Irish suffered as much as the Africans, yet the Irish-Americans have succeeded in this country to a greater degree than African-Americans. Even if we accept the claim at face value, what are we supposed to do with the information? The inevitable conclusion is that Irish Americans are somehow inherently superior to Black Americans. Now, you can holler "race card" all you want, but I'd like to hear someone give an alternate interpretation.
While it is true that the Irish as a people suffered greatly in Ireland, once they got to America, as a group, they were better off, don't you agree? You simply cannot say that about Blacks. There may have been some black soldiers in the Continental Army, but I doubt there were many black officers, and certainly no black generals. The Irish were, after all, white, and therefore accepted into society more readily than blacks, generally speaking.
I don't think Media Matters should have touched this one, because O'Reilly regularly says things that are factually wrong, and pointing those errors out is more important than getting mired in a historically debatable issue like this. It makes MM look less like a media watchdog and more like an O'Reilly-haters club (and I'm not saying it isn't).
Anyway, just as a quick review of what was said:
So O'Reilly brings up the Irish example as a counterpoint to what the caller said. But since the Irish did not have their language, history, or culture taken away, O'Reilly's counterpoint is really no counterpoint at all. What he's saying is irrelevant to what the caller was talking about, which I suppose had something to do with the number of African-Americans in jail.
O'Reilly would like to draw a one-to-one comparison between the experience of the Irish and that of African slaves in the United States, but it doesn't make sense in the context of the conversation. Ultimately, though, it's his opinion on an obviously debatable subject, and he certainly won't have the last word in the debate. We ought to look to the past to help us build a better present and a brighter future, and getting into a pissing contest over which ethnic group suffered more is futile and ultimately self-defeating. I say leave the fact checking to Media Matters and leave the academic debates to historians.
The Irish may have had it bad in Ireland, just as many Africans had it bad in Africa, but the Irish were not kidnapped from their native land against their will and enslaved for generations in this country.
African Americans had to endure 400 years IN THIS COUNTRY of being kidnapped, sold, worked to exhaustion, raped, whipped, robbed of children (or helplessly watching their own children raped and abused), robbed of their native language, culture and religion, and forced into every degrading situation imaginable, before they had the desperately-coveted opportunity to be treated like half (or 3/5ths, to be exact) an Irishman in this country. Blacks were whipped if they tried to learn to read. Blacks had their feet chopped off if they tried to escape to a state where they might have the privilege of going where they wished, working for MONEY (even if most employers refused to hire them or pay them fairly), marrying who they wished, choosing their sex partners, keeping and raising their children--in essence, having rights the Irish took for granted. (Yes, the Irish were conscripted by the North. You think the Blacks weren't? All poor people were conscripted.)
Blacks could not run for office or vote in many parts of the country, Irishmen could. Blacks were lynched, whipped, burned alive by Klan members who were community leaders and law enforcement, well into the last century. Blacks were forced to attend separate schools, drink from different fountains, ride at the back of the bus, etc. etc, long, long after they were "freed." There is absolutely NO comparison between what Blacks have endured in this country vs. what the Irish have endured in this country.
Only Native Americans have endured close to the level of injustice that Africans have in this country.
A much closer comparison would be to look at how the American Irish were treated vs. how the Chinese, or the Japanese, or the (then) Mexicans, or the Italians, or the Jews were treated in THIS country.