Hacker News Reader

Comment by forgotusername6 | Hacker News Reader

"Their immediate ancestors aren’t even from the same parts of the world; Mr. Chasen’s forebears hailed from Lithuania and Scotland, while Mr. Malone’s parents are from the Dominican Republic and the Bahamas."

Clearly both men have European ancestry so where their parents were born doesn't matter at all. They could have at least traced Malone's parents back a little further. Given the surname you'd expect Irish ancestry which overlaps with Scottish a fair bit.

View on HN

Googling Irish in the Bahamas gives a book on Amazon with this description "Beginning in the mid-16th century and down through the 18th century, thousands of immigrants of Scots-Irish origin migrated to the Bahamas, which included the Turks and Caicos Islands". Also Malone is an Irish surname. Ethnic groups would historically married within their own groups. The only slightly surprising elements are the locations.

I always find it interesting how people refer to this scenario. You said they migrated, which is true, in a sense. Lot of argument about this subject but I am less interested in the argument than the why of the argument.

On the one hand you have those bending over backwards to debunk the "myth" of Irish "slavery" (simple example [0]) by making sure everyone knows it was just indentured servitude where they were beat and killed with impunity and had no freedoms other than the potential to disguise themselves as free men due to their skin color, and if you call them slaves you're perpetuating white supremacist conspiracy theories.

On the other hand you have historical accounts of the Irish being treated identically to slaves [1].

Why? Why are some people so determined to twist history such that only one victim group is allowed? Not saying you're doing this; I am only using your choice of phrasing to bring this up in one of the few places where I might get an honest answer.

[0]: https://interzine.org/2020/10/18/repudiating-the-irish-slave...

[1]: http://dx.doi.org/10.37389/abei.v8i0.3721

This is a great point, and I appreciate the way you approached this. Irish slavery also occured within Ireland through Magdalene Laundries

[0]:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_Laundries_in_Irela...

Also appreciate how you approached this. I think it’s very important for individuals in multi-ethnic societies (or any society) to understand the history of how they got there, and it’s relation to society at the time and up to the present.

In the case of Irish indentured servants, I’m sure the difference between them and enslaved peoples from Africa were only academic from their perspective. And there is so much that I don’t understand in terms of the circumstances of them leaving Ireland. However with respect to the institutions that have developed since, equating the two requires a narrow analysis of the scale (numbers and time) and permanence (legal and cultural) of both. Hence the importance of understanding the facts of your own background in order to have healthy exchanges with people of different backgrounds (especially when historical, violent oppression is involved).

Edit: I should add and also excepting that others may have deeper understanding and taking a posture of learning instead of “winning” from the exchange.

I do see a difference between (my understanding of) indentured servitude and slavery.

If I [or my family] chose it (in exchange for passage, food, and/or opportunities), that feels materially different from my freedom being stolen me without anyone in my family having a choice in the matter and for any of my children to also be non-free.

Apologies if my understanding (from basic US schooling) mismatching the reality of things, of course.

There are millions of people in slavery today (considered slavery by contemporary standards) who "chose" to make the journey in exchange for passage, food and opportunities.

The vast majority are of South-asian (India/Bangladesh) and South-east-asian (Thailand) origin.

They sign agreements, get on those flights, and find out that too late that they've basically signed themselves into slavery.

This was the lot of the Irish, and of Indians under the British Raj. Indentured servitude differed in only one way from slavery... the slaves were property and could therefore be destroyed (killed) by their owners with impunity.

The case of the Indians was even worse because illiteracy meant that many were tricked into it. They thought they'd just be a short distance from home, and had no idea they were going to be transported across two oceans.

I read it was common to make the Irish woman slave to breed with the African slave, so that the child would be part African and owned by the slave master,

This made it very uncommon for the Irish slave to leave, as she would be leaving her child.

I read accounts of pale skin red headed children being sold at slave markets marketing as African.

But, this could just be some right wing talking points. I honestly don't know what's real online anymore.

What is it called when someone is kidnapped and forced by violence to labor without pay? That, whatever that is called, is what large numbers of Irish endured.

I was quoting the short description provided by Google, I fully accept that Irish slavery existed with the sacking of Baltimore being an interesting example as it was white people kidnapped into slavery by Africans.

Right. There is no such thing as a “Dominican” or “Bahamian” unless you are referring to full blooded native Taino, of which none exist. It’s all either African or European to varying degrees.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com