irish Indentured Servants

Initially I assumed this to be a moot point, but the crux of the historiography involved here is the usage of the term "slave". Perhaps, I could be wrong about this lexical distinction, but it seems have far reaching implications into the task of reconstructing an objective sense of the past. It is easy enough for anyone to grant slavery an operational definition, but in doing so we load it with the cultural appropriations of what we believe the institute of slavery was. This projection is ultimately ahistorical, but also largely absurd, as we are looking to alter our vision of the past to justify the contemporary world. What is more, this act of contextual approximation is applicable to both those who seek to appropriate the Irish Cromwellian captivity with African slavery, just as much as it is to those who seek to deny it. However, this seems like a larger criticism of the task of revisionism in historiography in general, rather than a critique specific to this subject.

What perhaps complicates this issue is that the British slave trade in the 17th century lacks legal parameters, as the state itself did not see fit to qualify the nature of the practice. If we are looking to develop an objective notion of what these Irish prisoners were, we are frustrated at the start. It seems like a point well taken, and well spelled out here, that they were not equitable to the institution of chattel slavery, which was supported in the zeitgeist of the 17th century by a separate set of moral and civil suppositions. However, the term "indentured servants", with its neutral and voluntary connotation, seems equally ill-fitted for the categorization of the Irish. Those taken to Barbados were first and foremost prisoners of war- not a role that is undertaken voluntarily by anyone. They exist in a poorly defined limbo outside the common use of both terms, but their association with either institution is ultimately an anachronism.

The relationship between the role of the Irish of Barbados and the British penal system is perhaps noteworthy, as the use of forced labor would becomes a cornerstone of larger British state policies regarding the utility of criminals. However, the exploration of this type of institution is also problematic as to opens to door to generalizations about the nature of forced labor. That is to say, we would be forced to equate the nature of forced labor with one familiar institutions or another, rather than recognizing the peculiar historical space that it resides in.

For that reason, I would suggest the proper use of the term "bondsman", which is left intentionally contextually ambiguous. Moreover, if the task of historiography is not to make appropriations, this is the term that is applied to them by contemporary sources, such as Richard Boyle, Earl of Cork. It does not negate the experience of the African slave trade, nor does it seek to negate the experience of the Irish in general.

However, I do not look to impose myself in any serious debate. I thought it best to offer this as a consideration that can assumed at anyone's discretion.

There is no need for this article to create a new fork of that one. We should point people to that article for that discussion. 09:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking at talk history, I see that was my comment above, which I must have signed with too many tildes. The Irish slaves myth article is longer than our section on it. There are (at least) two choices for linking to that article from this article's section "Comparisons to slavery," one calling the longer article "main" and the other calling it "further." I had proposed the former, but after thinking about it I agree with @Alanscottwalker: that "further" is the better choice here. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2023 and 13 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amy Fitz (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by ChurinPeruana (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Exactly why is this article even necessary? Why can't some of this content be incorporated into a general article on indentured servitude? In fact only a small minority of indentured servants were Irish or from Ireland -most were English and Scottish -and signing indentures was the most common way by which British colonists paid for passage to the Americas. Why single out the Irish in a separate article?

And why write that Irish "vagrants" and "POWs" who were forcefully transported "weren't indentures"? While technically true (they didn't sign a contract or give consent), scholars have stressed the fact that they were still governed by the laws that apply to indentured servants and weren't "slaves". Given the confusion over the Irish slaves myth, this should be mentioned in the lead if it must be mentioned at all.

But I question the purpose of this article and find the subject to be undeserving of a separate page. Just what are you trying to get readers to believe about "Irish" indentured servants that is unique and separate from other European servants who don't have their own page? Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Specifically regarding the "comparisons to slavery" section in this article and editors playing fast and loose with sources to make it seem like there's some big academic debate or ambiguity around the servant/slave distinction. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)