This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ireland C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. History C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Caribbean C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Folklore C‑class Low‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Folklore, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the topics of folklore and folklore studies. If you would like to participate, you may edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project's page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.FolkloreWikipedia:WikiProject FolkloreTemplate:WikiProject FolkloreFolklore C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ethnic groups C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

@Hesperian Nguyen:What you did was completely unprofessional. It was as if you stood up in the middle of a board meeting, pointed to a colleague across the table and announced to the entire room that he received a jaywalking violation the other week, as if that's supposed to invalidate everything he says. The issue I had with the block was a relatively minor infraction that's common among new editors and is currently getting resolved (which is why it took me so long to reply).

The section that discussed Irish involvement in slavery needs to be rewritten to cover the following points (and this is just a rough draft):

Although English navigation laws prevented Ireland from participating directly in the slave trade, many Irish merchants grew wealthy by supplying provisions and importing slave produce: exporting food, clothing and shoes to the slave colonies, and importing sugar, tobacco and other cash crops.[cite Liam Hogan, cite Nini Rodgers] Economic growth in Cork, Limerick, and Belfast in the 18th Century was driven by exports of salted and pickled provisions, while the Caribbean sugar trade gave rise to a burgeoning Catholic middle class in urban cities (particularly Dublin) and enhanced their political visibility.[cite Rodgers]

Despite English restrictions, several Irish people, Protestants and Catholics, were able to profit more directly from slavery by working through the empires of others. [cite Rodgers] Historian Jane Ohlmeyer has written that, "By 1660 Irish people, mostly men, were to be found in the French Caribbean, the Portuguese and later Dutch Amazon, Spanish Mexico, and the English colonies in the Atlantic and Asia where they joined colonial settlements, served as soldiers and clergymen, forged commercial networks as they traded calicos, spices, tobacco, sugar, and slaves." [cite Ohlmeyer]

And then something to the effect of this needs to be mentioned:

A reoccurring theme in Irish slaves mythology is a claim that Irish Catholics made up two-thirds of the slave population of the Anglo-Caribbean island of Montserrat by the close of the 17th Century. In reality, Irish Catholics comprised more than two-thirds of Montserrat's plantation class, and according to Donald Akenson ‘they well knew how to be hard and efficient slave masters’. [cite Akenson]

This is the material that needs to be covered in that section of the article. As I have explained to you several times, ISM proponents use this myth for racist or nationalist political purposes, and that invariably involves writing the Irish out of the history of transatlantic slavery. Historians have responded to these arguments with specific examples of how Irish people benefitted both directly and indirectly from slave economies, and those responses need to be summarised for readers. What you've done here is used this article as a soapbox for apologetics, downplaying the role Irish people played in slavery and deflecting the blame onto the British. This is not how any of these historians have responded to ISM claims. This is how Brian Kelly tried weighing into the debate, but Brian Kelly is not recognised as an authority on this subject and it should be rather obvious why this is.

If you still don't understand why historians with expertise in the history of Ireland, Irish economics and transatlantic slavery haven't found it worth their time to respond to Brian Kelly's arguments it's because:

i. Kelly has an extremely skewed understanding of the economic conditions in Early Modern Ireland and how they compared to other European countries at the time. He writes about Irish economic conditions as if they were "extremely miserable". This view is contradicted by economic historian Liam Kennedy's work, which shows that the conditions in Ireland were closer to European averages at the time, and in many respects were even better.

ii. It is no big insight to say that wealthy people and aristocrats benefitted the most from the slave trade, or that slave trading profits accrued unequally. The same could be said of every single European country that was involved in transatlantic chattel slavery.

iii. Kelly is a labour historian who writes about economics from a Marxist perspective, and thus downplays the ways in which ordinary Irish people benefitted from slavery. He simply doesn't understand the relationship between imports, prices, and living standards as it's understood in capitalist economics. This is one of several reasons why media outlets reporting on the ISM have cited economic historian Liam Kennedy as an expert and not Brian Kelly.

iv. Irish involvement in slavery was not confined to Ireland, the Anglo-Caribbean or Anglo-America. There were Irish people who operated through the empires of France, Spain, the Netherlands, and Portugal, and these topics are covered by historians from a transnational perspective.

Basically, Kelly has an amateurish and politically biased understanding of the history of slavery and economics and it just isn't worth anyone's time to respond to him since he has virtually no influence over this debate. He's been brought up only because you dug him up to whitewash (or maybe green-wash) sections of this article with sources that even under the most liberal interpretation of Wiki's RS rules do not qualify.

If no other editors weigh in here in a day or two I am going to move this discussion over to the RS message board for third party opinions on Brian Kelly. And that'll have to do as far as consensus goes. In the meantime I would ask you again to restore the citation you removed from the lede of the article.Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had to look for the remarks made about your block - they're in the talk page archive, were made almost two months ago, and were archived over a month ago! Streisand effect, much? I would suggest a >5.7kb addition to a talk page is potentially going to result in a proper trouting. Brian Kelly (historian), in your opinion, might have "an amateurish and politically biased understanding of the history of slavery and economics", but as a published academic in the field, his credentials far outweigh yours. To suggest his works can't be used as a reliable source is risible. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't archive the conversation. I brought it up because it was inappropriate to mention in the first place and was used as a way to avoid having to contend with my suggestions.

What difference does it make how long ago it was? I was trying to resolve a block issue and had more important priorities than cleaning up this page.

That you and other editors here think that Brian Kelly is a reliable source for this article is an indicator that you don't know how to review academic research, much less assess the credentials of perfectly anonymous strangers. Brian Kelly does not have "credentials in the field". He's a historian of US labour relations in the post-antebellum and has no experience researching any of the topics covered in this article (Irish economic and social history, transatlantic slavery, etc). That alone is enough to disqualify him. What's worse, he published his pieces in magazines which weren't reviewed by other scholars. History Ireland is not necessarily an RS and HI articles need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. That Marxist political magazine is most definitely not reliable for academic history topics. Why hasn't he published his works through the appropriate scholarly channels? Why haven't other scholars reviewed or responded to his work? He's simply some obscure labour historian that you and/or other editors used to green-wash sections of the article.

This article has got nothing to do with the potato famine, which class "presided over the miseries of the famine", and is most definitely not a venue to litigate which "class" was or wasn't complicit in the transatlantic slave trade.

Have it your way. I'm taking this over to the RS noticeboard right now.Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've had fun there. Only warning, stop the personal attacks. I did not "greenwash" the article in any way shape or form, and in fact am close to 100% sure I've not introduced anything related to Kelly to the article. I have defended it from white supremacists/apologists/those taken in by the likes of Seán O'Callaghan's book. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know you didn't make those edits (as I indicated on the noticeboard after you left), and my criticisms weren't directed at you personally or any individual editor. This whole process has just been extremely frustrating and I still feel as if I haven't effectively made my case.

Let me make this short so I don't get yelled at again. The prevailing opinion on the noticeboard appears to be that Brian Kelly is reliable because he's a historian. I would continue to insist that BK's area of expertise does not make him authoritative on the topic we are covering, but I'm not sure how reliability is assessed on those boards. On the other hand, at least two editors were leaning in the direction of undue, and one I believe was open to both undue and fringe based on how BK is being quoted here.

The same editor who quoted Kelly in this article has cited him in the Slavery in Ireland article. This is a curious thing. Why has a US labour historian been awarded so much space on articles having to do with Ireland and transatlantic slavery when there's got to be 100 reliable historians who deal with this subject more directly in their research?Jonathan f1 (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just for future reference: and I still feel as if I haven't effectively made my case. You needn't to and actually, after a certain point, you shouldn't, which a few editors and I have suggested.

but I'm not sure how reliability is assessed on those boards. For sources, that's WP:RS policy. We'd often determine if: the resource is self-published or reputably published, whether (and how strong) is the editorial oversight, people who write it and publish in it, if the factual accuracy is high and they are known for fact-checking (the latter concerns news organisations more), and WP:USEBYOTHERS. Be warned that "factual accuracy" does not mean "if there is inconsistency in a scholarly debate, I decide to be on the side of whatever has more appeal to me", it has more to do with more obvious cases or those that have been fact-checked (i.e. if someone is known to misquote folks, produce/propagate conspiracy theories and notoriously does not correct the inaccuracies/lies, then it fails the factual accuracy criterion). In the case of such inconsistencies, WP:BALANCE applies.

For people, often WP:DUE applies, which means we will establish if a person is a subject-matter expert, has necessary credentials for the topic and if the person has previously published at least some peer-reviewed materials on the topic in question, and if the opinion on the subject is majority, sizable minority or WP:FRINGE.

when there's got to be 100 reliable historians who deal with this subject more directly in their research? Cite them, what's the deal? Go for it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Szmenderowiecki:The deal is, I can't edit the article even if other editors agreed to my suggestions. The last time I edited an article that was similarly low-quality I was punished with an article space block. The administrators I've been working with told me to take some time to practice using the talk pages and reaching consensus with other contributors before making an unblock request. So I can only edit talk pages for now.

Even if I could edit the article, I want to rewrite an entire section that one editor here (not Bastun) has been jealously guarding. The section having to do with Irish involvement in slavery - a topic that's been covered extensively by historians who've responded to the Irish slaves myth - is too short and what few lines have been dedicated to it are highly misleading. Readers are essentially presented with a fake debate between Nini Rodgers and Brian Kelly that makes no sense if you actually read what Rodgers has written.Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Write out your proposal here, with citations. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but I may need a couple of days to find the time. I'll open up a new talk section with the proposals. In the meantime I emailed Nini Rodgers to see if she can help clarify a few issues.Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lede of the article used to contain a line sourced to The Irish Times that read, "[The Irish slaves myth] also obscures the history of Irish involvement in the transatlantic slave trade, often serving Irish republican ends." The editor Hesperian Nguyen (from now on HN) reworded the sentence and removed the citation. I've been politely asking HN to restore the cite for two months but these requests have been ignored. What Liam Hogan actually said was, "The Irish slaves myth is also a convenient focal point for nationalist histories as it obscures the critically underwritten story of how so many Irish people .. benefited from the Atlantic slave trade and other colonial exploits in multiple continents for hundreds of years."[1]

In the background section, the first sentence of the last paragraph used to read, "During this same period, the Atlantic slave trade was transporting millions of Africans across the Atlantic and bringing them to various European colonies in America (including British America) where they were purchased by European colonists and put to work." This was a good segue into a section on how Ireland and Irish people interacted with the Black Atlantic World, but was similarly removed. I would suggest rewriting this paragraph and expanding the section to cover the following material:

During this same period, the transatlantic slave trade was transporting millions of Africans across the Atlantic and bringing them to various European colonies in the Americas where they were purchased by European colonists and put to work. Although England's navigation laws prevented Ireland from participating directly in the trade, Irish merchants of different religious and social backgrounds generated significant wealth by exporting supplies to overseas plantations and importing slave produce into Ireland.^[1] Exports of salted and pickled provisions were central to economic expansion in 18th Century Cork, Limerick, and Belfast, while imports of Caribbean sugar contributed to urban growth and the rise of a Catholic middle class. Historian Nini Rodgers has written that by the 18th Century 'Ireland was very much a part of the Black Atlantic World'.^[2]

More ambitious Irishmen were able to circumvent England's mercantilist system by working through other empires. Jane Ohlmeyer notes that by the 17th Century, Irish people, both Protestants and Catholics, 'were to be found in the French Caribbean, the Portuguese and later Dutch Amazon, Spanish Mexico, and the English colonies in the Atlantic where they forged commercial networks as they traded calicos, spices, tobacco, sugar, and slaves'.^[3] The French port of Nantes, in particular, was dominated by a close-knit community of exiled Irish Jacobites, and rose to prominence in the 18th Century as France's foremost slave trading port.^[4]

A reoccurring theme in Irish slaves mythology concerns the Anglo-Caribbean island of Montserrat, where proponents of the myth claim that two-thirds of the slave population consisted of Irish Catholics. In reality, Irish Catholics made up more than two-thirds of the island's plantation class as early as the late 17th Century, and according to historian Donald Akenson 'they knew how to be hard and efficient slave masters'.^[5]

This is obviously a rough draft so word it any way you'd like. But the material that should be covered in this section is: one, how the slave trade and slavery-related commercial networks impacted on Ireland's economy; two, how Irish people in and outside of Ireland benefitted from slavery; and three, how scholars have responded to specific claims made by ISM proponents (ie Montserrat).

As it concerns the Brian Kelly content HN included, I don't know what else to say. The whole essay is essentially a postcolonial critique which by itself is a controversial method of analysis in Irish historiography, and one that Rodgers explicitly rejects. That also applies to the Gera Burton review HN sourced, which misinterpreted Rodgers' work.Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) What you propose adding seems reasonable, in general, except for the fact that some of it is perhaps a little off topic for this article, and may be more appropriate for Slavery_in_Ireland#Atlantic_slave_trade.

2) Please don't re-hash the Kelly argument again. Please. Kelly mentions two sentences in the whole article, total. One is a criticism of 'To Hell or Barbados'. This was already recently discussed at length with a consensus that it could be included. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. Maybe some of it is outside the scope of the article, but how do reliable sources cover the Irish slaves myth? Liam Hogan spends just as much time addressing Irish involvement in slavery as he does the myth itself -- not as separate interests, but part and parcel of the same discourse. In light of this I don't think devoting a couple paragraphs of one section of an article to this topic is overkill. Just my opinion.

Concerning Montserrat, this is directly related to the main subject of the article and should be covered somewhere. Liam Hogan, Laura McAtackney and Matthew Reilly have addressed this argument here [2] and here [3] among other places.

2. Let me see if I understand this correctly. There was a fiery debate some time ago and the consensus that rose out of it was: Ireland's involvement in the Atlantic slave economy is only worth four sentences, and one of them should be sourced to Gera Burton and another to Brian Kelly.

It's not Kelly's coverage of To Hell or Barbados that's at issue nor is it the number of times Burton and Kelly have been cited. It's two sentences in particular and what these two were quoted as saying.

HN wrote, However, "very little of the slave trade profits actually wound up in Ireland," and sourced it to Burton's review of Rodgers' book. Other editors may find this scholarly exchange between Burton and Rodgers illuminating [4]

Burton's whole thing is that Ireland's economy was "languishing in Britain's control". This is a common postcolonial trope and one that Kelly eloquently regurgitates in his essay. Rodgers finds this argument incoherent. She also finds sections of Burton's review misleadingly inaccurate in characterising her thesis: "At one point Burton notes the importance of urban growth in eighteenth-century Ireland, at another she states firmly that the island’s economy was ‘languishing in British control’. The text stresses that even without admission to the slave trade, within the imperial regulations laid down by Westminster, Ireland benefited from mercantile contacts with the slave plantation complex. The argument that Ireland was part of the ‘Black Atlantic’ is the thesis upon which this book is based." Rodgers also writes that slavery had an impact on "everyone from the rich and powerful to the poor and oppressed."

Which brings us to Kelly's class argument: "..overwhelmingly the benefits of Ireland’s involvement in transatlantic slavery went to the same class that presided over the misery that culminated in the horrors of famine and mass starvation."

Kelly simply scanned a UCL database which contained the names of slaveholders resident in Ireland who were financially compensated after Britain abolished the slave trade, and then made broad generalisations based on what was barely even a snapshot of nearly three centuries of slavery. Regarding the UCL database Laura McAtackney has cautioned: "The people on the UCL database are only a tiny fraction of the [people] who owned slaves historically, even at that point in time, or benefited through businesses and ventures financed through slavery." And regarding Kelly's argument about where all of the profits accrued, McAtackney said, "Let’s deal with a few of the most typical ‘whataboutery’ comments that always appear BTL with such articles. Those Irish people who directly benefited from slavery were not just the ‘Protestant upper classes’. The Catholic landed and middle classes were slave owners too."

I don't know about you, but I find it a little disconcerting that an editor covered this topic in a way that's been described by a reliable historian as a diversionary tactic used by non-historians in the comment sections of Irish slaves myth articles. Laura McAtackney doesn't agree with this statement, Liam Hogan doesn't agree with this statement, Donald Akenson doesn't agree with it, Matthew Reilly and Nini Rodgers don't agree with it. But editors here reached a consensus.

Well okay then. I appreciate your patience in addressing my concerns.Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) We already have a separate Slavery in Ireland article, where some of those issues can be addressed. Alanscottwalker, above, suggested you write out your proposed text, complete with references, and post it here - that's a good suggestion.

2) I, and others, previously requested on several occasions that you drop this, as it's already been covered at extreme length. I will not be responding again to 2), so please don't waste your time writing more about this. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did write out the proposals with references and the response I got from you was basically "sounds reasonable, but it's outside the scope of this article," or something to that effect. If Ireland's role in slavery was too off-topic for this article (and it's not, as every RS, without exception, says otherwise), why did I waste my time trying to improve that section? There are four sentences covering this, and one of them is misleading and another is a statement that has no support in any other RS.

I really don't enjoy arguing with you about this. But even ignoring the Burton and Kelly edits, there's a troubling pattern of non-neutral edits in that section.Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, Jonathan - I misread your main contribution above and, for whatever reason, didn't realise that was actually the proposed text. My bad. I'll re-read that tomorrow in comparison to the existing text. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki editors who know this topic well will understand the reason the Irish were not participating in chattel slavery in the Americans is because of the legal evolution of slavery law that outlawed the enslavement of Christians. Irish suffered in all sorts of slavery-like conditions but were not chattel slaves and gave them legal protections, except in Algiers where existed under different legal status. However Irish are not the only group that are mistakenly thought of as chattel slaves. One obvious example is indigenous Americans. Indigenous Americans came under European domination under rule of Spain or other states, were converted and they existed under a legal status akin feudal subjects in Europe or in others cases entirely free. There are countless cases of exploitation of indigenous Americans under colonisation but they were not chattel slaves and they had legal privileges that Africans lacked. This is rarely acknowledged. I find it curious that there is no such Wikipedia page on the indigenous American slavery myth. Why not?Aerchasúr (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's no such myth, and between 2.5 and 5 million Native Americans were enslaved? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chattel slavery existed, but usually illegally or very early before they were converted. There was no legal basis for Indian chattel slaves unlike Africans. In fact it partially because Indians couldnt be legally chattel thanks to the friar Bartolomé de las Casas that colonists turned to Africa for slaves. Did you get the 2.5 and 5 million figure from this NPR interview of by Andrés Reséndez? https://www.npr.org/2017/11/20/565410514/an-american-secret-the-untold-story-of-native-american-enslavement?t=1622981857689 If so funny you forgot the following paragraph

"Unlike African slavery, which was legal for centuries and sanctioned by states and empires around the world, Indian slavery was very early on made illegal," Reséndez says. "However, because Native American labor had been essential to all of the economic activities going on during this first generation of colonialism, it was unthinkable for the European colonists to do without native slaves. And so they very quickly devised all kinds of subterfuges and euphemisms in order to continue to profit from the coerced labor of natives by calling it different names."

Indigenous Americans were not chattel slaves. However we know only too well that banning of indigenous slavery ≠ to no exploitation or abuses. The broader point is either we are annal about associating the idea of slavery with chattel slavery or not. Aerchasúr (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you're treated as a chattel slave, even though that's illegal, you're still a chattel slave. Chattel slavery != indentured servitude, if that's what you're angling towards. If Wikipedia is lacking an article on Native American chattel slavery, by all means, start one. This article, however, is about something else entirely, namely the Irish slaves myth, and as WP is not a forum, there doesn't seem to be anything else to say here about that. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this some distraction into whataboutism? None of this is relevant, here. (see WP:NOR) If you want to write an article about your asserted claims, you need many reliable sources that directly say, myth. But you have not provided any, and this would not be the place to provide them. Moreover, your purported subject is literally all over the western hemisphere, among a multitude of various peoples, under several different regimes (for example, it is asserted by some scholars that around the 1660s as many as 50,000 indigenous were transported from North America into chattel slavery). Many indigenous never became Christian, and many who did were at knife point and many indigenous, it is well known, could not survive mere contact with Europeans or anyone from the 'Old World' over large distances, let alone close in slavery, and also indigenous had the lay of the land for avoidance, escape, and blending into their people (and then there are places like the islands where whole peoples were subject to genocide, including some worked to death, leading to import of Africans). But none of your topic belongs here. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Struggling to follow your point Alanscottwalker. Harsh treatment is nothing to do with the question of slavery. Being forcibly transported does not confirm someone is a chattel slave. Many Irish were forcibly transported to the Americas, and it seems inconceivable that at points there was never chattel slaves of all nationalities (albeit illegally) in the New World. The case you mention was English colonists, which had much vaguer laws to protect Indians than the Catholic World, but I can't confirm it either way. Can you? Being forcibly or nominally converted still protected one against being a slave. Check out the bulls Inter caetera (1493), Sublimus Dei (1537), and the Valladolid debateAerchasúr (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]