O'Reilly Compares Irish to African Slaves

[Krypto-Communist]

Why am I not surprised?


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.

Link (http://mediamatters.org/items/200510060002)

[Martin Blank]

Gee, I don't remember anywhere in the books I've read on the subject where it said that Africans voluntarily boarded the ships -- which is what O'Really is implying.

Miles

[Colombia]

The point of this is? It seems a trivial matter really.

[Hampton]

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.

Africans didn't "have to leave", they were fine where they were. They were taken from thier home and brought here. They succeeded after about 200 years of being slaves with no rights.


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 --

O'REILLY: Can we get that stat? Can we get that stat?



Sure...

http://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/images/race_us_prison.jpg

And saying that it is mostly white but that it is "disproportionately African-American" makes no sense.

[PRC-UTE]

The problem isn't the comparison, which has some validity (Kalr Marx made the same comparison once) - it's his implication that "if the Irish could do it africans could" is totally ahistorical and racist. There weren't laws banning Irish people from learning to read, nor were the wives and children violently taken from them, once they got to America. In Ireland they experienced pretty much the same conditions as African Americans.

Cromwell did sell into slavery 100,000 Irish people who were "bred" with the slaves already in the caribean. One of the caribean countries still has the shamrock as its state seal actually. And there were Irishmen exiled to Australia and put in forced labour there. I also couldn't charactarise the Irish (or Highland Scottish) immigration as voluntary since they were often forced to leave at bayonet point.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Wow, all this time I thought the African people were enslaved, with shackles on their arms and legs, and forced to come to the Americas as slaves.. apparently they "African-Americans had to leave Africa and come over on a boat and try to make in the New World with nothing."


One of the caribean countries still has the shamrock as its state seal actually.

What country is that?

[Xvall]

Well, O'reilly is a piece of shit. This does not surprise me at all.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 11:38 PM

One of the caribean countries still has the shamrock as its state seal actually.

What country is that?
Not sure, I think it might've been Barbados. I'll try to recall where I read that.

[Tekun]

That ignorant simpleton is nothing less than a racist
Fox News' puppet

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8e/Barbados_coa.png

Those red things in the corner are supposed to be shamrocks?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Wait never mind:


The Golden Shield in the Coat of Arms carries two "Pride of Barbados" flowers and the "Bearded" Fig Tree (ficus Citrifolia) which was common on the island at the time of its settlement by the British and contributed to Barbados being so named.

[praxis1966]

What O'Rielly said is a distortion for sure, but that doesn't change the fact that the Irish were severly oppressed both in Ireland and in the States. For instance, the reason why my mother's maiden name is Keefe was because her grandfather was forced to drop the "O'" in order to find a job.

Also, the Irish were actually preferred to do the most dangerous work in the mining industry because, as the old saying goes, you don't have to pay a dead Irishman. Whereas with slaves you've made an investment you can't get back if the guy dies. Furthermore, Irish soldiers were actually banned from attending mass at one point and were flogged if they were caught doing so. As a matter of fact, a good number of them defected and fought for the Mexicans during the Mexican-American war due to such persecution.

In any case, I wouldn't compare any of the above to slavery, but it pretty well sucked none the less.

[slim]

I have drawn a new conclusion, perhaps intended, perhaps not.

Slaves come with chains and without chains. Capitalism enslaves. We are slaves of capitalism, whether we wear chains or not.

[Severian]

There certainly were Irish as unfree laborers in colonial North America - "indentured servants", mostly. By some accounts, some early slave rebellions included both Black and white participants. Probably not all of those indentured servants signed on voluntarily; there were press gangs and so forth...

But of course O'Reilly's analogy's full of shit: indentured servitude seems to have died out...around the time of the Revolution? And Irish were never subjected to Jim Crow segregation in this country, nor are they discriminated against today the way Black people still are.

***

I tend to think Cromwell gets blamed for everything the British ever did in Ireland at any period of history. If an Irish nationalist says a British monarch did something, after all, it will be disputed, and if it's exaggerated, refuted.

But almost nobody's going to defend Cromwell the regicide, certainly not the British monarchy. Any mud can be stuck on him.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 08:45 PM
I have drawn a new conclusion, perhaps intended, perhaps not.

Slaves come with chains and without chains. Capitalism enslaves. We are slaves of capitalism, whether we wear chains or not.
no offence, but isn't that one of the really basic and fundamental conclusions that people need to come to in order to oppose capitalism? seems a truism to me.

i just don't see why you had to say it.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 11:09 AM
There certainly were Irish as unfree laborers in colonial North America - "indentured servants", mostly. By some accounts, some early slave rebellions included both Black and white participants. Probably not all of those indentured servants signed on voluntarily; there were press gangs and so forth...

There were slaves in the caribean, but overall the Irish were 'free' labourers when they arrived in America. Though in Ireland the penal laws (which had just been overturned) made the Irish as serfs essentially.


But of course O'Reilly's analogy's full of shit: indentured servitude seems to have died out...around the time of the Revolution? And Irish were never subjected to Jim Crow segregation in this country, nor are they discriminated against today the way Black people still are.

Not Irish Americans, no, but Irish immigration has largely ceased to the US because of their treatment post 9/11. Only the Arabs (or percieved Arabs) have been treated worse.

But you're right -as I said before, there weren't laws making it a crime to teach Irish to read, or to own a firearm, and so on.


I tend to think Cromwell gets blamed for everything the British ever did in Ireland at any period of history. If an Irish nationalist says a British monarch did something, after all, it will be disputed, and if it's exaggerated, refuted.

But almost nobody's going to defend Cromwell the regicide, certainly not the British monarchy. Any mud can be stuck on him.

What are you trying to say, or can you just come out and say it. I see the implications of what you're saying when you say "certainly not the British monarchy".

Cromwell halved the population of Ireland and burned churches full of people, destroyed the attempted alliance between levellers and Irish clans, did sell 100,000 Irish people into slavery (see the works of Dr Seamus Metress if you don't believe me :rolleyes: ) . . . and your point is that we exagerate???? Maybe I'm not understanding.

[slim]

Originally posted by rioters [email protected] 8 2005, 01:02 PM

no offence, but isn't that one of the really basic and fundamental conclusions that people need to come to in order to oppose capitalism? seems a truism to me.

i just don't see why you had to say it.
None taken.

Ive never really considered that particular reason in this context. Capitalism is enslaving by nature and materialism and such often imprison people but now i have thought of it in a slightly different way. Whether there is materialism or not, capitalism will enslave but using brute force. Therefore, materialism is not the enemy, if we get rid of it then capitalists will simply resort to brute to make us work. Hmmm.... this doesnt sound like it should, not very original. Lets just say i have an untranslatable breakthrough.lol.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 09:58 AM
Cromwell halved the population of Ireland and burned churches full of people, destroyed the attempted alliance between levellers and Irish clans, did sell 100,000 Irish people into slavery (see the works of Dr Seamus Metress if you don't believe me :rolleyes: ) . . . and your point is that we exagerate???? Maybe I'm not understanding.
Yeah, I would say most of those statements are exaggerations which persist because obviously the British monarchy isn't going to defend Cromwell, and not much of anyone else does either. Any truth that goes wholly uncontested will eventually become false through exaggeration.

Halved the population of Ireland! Under the conditions of the time (the roads for starters), that would be difficult if he spent his whole life doing nothing else.

Cromwell is the convenient scapegoat for all of Britain's sins in Ireland.

He did commit atrocities by the standards of our time; for example the massacre of the garrison of Drogheda. By the standards of that time....have you read Shakespeare's Henry V, on the consequences of continuing to fight after the wall is breached?

"If not- why, in a moment look to see
The blind and bloody with foul hand
Defile the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters;
Your fathers taken by the silver beards,
And their most reverend heads dash'd to the walls;
Your naked infants spitted upon pikes,
Whiles the mad mothers with their howls confus'd
Do break the clouds, as did the wives of Jewry
At Herod's bloody-hunting slaughtermen.
What say you? Will you yield, and this avoid?
Or, guilty in defence, be thus destroy'd?"

That was the rules of war, at that time.

[slim]

For starters, Henry V and Cromwell were two and a half centuries apart so they could hardly have acted by the same rules.

Cromwell was just another monster in a war torn Europe. Thirty years before Cromwell there was a situation of near genocide in Ireland and the embers still burned in his time. Catholics and Protestants fought eachother and many thousands were killed in the violence. Cromwell's task was to end support for the executed King Charles in Ireland. He did so with brutality and will always be infamous for it, exaggerated or not he left a scar in Irish history that was never forgiven.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Severian+Oct 9 2005, 01:01 AM--> (Severian @ Oct 9 2005, 01:01 AM)
[email protected] 8 2005, 09:58 AM
Cromwell halved the population of Ireland and burned churches full of people, destroyed the attempted alliance between levellers and Irish clans, did sell 100,000 Irish people into slavery (see the works of Dr Seamus Metress if you don't believe me :rolleyes: ) . . . and your point is that we exagerate???? Maybe I'm not understanding.
Yeah, I would say most of those statements are exaggerations which persist because obviously the British monarchy isn't going to defend Cromwell, and not much of anyone else does either. Any truth that goes wholly uncontested will eventually become false through exaggeration.

Halved the population of Ireland! Under the conditions of the time (the roads for starters), that would be difficult if he spent his whole life doing nothing else.

Cromwell is the convenient scapegoat for all of Britain's sins in Ireland. [/b]
I was wrong about the population. It went from 1,448,000 to 616,000. More than half.

Much of it was indirect, because his scorched earth policy caused a famine, but that was his intention. The direct includes massacring any "papists" he could (including children, "nits make lice").

He evokes such a strong response in Irish people because of his actual policies, not because Irish "nationalists" are too emotional or because the crown doesn't defend him. You forget that Cromwell is a hero to some English - so much so that the English International Brigade in Spain named themselves after him.

Cromwell was the first to really pursue a racial policy in Ireland - he ordered that all Irish had to be west of the Shannon by May 1 1654 or die. As he put it "to hell or Connaught". Irish bands fled to the hills and when they returned to civilization they found that by law virtually no catholics could own land and the protestant ascendancy began in ernest.

[Severian]

I think Wikipedia is pretty decent on this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Confederate_Wars)

Note those death toll estimates are for the whole series of wars from 1641 to 1653; obviously Cromwell cannot be blamed for all the massacres, scorched earth, and death which occurred before he landed in 1649.

Slim:

Shakespeare's plays reflect the attitudes of his time, which was not much before Cromwell's. Not the times he was writing about: Shakespeare was far from historically accurate.

The "Henry V" policy described was very much practiced in the 17th century; look up the sack of Magdeburg or the Thirty Years War generally. Or, for that matter, check the Wikipedia article I just linked for the massacres conducted by Irish rebels at the beginning of the Confederation Wars.

Cromwell, at least in England, was very merciful by 17th-century standards; the discipline of his New Model Army helped lay the foundation for a new kind of rules of war. (See the "Lessons of Terror" for Caleb Carr for a good overview of warfare against civilians and how it's become somewhat limited.) Even in Ireland, Drogheda and Wexford were in no way exceptional for the time..

He certainly was not the first to expel native Irish to make way for settlers.

BTW, I should comment on this from before:

destroyed the attempted alliance between levellers and Irish clans,

As you can see from the Wikipedia article, Cromwell in fact destroyed the actual alliance between the Irish rebels and the British Crown. Irish soldiers fought for King on the other British isle, too.

The Ireland that produced Wolfe Tone and James Connolly did not exist in the 17th century.

[Bannockburn]

Yeah we know about blacks, yeah we know about the Irish – the question is so what – what is your point? Since slavery, oppression, genocide has happened to almost every “race” on the face of the planet, all arguments of oppression and slavery become ad infinitum and looses all meaning. Its absurd logic.

[PRC-UTE]

Severian,

I don't know why you'd go to Wikipedia, hardly anything approaching a decent scholarly work on the subject. That's what I rely upon, from such others as Ellis, Dr Metress and so on. That article you linked to doesn't even mention the attempt at a pact between Owen Roe and the Levellers who were agitating in Cromwell's army (their pamphelt can be purchased at ak press btw).


As you can see from the Wikipedia article, Cromwell in fact destroyed the actual alliance between the Irish rebels and the British Crown. Irish soldiers fought for King on the other British isle, too.

As you can see from the Wikipedia article, the Irish fought primarily for their own interests.


The Ireland that produced Wolfe Tone and James Connolly did not exist in the 17th century.

Tautology - I've never claimed otherwise.


The "Henry V" policy described was very much practiced in the 17th century; look up the sack of Magdeburg or the Thirty Years War generally. Or, for that matter, check the Wikipedia article I just linked for the massacres conducted by Irish rebels at the beginning of the Confederation Wars.


Those lies about massacres have been debunked. Only anglophile scholars continue to repeat them. As the historian MacManus already proved, the stories about Irish massacring protestants was so exagerated that they claimed more were massacred than existed at the time. All of the primary source evidence proves that the Irish Catholics did attack landlords but not protestants in general, and the Irish Confederate parliament went so far as to offer compensation for any losses protestant churches suffered.


Cromwell, at least in England, was very merciful by 17th-century standards;


I've already porovided evidence from reputable scholars that disproves what you're saying. Cromwell was on his own personal religious crusade and he was the second worst thing to happen to Ireland.