Were the Irish effectively enslaved by the English at various periods...

Seems like semantics to me. They weren't technically slaves, but indentured bondage is still kinda the same thing in practical terms. They were deprived of their autonomy, unpaid and forced to perform labour for someone else's gain. I doubt the historians in question actually pretend those indentured irish had a "good time". It's probably more of a technicality like how serfdom =/= slavery, although both amounted to similar restrictions and burdens being put on the individual.

Newspapers reporting on history usually can't help but politicise it to hell and back.

To acknowledge that the Irish and Italians were oppressed in America or people from the Balkans under the Ottomans goes against the narrative that American media is trying to push that whites are impossible to be discriminated against and nothing bad has ever happened to them.

Next the chinks who built the railroads will be said to have had a great time doing it. Niggerlovers must hang.

Yes indeed, they were never enslaved, merely there were some who agreed to work for a certain amount of time to pay for passage, lodging, and perhaps skills to be learned, a practical arrangement for a people that have nothing to their name.

Well they certainly came in droves to help on the railroad, didn't they?

Hey Liam Stack.

Hey fuck you dude I wish I could take you from your home, throw you onto a boat against your will and ship you across the Atlantic to work for free.

Fucking faggot

you say that like a free trip to america is a bad thing

Lol you faggot they were rounded up and forced over

You're such a revisionist bitch

I just wish I could treat you the same way desu.

Oh shit but in 2017 that would be international slavery

why are you so emotional?

>its an anglo revisionism episode

Anyone is taught this very plainly in their elementary schooling, I can't see where you come off buying into myth.

There was no chattel slavery of the Irish, not ever (at least under the British crown).

To be fair, the majority weren't. I think the conservative estimates for forced irish servitude are about 10k, the liberal estimates 20k and the conspiratorial about 50k or more.

Most entered indenturement willingly but were definitely sold on a lie - do 7 years of service and we'll set you free with some land or cash once you completed your contract. In fact many didn't reach the 7years due to mortality rates being so high in the caribbeans. Also some were conned by their employers and released with nothing for their work. The practice stopped "quickly" by the early-mid 1700s due to fear of rebellion due to sectarian differences between the anglican/protestant population and the catholics. The irish were treated abysmally during that period and many were definitely tricked, but getting conned into temporary servitude still isn't the same thing as being permanent chattel.

it's still extremely evil what was done to them, fraud is never defensible when it is so harmful to the lives of so many

So that storry about Irish being thrown overboard whwn supplies went low is made up?

Of course it was evil, anyone who defends indenturement literally declares themselves morally bankrupt. But making a distinction between slavery and servitude is not wrong to do so. It just isn't a nice argument to have to make. Just like debating serfdom vs slavery isn't particularly pleasant either, although those two were probably closer.