1843年开始，马铃薯晚疫病（Potato Late Blight）在北美与欧洲蔓延，引发了饥荒。当饥荒结束时，情况次糟糕的尼德兰有近1万人因此死亡，情况最糟糕的爱尔兰死亡人数却高达1百万。加上期间逃离爱尔兰的1百万移民，1845~1849年间，人口850万左右的爱尔兰总计失去了2百万人。这绝不是饥荒正常发展的结果，英国难辞其咎。当饥荒爆发时，英国媒体将这场灾难视为上帝对爱尔兰人“奢侈”及“无忧无虑”生活的警告，并直斥马铃薯是一种“最不可靠的作物和最差的食物”。搞得好像爱尔兰民众有面包不吃，自愿吃马铃薯，所以活该受惩罚似的。而英国政府于1845年11月采取了三项措施来应对饥荒：第一，从美国订购大批玉米到爱尔兰，由政府低价出售——先不提这美国玉米到1847年春天才能运抵，缓不救急……更重要的是，绝大多数爱尔兰农民种植的小麦等粮食是用来交地租的，他们平常完全依靠马铃薯过活，在绝收后又不免租，怎么可能还有任何购买力？玉米价格再低他们也买不起呐。第二，对所有输入英国与爱尔兰的粮食免除保护性关税，以降低面包价格——丰年都吃不起面包，现在面包价格降点，爱尔兰农民就吃得起了？第三，在爱尔兰各地兴建公共工程，以工代赈——这是唯一有效的措施，但岗位不多、工资低廉，最多时也只能解决不到3百万人（包括劳工及其家属）的口粮。何况资金根本不足以长时期维持，工作时有时无，告别饥荒则遥遥无期。到了1847年7月，政府只能用（相对比较省钱的）直接发放救济口粮的方式代替以工代赈。政府的拨款相当有限，英国民众的捐款相比爱尔兰裔美国人的捐款也不算多。许多英国民众却认为爱尔兰人忘恩负义、不思进取，救济爱尔兰人是浪费税金。浑然不顾英国政府于饥荒期间，仍在爱尔兰照常收税不误，光从爱尔兰征收的济贫税和收回的贷款本息就已经超过850万英镑，而英国政府提供的援助总共才810万英镑（其中一半以上居然还是作为需要偿还的借款）。对于1847年开始的大规模驱逐浪潮，英国政府也没有进行干涉。
虽然在1920年的3、4月份，也发生过比如爱尔兰第三大城市科克市的市长（新芬党籍）托马斯·麦克·科顿（Tomás Mac Curtain）在36岁生日那天在全家人面前被一伙保安队员射杀，以及驻爱英军与保安队的联合巡逻队向庆祝武装共和派囚犯获释的欢庆人群开火，导致3死9伤之类的恶性事件。但还是有不少爱尔兰人认为，英国政府在眼下明显无法把独立运动压制下去的情况下会选择谈判。可当8月，英国政府在爱尔兰正式实施《恢复秩序法》，用军事法庭取代平时的各类法庭后，几乎所有人都意识到，劳合·乔治还是选择了镇压，而非谈判。11月21日，爱尔兰历史上五次“血腥星期日（Bloody Sunday）”事件中的第三次，把战争状态推向了一个爆发点：
The Irish Slave Trade – The Forgotten “White” Slaves
They came as slaves; vast human cargo transported on tall British ships bound for the Americas. They were shipped by the hundreds of thousands and included men, women, and even the youngest of children.
Whenever they rebelled or even disobeyed an order, they were punished in the harshest ways. Slave owners would hang their human property by their hands and set their hands or feet on fire as one form of punishment. They were burned alive and had their heads placed on pikes in the marketplace as a warning to other captives.
We don’t really need to go through all of the gory details, do we? We know all too well the atrocities of the African slave trade.
But, are we talking about African slavery? King James II and Charles I also led a continued effort to enslave the Irish. Britain’s famed Oliver Cromwell furthered this practice of dehumanizing one’s next door neighbor.
The Irish slave trade began when 30,000 Irish prisoners were sold as slaves to the New World. The King James I Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.
Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.
From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.
During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.
Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.
As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.
African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African. The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish moms, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their kids and would remain in servitude.
In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women (in many cases, girls as young as 12) to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves. This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company.
England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia. There were horrible abuses of both African and Irish captives. One British ship even dumped 1,302 slaves into the Atlantic Ocean so that the crew would have plenty of food to eat.
There is little question that the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is, also, very little question that those brown, tanned faces you witness in your travels to the West Indies are very likely a combination of African and Irish ancestry. In 1839, Britain finally decided on its own to end its participation in Satan’s highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their decision did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law slowly concluded THIS chapter of nightmarish Irish misery.
But, if anyone, black or white, believes that slavery was only an African experience, then they’ve got it completely wrong.
Irish slavery is a subject worth remembering, not erasing from our memories.
But, where are our public (and PRIVATE) schools???? Where are the history books? Why is it so seldom discussed?
Do the memories of hundreds of thousands of Irish victims merit more than a mention from an unknown writer?
Or is their story to be one that their English pirates intended: To (unlike the African book) have the Irish story utterly and completely disappear as if it never happened.
None of the Irish victims ever made it back to their homeland to describe their ordeal. These are the lost slaves; the ones that time and biased history books conveniently forgot.
El Dorado那篇回答多半是用来钓鱼的，他文章中的描述几乎和维基百科里面的“Common elements of Irish slavery myth”完全对应。比如那个“把1302个爱尔兰奴隶扔进海里”很明显是来自真实存在的1781年Zong号大屠杀（把132个黑奴扔进海里），此外还有把詹姆斯二世放在查理一世前面，时代完全错位了（詹姆斯二世是查理一世的儿子）。
回复 ( 10 )
暴行不可胜数，随便引几段我自己的文章：
英国入侵后的例子
英国内战后的例子
英爱合并后的例子
爱尔兰大饥荒期间的例子
爱尔兰独立战争期间的例子
直接导致独立的事件就是不顾大饥荒仍然横征暴敛，这种时候殖民帝国的恶劣品性就顽固地表现了出来。当年大饥荒时大英帝国正处于不可一世吊打全世界的阶段，而且众所周知爱尔兰也没有玩过大跃进，所以动机纯粹就是不把爱尔兰人当人看。更何况人家是你同胞又不是殖民地巴巴里安，同样是殖民帝国，至少人西班牙也没让加泰罗尼亚饥荒过吧？
当时很多爱尔兰人逃荒逃到了美利坚，后来美国爱尔兰裔占人口非常大的比重。二战后美国这个新兴挑战者也不言语，苏伊士运河危机直接和苏联携手肢解了大英帝国，也可以算是德匹下了。
希望你盎多少能吸取这个教训。
The Irish Slave Trade – The Forgotten “White” Slaves
They came as slaves; vast human cargo transported on tall British ships bound for the Americas. They were shipped by the hundreds of thousands and included men, women, and even the youngest of children.
Whenever they rebelled or even disobeyed an order, they were punished in the harshest ways. Slave owners would hang their human property by their hands and set their hands or feet on fire as one form of punishment. They were burned alive and had their heads placed on pikes in the marketplace as a warning to other captives.
We don’t really need to go through all of the gory details, do we? We know all too well the atrocities of the African slave trade.
But, are we talking about African slavery? King James II and Charles I also led a continued effort to enslave the Irish. Britain’s famed Oliver Cromwell furthered this practice of dehumanizing one’s next door neighbor.
The Irish slave trade began when 30,000 Irish prisoners were sold as slaves to the New World. The King James I Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.
Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.
From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.
During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.
Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.
As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.
African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African. The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish moms, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their kids and would remain in servitude.
In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women (in many cases, girls as young as 12) to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves. This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company.
England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia. There were horrible abuses of both African and Irish captives. One British ship even dumped 1,302 slaves into the Atlantic Ocean so that the crew would have plenty of food to eat.
There is little question that the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is, also, very little question that those brown, tanned faces you witness in your travels to the West Indies are very likely a combination of African and Irish ancestry. In 1839, Britain finally decided on its own to end its participation in Satan’s highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their decision did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law slowly concluded THIS chapter of nightmarish Irish misery.
But, if anyone, black or white, believes that slavery was only an African experience, then they’ve got it completely wrong.
Irish slavery is a subject worth remembering, not erasing from our memories.
But, where are our public (and PRIVATE) schools???? Where are the history books? Why is it so seldom discussed?
Do the memories of hundreds of thousands of Irish victims merit more than a mention from an unknown writer?
Or is their story to be one that their English pirates intended: To (unlike the African book) have the Irish story utterly and completely disappear as if it never happened.
None of the Irish victims ever made it back to their homeland to describe their ordeal. These are the lost slaves; the ones that time and biased history books conveniently forgot.
太久远的不谈（比如我所在的galway市有英军12 13世纪进攻当地的兵营遗迹）。其实真正导致爱尔兰独立的就是大饥荒。作死不救济，大量爱尔兰人逃往美国。结果就是美国的爱尔兰裔比本岛多。奋斗有钱的爱尔兰裔反过来支持本土独立。
北爱的宗教问题很多也是经济问题。20世纪开始的时候北爱应该是爱尔兰岛上比较发达的重工业区，有很强的造船业（泰坦尼克就在belfast造），根据我同事的说法，当年当地是绝对不会招天主教徒工人的.
所以也很好理解共和军打了几十年，这20年也不打了。爱尔兰共和国这几十年发展速度那么快，全岛从农业社会直接往IT/医药这种高端产业成功转型，经济问题解决的差不多了。招募恐怖分子这种事情去码农医生那里招十有八九是被当笑话的。
讲历史还是习惯引经据典认真一点，所以就不讲历史的问题了，维基百科也可以简单看看，我从另一个角度掺和一脚把。
美国移民中爱尔兰人占了很大的比例，然后爱尔兰人的种种被歧视的言论（现在没那么多了），其实我觉得很多与英国都是不无关系的。
El Dorado那篇回答多半是用来钓鱼的，他文章中的描述几乎和维基百科里面的“Common elements of Irish slavery myth”完全对应。比如那个“把1302个爱尔兰奴隶扔进海里”很明显是来自真实存在的1781年Zong号大屠杀（把132个黑奴扔进海里），此外还有把詹姆斯二世放在查理一世前面，时代完全错位了（詹姆斯二世是查理一世的儿子）。
爱尔兰奴隶的各种谣言一方面被白人种族主义者用来攻击黑人：“爱尔兰人也当过奴隶，为什么爱尔兰人现在的社会经济状况远远好于黑人？还不是因为你们黑人的种族劣根性”，另一方面被新芬党拿去宣传英国对爱尔兰的压迫。虽然我是坚定的爱尔兰粉，但用伪造的“历史”博取同情只会适得其反：“你希望爱尔兰人被杀被奴役的越多越好，看来你才是真正在歧视爱尔兰人！”
更新：那篇回答的来源是著名右翼造谣工厂InfoWars，Bing搜索“Irish slaves”第二个结果就是原始链接，哈哈哈哈哈哈哈…
爱尔兰人作为奴隶在英国殖民地贩卖，但是体质不如黑人
谢邀！
我看到的问题是这样的：
爱尔兰大饥荒，其人间地狱的情形连远在土耳其的苏丹都看不下去了，派了艘装满粮食的舰队过来赈灾，结果到边上就被英国舰队拦下了，放话说我大英子民饿死不食嗟来之食，虽然爱尔兰人在我们统治下也没人将他们当合法公民对待，但由别国来救灾仍然是有损我大不列颠脸面的，于是还是把土耳其舰队赶回去了，同时英国还对法国西班牙荷兰等一圈国家说凡是再有派船来爱尔兰救灾的，一律像对待土耳其舰队那样当场赶回去绝不收留。然而英国政府自己对爱尔兰大饥荒却并没有采取任何能称得上有效的赈灾措施……结果就是直到现在2016年位置，爱尔兰的人口仍然没有恢复到大饥荒钱的状态。
用我写的这篇文章民谣里的爱尔兰大流散里的一部分来回答吧，这只是英国暴行的一部分而已，还有很多别的暴行，等有空再补充。