Louis N Proyect lnp3 at
Fri Mar 31 08:29:47 MST 1995

Louis Proyect:

EUREKA!!!!! I found what was looking for by doing a 'where' search on
"Ireland" in the newsgroup ''. Look at the
fantastic bibliography at the end of the article. Long live the Internet!!!


                      The Training Ground:
              Ireland, conquest and decolonisation
                         by Bill Rolston

                       from 'Race & Class'
                          (34, 3, 1993)

                           posted in:
                   to subscribe, send message:
                  subscribe irl-news your name
                            send to:
                   listserv at


     It is unlikely that many people in Ireland, particularly
native people, realized in 1492 that a Genoese merchant,
Christopher Columbus found what he believed, and continued to
believe until his dying day to be a western route from Europe to
Asia. Nor, had they known, would they have seen any relation
between Columbus's enterprise and events in Ireland. Yet, in an
indirect way, what happened in that year was to affect the native
people of Ireland in ways not dissimilar to those experienced by
the native people of that unhappy continent which he stumbled
upon, and which eventually became known as America.

     The year after Columbus's landing on the Caribbean island he
called Hispaniola, an event occurred in Ireland which,
conversely, is unlikely to have been heard of by many people in
either Spain or America. The English king, Henry VIII, sent a
deputy, Sir Edward Poynings, to govern his unstable fiefdom of
Ireland directly. Poynings' legacy was to enact a law on behalf
of his king which severely reduced the power of the Irish
parliament. Poynings' Law decreed that, in future, the Irish
parliament was not to pass any laws without the express
permission of  the king of England.

     What these two events, an ocean apart, have in common is
that they are instances of a turning point in the history of
western European expansion and colonialism.

     Despite some popular beliefs to the contrary, Columbus never
landed in Ireland during any of his journeys across the Atlantic.
Yet, the social changes instituted as a result of his enterprise
came to have profound changes on Ireland. Spanish imperial
expansion, with Columbus as its most visible agent, changed the
world. It gave us new words, such as 'colony' and 'colonialism'.
It also gave us expropriation of territory on a massive scale,
slavery and genocide in their modern forms, all of these
justified by religion and notions of racial superiority.
Capitalism thus emerged not just as an economic system but as a
social system based on political expansion--imperialism--and
ideological terrorism--racism. This is not to say that these
phenomena had not existed before. But the expansion of Spain and,
alter, other western European countries meant that they were
about to be institutionalized, generalized. There was the
emergence of a system that was to become global in nature. And
the centre of that globe was to be the triangle between Europe,
West Africa and the Americas.

     Ireland was in the middle of that triangle and was about to
be sucked into the wake of Columbus' ships. Ireland was about to
experience this era of imperialism with its expropriation of
territory, racism and genocide.

     Of course, colonialism had been experienced in Ireland well
before Columbus. In that sense, the significance of Poynings' Law
was not so much what is said, nor indeed how successful it proved
to be, but that it needed to be enacted in the first place.
Though populated for thousands of years and part of Christendom
for 1,000 years by the time of Columbus and Poynings, Ireland had
been on the very edge of the known European world. Its
marginality allowed it a relative amount of freedom from forces
and developments elsewhere in Europe. The Romans never conquered
Ireland. The Irish church was, by the turn of the millennium, the
only one in western Europe genuinely independent of Rome. And,
although the Normans colonized Ireland from 1169 onwards, they
did not leave their imprint in Ireland in the same way as in
England. The only true outpost of English feudalism was in that
narrow strip on the east coast known as the Pale. Beyond the Pale
were hostile native clans. And among them were Norman
colonialists, who, rather that changing Ireland, were changed by
it, its customs, laws and institutions. They became, as every
school child knows, more Irish than the Irish themselves. Even
the Normans within the Pale displayed a level of independence
which would not have been tolerated in England itself.

     From time to time, this was a major cause of concern for
the English overlords. The colonists in Ireland were a potential
source of military weakness on England's western flank. Normans
who spoke irish, intermarried with the Irish, followed Irish
customs and reached a happy modus vivendi with native chieftans
were regarded as a security risk. Their loyalty could not be
assured. They seemed to be fair game for recruitment by the
Spanish, French or whoever was England's current enemy.

     Hence, in 1366, the Statues of Kilkenny were enacted to
attempt to impose segregation between the Norman colonists and
the native Irish clans. These statues forbade intermarriage
between Normans and Irish, and decreed that Normans could not
speak Irish, use Irish names, wear Irish dress, live alongside
the Irish of ride without saddles as the Irish did.(2)

     That Poynings' Law was necessary a century and a quarter
later shows that the statues were ineffectual. Indeed, so was
Poynings' Law in turn. Thus, when a century after Poynings Law,
the Elizabethans came to plant Ulster, built into their project
was the same intention of segregation between planters and
natives. British undertakers were not to have any Irish tenants,
and all Irish people living on the lands confisticated for
planation were to be removed. County Derry, in particular, was
envisaged as a country in which eventually no Irish at all would
live. (3)

     This plan, in turn, failed. There were not enough planters
in the confisticated territories and landlords ended up letting
to the natives. In addition, the dispossessed natives were so
desperate to return to the land, even as tenants, that they were
willing to pay higher rents than colonists. And as profit, as
much as military strategy, was at the core of the plantation,
planter landlords accepted the higher rents.

     But the attempt at apartheid was more successful under the
Elizabethans than it had been at the time of the Statues of
Kilkenny or Poynings' Law. That system of imperial expansion
which Columbus so obviously encapsulated in 1492 was, by the late
sixteenth and early seventeenth century, about to transform
England's relations with the rest of  the world. Ireland was now
facing not a Norman overlord whose interests blew hot and cold
depending on the state of England's foreign wars, but an emerging
superpower which wanted no weak links in the imperial chain,
which saw each and every colony, including its closest and
oldest, in terms of conquest, profit and subjugation. Ireland was
to experience bloodshed and famine unheard of in the centuries of
English rule prior to the Elizabethan period.

     This should not be taken to mean as somehow idealizing the
Norman conquest of Ireland. Henry II, the English king who first
sent troops to Ireland, did so for quite clear expansionist
reason. He justified his confistications in terms very similar to
those of Columbus three centuries later. Given the independence
of the Irish church from Rome, he sought permission from the
people to wage, in effect, a crusade against the heathen Irish
which would, of course, require him to claim Ireland as an
English fiefdom. The pope willingly gave the expedition his
blessing. The pope in question was Hadrian IV, the only English
pope to date; this may have had a lot to do with his decision.

     One of the main Norman families involved in the early
conquest of Ireland was the De Barri family from Wales. In 1183,
a member of that family, Giraldus De Barri, a monk, visited
Ireland for  the first time. Four years later, he returned as
part of the entourage of Henry II himself. In time, Giraldus  De
Barri, more commonly known as Giradldus Cambrensis or Gerard of
Wales, wrote his account of his journeys, 'The History and
Topography of Ireland.' (4) In fact, it is neither of those
things, but a literally fantastic account which says more of what
Henry and the Norman overlords wanted to see in Ireland than what
was actually there.

     Cambrensis' role was not to convert the Irish, but to
justify Henry's conquest. Accordingly, he accused the Irish of
various vices, including laziness, treachery, blasphemy,
idolatry, ignorance of Christian beliefs, incest and cannibalism.

"This is a filthy people, wallowing in vice," he concluded.
Needless to say, the evidence for all this was, to put it mildly,
sparse. Incidentally, he did find one virtue, again, prefiguring
a common racist belief in relation to black people: "It is only
in the case of musical instruments that I find any commendable
diligence in the people. They seem to me to be incomparably more
skilled in these than any other people I have seen."

     The remarkable fact is that Cambrensis' bizarre and
fictional account of Ireland and its inhabitants was to be the
mainstay of English views of Ireland for the next 500 years. (5)
By the time the Elizabethan planters (settler-colonists) were
moving into Ulster, they were carrying the legacy of almost a
half millennium of racist beliefs with then as cultural baggage.
In addition, they had their own contemporary reasons to denigrate
the native Irish and thus reduce any likelihood of guilt in
dispossessing them of their land and rights. Given the
insensitivity of the Elizabethan thrust to plant Ireland, the old
stereotype was given a new and more sinister lease of life.
Cambrensis' fictions were preserved and, indeed, enhanced by
Elizabethan adventurers in Ireland.

     The Irish were never the nobel savages for the English, as
the Taino people were--briefly-- for Columbus and the native
peoples in North America were for the Elizabethan English. Of
course, Columbus's honeymoon with the Tainos ended soon, as did
that of the English planters in America with the indigenous
people there. Once it was over, the portrait of the native
peoples in America was one of ignoble savagism, a portrait
remarkably similar to that of the Irish previously, and, indeed,
of black people later. But the view of the Irish as ignoble
savages took on an intensity under the Elizabethan conquest that
it never had before. Previously, it was a reason for segregation;
now it became a justification for genocide.

     Elizabethan adventurers wrote of the Irish as a 'wicked
race' which could only 'be subdued by force'. As 'pagans', they
were a legitimate 'sacrifice to God'. They were a lower order of
humanity who 'live like beats, void of law and all good
order..brutish in their customs. As Stevenson concludes: "Such
assertions gave licence to the systematic devastation of the
Irish, which, besides other things, included the routine burning
of crops and villages, the regular killing of women and children
and the cutting off of heads, as well as the willingness to pay
bounties for the. " (6)

     I sort, English soldiers 'believed that in dealing with the
native Irish population they were absolved from all the normal
ethical constraints.'

     A case in point was that of Sir Humphrey Gilbert, who
slaughtered non-combatants to reduce popular support for
rebellion. A favorite tactic as to cut off the heads of Irish
soldiers taken in battle and to lay them along side the laneway
which led to his tent. He argued that 'through the terror which
the people conceived thereby it made short wars." As Stevenson
points out, "Norman lords had not committed such atrocities in
Ireland." (7)

     These same terrorist methods, derived and perfected in the
conquest of Ireland, were then transported to the American
colonies--not just the methods of torture--but also the ideology
to justify confistication and genocide. Canny puts it this way:
"The same indictments being brought against the Indians, and
later the blacks, in the Nw World...had been brought against the
Irish...Both Indians and blacks, like Irish, were accused of
being idle, dirty and licentious." (8)

     This similarity of tactics and ideology was anything but
accidental. Not only were the projects of conquest identical,
but, frequently, the same personnel were involved in the conquest
of Ireland and America: "The years in Ireland were years of
apprenticeship." (8)

     Sheehan makes the same point of the Elizabethan English: "At
the same time that they awakened to  the potential of the New
World, they began the last stage of the conquest of Ireland. The
two enterprises became the reciprocal training grounds for
English imperial expansion. Personnel moved from one arena tothe
other;  and the ideology that explained English conquest in
Ireland supported the establishment of civility in America." (10)

     So, here were two worlds, an ocean apart, yet united inn the
common experience of colonialism. The methods learned in
suppressing the native Irish were now being used on the native
Americans. And the savagery of the incorporation of the native
Americans into English imperialism was visited on the Irish too.
They became, however unconsciously, united in blood.

     For the native Irish, this whole process provided a training
ground too. Like the Elizabethan adventurers, they had also
served an apprenticeship, a long one, in surviving colonialism.
The mechanisms of survival were many--from collaboration to
rebellion--but it is the latter I want to consider here. The
history of rebellion against conquest within Ireland is well
known, so I want to say a bit about rebellion outside Ireland.


     On consequence of English expansion in the New World was
that English, like the Spanish before them, needed laborers for
agricultural production in the Caribbean. The first instance,
they used white labor from England itself and, more crucially,
from Scotland and Ireland. Most of these laborers were indentured
servants,persuaded to emigrate because the passage was paid and
because, at the end of the set period of work on the plantation,
they would be released from service and given piece of land. To
impoverished peasants, particularly from Ireland, this offered
one of  the very few routes out of poverty. This is not  to say
that they necessarily believed the propaganda about indentured
servitude which was circulated by speculators and English planter
in the Caribbean. It was known to be difficult work with minimum
rewards, even at the end. Servants could be beaten, and were. The
parcel  of land given to them, especially the Irish by English
planters was often of the poorest quality. As servants, they were
not much better off than slaves and, as free people, they were
not much better off than second class citizens.

     Many of the early servants went there involuntarily.
Prisoners were sold to planter and there was a lucrative trade in
kidnapping. In fact, in the seventeenth century, such people were
deemed not to be "shanghaied" but "barbadoised". The Irish
constituted a special category. Not only convicts, but also
political  dissidents were shipped to Bristol,and from there to
the Caribbean. At one point, there was even an attempt to
suppress Irish Catholicism by shipping out young people between
12 and 14 years of age. Oliver Cromwell sent his son, Henry, to
Ireland at the head of an army with instructions to roundup these
young people for transportation. Arciniegas estimates that there
were, as he puts it, "sixty-four hundred white slaves rounded up
in Ireland and Scotland" and sent to the West Indies in one four
year period. (11)

     The use of the word 'slavery' in this  context needs some
comment. Certainly, such people were involuntary emigrants and
the quality of  their lives in service was often abysmal. But
their term was finite, usually around five years. Even when this
term was extended time and time again for insubordination to
planters, it was not for life. Nor was the status of slave passed
on to their offspring. They were never chattels in that sense.
Finally, Catholic or not, at least they had one advantage over
laborers from Africa--they were white. This proved crucial for
their eventual ending of the servant system. English government
visitors to  the West Indies were disturbed by the treatment
meted out to fellow whites--one factor in the English decision
finally to follow the example of the Spanish and import black
slaves from Africa.

     Becles makes it clear that the Irish servants were 'a
riotous and unruly lot." (12) They often engaged in individual
acts of rejection of the status and the records are full of
instances of their being whipped, staked out in the sun or
imprisoned for offenses against their masters. Frequently their
rebellion was more collective. In 1666, the Irish servants and
freeman on St, Kitts celebrated the announcement of war between
England and France by rising up against the English planters and
aiding the French to take control of the island, evicting 800
English planter in the process. The following year, the Irish on
Monserrat also helped the French take the island from the
English. In 1689, when word reached the Caribbean of William of
Orange's accession to the English throne, the Irish again
revolted on St. Kitts and plundered English estates in support of
the ousted King James. The same happened on St. Christopher; and
Antigua and Monserrat were on the edge of mutiny. (13)

     In Barbados, some of the English believed their Irish
servants to be 'a greater threat to peace than their African
slaves." (14). In fact, there was a widespread belief that the
white servants frequently joined with black slaves in slave
rebellions. The evidence is scanty, but there does seem to be
some substance to the belief. Consequently, administrators on
various islands enacted virtual penal laws against the Irish,
attempted to prevent further Irish immigration and pleaded with
the English authorities at home to send them more Scottish
servants, who were seen as more reliable and hard-working. In the
end, the replacement of Irish servants by black slaves was
greeted with relief by English planters.

     I must say that I find the notion--infrequent as the
occurrences might have been--of Irish servants joining with black
slaves in joint rebellions an exhilarating one. I should like to
believe that the long years of apprenticeship are worth
something, that colonialism had bred a sense of justice and a
rejection of oppression that was not merely confined to personal
experience. I would like to believe that their long experience of
oppression had led the Irish to oppose oppression wherever they
found it.

     I with the evidence to support those beliefs was more
widespread that it is. There is some evidence indeed, and it is
worth reminding ourselves of it by citing two examples. (15)

     In 1786, on of Belfast's richest men, Waddell Cunningham,
called a meeting of merchants to discuss ways in which to involve
Belfast officially in 'the West Indian trade.' (16) In fact. this
was a euphemism. Cunningham envied the merchants of Bristol and
Liverpool who were making fortunes from the slave trade. His hope
was the Belfast would follow their example. The meeting agreed to
draw up a prospectus for 'a company of slaveship trading', to be
signed by anyone present who wished to be involved. At that
point, an emotional intervention was made by Thomas McCabe, a
local jeweler and a member of the United Irishmen. "May God
wither the hand and consign the name to eternal infamy of the man
who will sign that document," he said. The threat worked. Belfast
never came as close again to being drawn into the slave trade.

     The second attempt is that of Daniel O'Connell, the
Liberator, who fought successfully for Catholic Emancipation and
unsuccessfully for the Repeal of the Union Act. He was a strange
mixture--an ardent monarchist who constantly referred to Queen
Victoria as 'the darling queen', and a true liberal whose support
of liberal causes did not end at the shores of Ireland. Hw was
outspoken in his opposition to anti-Semitism, and in full support
of the abolition of capital punishment. He was also an implacable
opponent of slavery, railing against it in the English parliament
and on the American speaking circuit. Advisers urged him to tone
down his message in the United States for fear of alienating
supporters, but he refused to do so. He would not accept any
subscriptions to his Repeal Association from slave owners, no
matter how rich. "I want no American aid if it comes across the
Atlantic stained in Negro blood," he stated publically in 1845.
(17) And he clashed openly with the Young Irelanders on this

     Speaking of the Young Irelanders brings us to the other side
of the coin. The Young Irelanders gave us not only stirring
patriotic songs, but also the national flag, the tricolor,
designed by Francis Meagher.

     Their most prominent member was John Mitchel. Arrested for
his part in the 1848 Rising in Ireland, he was transported to
Tasmania. He eventually escaped and made it to the United States.
He lived first on the east coast, where he produced a paper
called 'The Citizen'. Later, he moved to Tennessee and founded
'The Southern Citizen', a self-proclaimed newspaper of 'extreme
Southern sentiment." Mitchel was a spirited defender of slavery.
In 1953, in 'The Citizen, he urged that American slaves were
better off than they would be in Africa. They were also better
off than many wage laborers in the sweatshops in New York or
peasants in Ireland. "We are not abolitionists," he wrote, 'no
more abolitionists than Moses, or Socrates or Jesus Christ."
(18). In 1857, he returned to the theme in 'The Southern
Citizen': "I consider Negro slavery here the best state of
existence for the Negro and the best for his master; and I
consider that taking Negroes out of their brutal slavery in
African and promoting them to a human and reasonable slavery here
is also good." (19)

     In the end, Mitchel was jailed for his outspoken support for
the Confederacy. His son died as an officer in the Confederate
army during the Civil War.

     You might think that later Irish leaders would have been
embarrassed by Mitchell in this regard, but not all of them were.
Take Arthur Griffith, founder of the original Sinn Fein and first
president of the Irish Free State. He wrote the preface to
Mitchel's 'Jail Journal' (1913) and specifically tackled this
question of Mitchel's support for slavery. It has been Mitchel's
fate, he wrote, that in every generation there is 'an inky tribe
of small Irishmen' who feel they need to apologize for him. "Even
his views on Negro slavery have been deprecatingly excused, as if
excuse were needed for an Irish Nationalist declining to hold the
Negro his peer in right. When the Irish Nation needs explanation
or apology for John Mitchel, the Irish Nation will need its
shroud." (20)

     Mitchel was a romantic nationalist who would have been
satisfied with ending oppression for his class and nation without
any general support for human rights beyond these two boundaries.
Griffith wanted Ireland to be an independent nation within the
British empire on an equal footing with the other nations
involved. His elitist views would have been entirely at home in
that exclusive club.

     This is the dark side of the colonial apprenticeship. Memmi
and Fannon have pointed out that one effect of colonialization is
that the colonized can incorporate the ideas of the colonizer.
Not for Griffith and Mitchel the choice of joining in slave
revolts with blacks, but then, given their class, they were
unlikely ever to end up as indentured servants.


     Their views are in stark contrast to those of American black
leaders on Ireland. Overall, Ireland was held up as an example by
them. The empathized with the sufferings of the Irish peasantry.
And they praised the attempts of Irish revolutionaries to win
freedom and independence, and urged black  Americans to learn
from the Irish experience.

     A contemporary of Mitchel,m the black leader Frederick
Douglass, went on a two-year tour of Europe while the Young
Irelanders were in their heyday. One of his first ports of call
was Ireland. In a letter from Dublin in 1845, he compared the
conditions of the Irish peasantry with those of black American
slaves. "The Irishman is poor, but he is not a slave. He may be
in rags, but he is not a slave." And he added: "They have been
long oppressed: and the same heart that prompts me to plead the
cause of the American bondsman makes it impossible for me not to
sympathize with the oppressed in all lands." (21)

     He had profound words to say on Irish landlords: "The
landlord simply stands out as the representative of the real
grievance. To remove him would not remove the evil...The real
grievance is the false system which makes the landlord possible.

The appropriation of the fertile acres of the soil of Ireland,
which created and maintains a privileged class, a class that
while preforming no labor, wrings from the toiler, in the shape
of rents, so much of the produce of his labor that he cannot on
the residue support remove the landlord and leave
the system of land monopoly would not remove the evil. Destroy
the latter and the former would be compelled to go." (22)

     Those words prefigured the arguments of Michael Davitt, the
architect of the Irish Land War fifty years later. But Davitt,
the revolutionary in the Irish context, was no supporter of black
liberation. He sided with the Boers in their war with the
British. In doing so, he rejected British criticism of the Boers
as racist, judging this--correctly--to be hypocritical of  the
British. But it is also clear that Davitt shared the racism of
the Boers, referring to the black  people in his book about the
Boer War simply and dismissively as 'savages.' (23)

     During the land agitation, another black leader. W.E.B. Du
Bois wrote in support of Sir Horace Plunkett, the founder of the
Irish Agricultural Organization Society, on the grounds that
there was a "kinship between Irish subjugation and Black
oppression in the United States." (24)

     And, finally, a contemporary of Arthur Griffith, Marcus
Garvey, had more positive sentiments about Ireland than Griffith
had of American blacks. In 1921, Garvey's Universal Negro
Improvement Association had its Second Convention in New York
City, where resolutions were passed and cables of support sent
'to Mahatma Gandhi, sympathizing with him in his efforts for a
free India; Eamon De Valera, in his fight for Irish independence;
and to King George V of England, stating that nothing would
please the Negro peoples more (except the freedom of Africa) than
the emancipation of Ireland, India and Egypt." (25)

     Which is the true legacy of the long years of apprenticeship
in colonization--the narrowness of vision of Mitchel, Davitt and
Griffith, or the humanitarianism of O'Connell, the
internationalism of James McCabe and the rebelliousness of the
Irish indentured servants in the Caribbean? Unfortunately, the
question is an invalid one, because they are both part of the
same legacy. One is not a false consciousness, to be overcome
merely be being called such. The experience of colonial
oppression has its positive side, as evidence in even simple
ways, such as the disproportionately high contribution that Irish
people make to aid agencies working in the 'underdeveloped'
world. But there is a negative side too; to have experienced
racial oppression does no in itself prevent someone becoming a
racial oppressor of others if the opportunity presents itself.
Bernadette McAliskey (then Devlin) found this out when she went
to the United States in the early 1970s. "I was not very long
there until. like water, I found my own level. 'My people'--the
people who knew about oppression, discrimination, prejudice,
poverty and the frustration and despair that they produce--were
not Irish Americans. They were black, Puerto Rican, Chicano. And
those who were supposed to be 'my people', the Irish Americans
who knew about English misrule and the Famine and supported the
civil rights movement at home, and knew that Partition and
England were the cause of the problem, looked and sounded to me
like Orangemen. They said exactly the same things about blacks
that the loyalists said about us at home. In New York I was given
the key to the city by the mayor, an honour not to be sneezed at.
I gave it to the Black Panthers...(26)"

     While sentiments like those exist, there is hope that the
internationalist legacy of the colonial apprenticeship will win
out over the narrow minded one. And there are many other current
signs of hope--the attempts of groups such as Oxfam, Trocaire,
the Dublin Travellers' Education and Development Group and the
Centre for Research and Documentation in Belfast to link the
discussion of development in the so-called Third World to that of
development in Ireland itself. (27) There are those struggling
for human rights in Ireland who know that the concept of human
rights is indivisible, that justice for all oppressed people must
be fought for and not just for one's own. They are returned
development workers who  are taking the insights they learned in
the 'underdeveloped' world and using them to ask incisive
questions about our own country.

     There is the real potential that Ireland could become a
training once more, this  time for decolonization rather than
colonization. Such a process starts with decolonizing the mind,
rejecting the racism of the colonizer. And it leads to
decolonizing the structures of this country, of which, I would
argue, the most obvious os the running sore of a border created
by Partition.

     It means too that in future this august Mansion house, so
steeped in history of an earlier stage of decolonization in the
country, will not be reserved solely for those of us whom our
politicians judge to be respectable enough, but will be open to
all those struggling now for the decolonization of Ireland.


1. I would like to thanks Liz Curtis for help in tracing sources
in the early part of researching this paper. Her own book, "The
Cause of Ireland", is to be published in the near future. Thanks
also to Fread Heatly for guiding me to the information about the
attempts to introduce slave trading into Belfast.

2. J.C. Beckett, "A Short History of Ireland" (London, 1979) p.

3. W. Butler, "Confistication in Irish History" (New York, 1970;
first published 1917)

4. Gerald of Wales, "The History and Topography or Ireland" ,
translated by J. O'Mera (London 1988)

5. Richard Lebow, "White Britain and Black Britain"
(Philadelphia, 1976) p 75

6. Michael Stevenson, "Columbus and the war on indigenous
peoples' in Race & Class (Vol.33, no. 3, 1992) pp. 27-45

7. ibid

8. Nicholas P. Canny, "The ideology of English colonisation: from
Ireland to America" in William and Mary Quarterly (Vol. 30, 1975)

9. ibid

10. Bernard Sheehan, "Savagism and Civility: Indians and
Englishmen in colonial Virgina (Cambridge, 1980)

11. G. Arciniegas, "Caribbean: sea of the New World" (New York

12. H. Beckles, "A Riotous and Unruly Lot: Irish indentured
servants and freemen in the English West Indies, 1644-1713" in
Willian and Mary Quarterly (vol. 47, 1990)

13. R.S. Dunn, "Sugar and Slaves: the rise of the planter class
in the English West Indies, 1624-1713 (Chapel Hill, 1972)

14. Beckles, op.cit.

15. Other, perhapos better known, advocates of internationalism
and anti-racism in Irish history have not been considered here--
such as James Connolly and Roger Casement.

16. Cathal O'Byrne, "As I Roved Out" (Wakefield, Yorks., S.R.
Publishers, 1970)

17. Fergus O'Ferrall, "Liberty and Catholic Politics 1790-1990"

in M.O'Connell (ed) "Daniel O'Connell:  political pioneer
(Dublinn, 1991), [[35-56. See also W. Lecky, "Leaders of Public
Opinion in Ireland, Vol. 2, Daniel O'Connell" (London 1912)

18. S. MacCall, "Irish Mitchel: an autobiography (London, 1938)
p. 327

19. ibid, p. 337

20. J. Mitchel, "Jail Journal" (Dublin, 1913), pp xiii-xiv

21. H. Apthecker (ed), "A Docummentary History of the Negro
People in the Unnited States (New York, 1969)  p. 312

22. ibid, p 668

23. M. Davitt, "The Boer Fight for Freedom" (New York and London,


24. H. Apthecker (ed), "The Correspondence of W.E.B. Du Bois vol
1 (Cambridge, Mass, 1973)  p. 116

25. Amy Garvey, "Garvey and Garveyism (New York, 1978) p. 68

26. Bernadette McAliskey, "A peaant in the halls of the great' in

M Farell (ed.) "Twenty Years On" (Dingle, 1988)  pp 75-88

27. See Therese Caherty, "Is Ireland a Third World Country?"
(Belfast 1992)

28. The first Dail (parliament) after the Easter Rising met
regualrly in the Mansion House; in 1991, however, Sinn Fein,
depsite havinng held their annual Ard Fheis (conference) in the
Mansion House for a number of years, was henceforth refused
permission to  do so by the Dublin City Council.

     --- from list marxism at ---


More information about the Marxism mailing list