RE: A DIFFERENT KIND OF SLAVE -- IS STILL A SLAVE...
The main arguments against calling the Irish slaves is that they weren't chattel, had some kind of rights, often sold themselves into indentureship, and their children were not indentured by default. There are no manumission records for Irish 'slaves' because their status was not that they could be manumitted, they were protected to some extent by law, they could not be bred to increase stock like African slaves were, they kept their Right to Life which African slaves did not have. But things on paper are often not the same in reality.
The imagery in this post also has been debunked
Being forced by threat of violence into indentureship is slavery. That is generally what we call slavery today, and it was slavery then too, just not on paper, and not equivalent to chattel slavery.
Thank you, for your well thought out and researched comment @jamtaylor, it is very much appreciated... Whether there was or was not "Irish Slaves" has many opinions and a wide range of varying view points. But as you state in your comment -- "things on paper are often not the same in reality." We are all too well aware, that the people charged with documenting history are usually a little more "generous" to their own point of view. Im just glad this piece has invoked some healthy and much appreciated conversation. Thanks again.