Wow. I would like to see what sources that book is drawing from, because it seems inaccurate as hell. Firstly, Indentured Servitude for prisoners (which for whites has been found in many of the early British colonies) was a widespread and common practice for setting down the foundations to ensure long-lasting colonies in places where everyday folk would never ever wanna go. So what did the British do? They used Indentured Servants, mostly debtors and poor families, to lay the groundwork. Yes, they were essentially "slaves" for the time being and probably were very abused; however comparing that to the horrific form of slavery Africans faced is just so fucking insulting on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.

First of all, an Indentured Servant can, and did, eventually gain freedom through labour. The Irish being some of the poorest within the Empire were the most likely to be shipped off, but African slaves were also present in the new world as well even amongst the very first colonies. Calling these Irish "Slaves" degrades the atrocities committed upon the Africans (and some Natives) by the hands of colonial powers. Furthermore, an African slave's lineage would be born into slavery potentially for the rest of his life, whereas an Indentured Servant's children, though the families were typically all sent off based on the debt/crimes of the parent(s) were most likely not going to spend their entire lives as Servants and generally didn't. This system of Indentured Servitude is incredibly cruel and unjust by uprooting entire families sometimes and shipping them to far off remote places to starve or settle. That said, the racial and genocidal legacy of African slavery is much more long lasting and harsh than any form of "Irish slavery" since, ironically, many of those former Indentured Servant families went on to own slaves themselves.