The White King: Charles I, Traitor, Murderer, Martyr Epub

The White King: Charles I, Traitor, Murderer, Martyr ❰PDF❯ ✪ The White King: Charles I, Traitor, Murderer, Martyr Author Leanda de Lisle – WINNER HISTORICAL WRITERS ASSOCIATION NON FICTION CROWN From the New York Times Bestselling author and master of narrative nonfiction comes the tragic story of Charles I his warrior ueen the English c WINNER HISTORICAL WRITERS King: Charles Epub Û ASSOCIATION NON FICTION CROWN From the New York Times Bestselling author and master of narrative nonfiction comes the tragic story of Charles I his warrior ueen the English civil war and the trial that cost him his headBarely forty years after the England's golden age under Elizabeth the country was at war with itself split between loyalty to The White eBook ´ the Crown and Parliament with armies raised in Scotland and White King: Charles I, Traitor, PDF or Ireland and fighters arriving from Europe to wage war on English soil for the last time in England's history The English Civil War would set family against family friend against friend and its casualties were immense—a greater proportion of the population than in World War I England had become a failed stateAt White King: Charles Kindle Ö the head of the disintegrating kingdom was the figure of the king Charles I In this vivid portrait—newly informed by previously unseen manuscripts including royal correspondence between the king and his ueen some of it written in code—Leanda de Lisle depicts a man who was not cruel enough for his cruel times He would not persecute his opponents in the bloody style White King: Charles I, Traitor, PDF or of his Tudor antecedents or throw his servants to the wolves to save his own skin in the time honored royal style He was tutored by his father in the rights and obligations of kings but had none of his father's political subtlety and experience in survival In a court of remarkable women he was happily married—but to a French Catholic princess which caused consternation to his protestant subjects Principled and high minded he would pay a terrible price for the personal honor he so valued and for having enemies ruthless than he was Nothing however would reflect on his character as much as the scene at his terrible death speaking on the scaffold as a “martyr of the people”In his own destruction Charles did not sow the seeds of the monarchy's destruction but its rebirth England's revolution lasted eleven unhappy years and the Crown was then restored to national rejoicing Today England enjoys rule by parliament and monarch while the Church of England has the bishops Charles was determined to preserve More radical religious experimenters took their faith to the New World and the seeds of a republic leaving England to mend its wounds and restore its fortunes and future as the world's preeminent constitutional monarchy.

10 thoughts on “The White King: Charles I, Traitor, Murderer, Martyr

  1. Adrienne Dillard Adrienne Dillard says:

    As a Tudor historian it is nearly impossible to review works set during the time period without seeing the content through the jaundiced lens of your own biases More often than not there is room for multiple interpretations of the documented evidence but it can be hard to overcome the instinctual gut reaction humans experience when faced with an opinion that differs from one they wholeheartedly embrace about historical figures they have come to cherish That uncomfortableness is invaluable when we seek academic growth but it makes reading for pleasure a challenge Thankfully I had few preconceived notions about England’s first Caroline king and when I was offered the opportunity to review the latest take on his life I leapt at the chance Few things can compare to the joy I feel when introduced to a new historical subject and this beautifully crafted biography did not disappointThe subtitle of Leanda De Lisle’s The White King calls the monarch a traitor murderer and martyr but upon completion of the book I have come away with the impression that the only fitting descriptor used is martyr The other titles seem far too subjective for this oft misunderstood kingThough Charles’ reign came many years after the death of the ginger haired tyrant at the head of the Tudor court the spectre of Henry VIII looms large throughout this biography His reign and personality are held against those of Charles I to show how vastly different they were and just how much the world had changed in the intervening years The charges of tyranny lodged against the latter monarch pale in comparison to the actual tyranny perpetrated by Henry VIII and his children yet none of their reigns ended with the humiliation of the scaffold as Charles’ did Even striking are the parallels De Lisle makes with our current political climate – where “populism meets religious justifications for violence” and “the rise of demagogues who whip up mobs by feeding off ethnic and religious hatreds”De Lisle brings the figures surrounding Charles I to life with the strident confidence that accompanies the historian who fully understand their subject All of their graces and foibles are fully explored; their ever changing allegiances reported without a hint of sentimentality If their motivations are not revealed in the primary sources they are left unexplained here preserving the jarring atmosphere Charles must have felt during his reign Even the most historically savvy reader is never uite certain where loyalties lie or how often the tides will turn In the hands of a less experienced historian these twists would be rendered into a confusing mess but De Lisle deftly navigates the murky waters with expert precisionMy favorite part of The White King was the focus on Robert and Henry Rich and their cousin Lady Lucy Carlisle Having spent the better part of the last decade researching Catherine Carey Lady Knollys it was refreshing to see the role her descendants played during this tumultuous time in English history The fealty they showed their monarch was far from the devotional loyalty Lady Knollys was known for in her lifetime but the Puritan proclivities of their great grandfather Francis remained un diluted I often found myself wondering what their grandmother Lettice would have thought of their intrigues Lady Carlisle appears the most like her ancestor Like Lettice she even bore an uncanny resemblance to the ueen she servedI thoroughly enjoyed De Lisle’s inclusion of the correspondence between the king and his wife Henrietta Maria recently unearthed from the Belvoir archives Through their words the unjust depictions of the ueen fall apart at the seams and Henrietta Maria is finally given the recognition she deserves The emphasis on Charles family life is most touching here The love and devotion they showed to him speaks volumes about his characterA well written and impeccably researched biography The White King seeks not to revise the history of England’s Civil Wars but uncover the truth hidden beneath the grime of centuries of propaganda and myth

  2. Geevee Geevee says:

    After the Plantagenets the Stuarts are the dynasty sorry Tudor fans that really spark my interest The history in this period 1603 to 1714 is one of monumental challenge change disruption and new horizons Religion and persecution including radical and new branches of politics as well as old alliances and European interests and influences that bring upheaval and the costly and violent civil war followed by regicide and republic aka commonwealth Changes also at Court plus plague and fire; science and discovery; new technologies and fine arts and then Restoration the Glorious Revolution and Act of UnionTurning from my sales pitch for the Stuarts to the book White King The Tragedy of Charles I the UK paperback title by Leanda de Lisle it encapsulates much I have mentioned above and is a good solid readUsing many new letters and documents from untapped or researched sources the author provides in a single and highly readable volume the life of Charles I For people who have read about Charles I there will be familarity but Ms de Lisle adds interesting depth and new light especially around Henrietta Maria Charles's wife and Lucy Carlisle The book's strength is to take a complex period with a wide cast of characters and pivotal events and turn this into a readable and very informative account I read on one reader complaining it was nothing but a love story it does indeed cover Charles and Henrietta but does this in a structured way that adds and strengthens the story; after all Henrietta was loyal courageous and influential in Charles's behaviour and for his cause Seeing both and their family in this book provides insight and understandingAs we move from youth to kingship and the challenges religion European wars money and parliament bring we see a monarch who to this reader's mind works to satisfy his personal beliefs God's representative on Earth and his role in as England's king We read of his friends allies enemies and those who flit between sides The culmination of the story is of course the long civil war years and the to ing and fro ing of battles victories losses alliances and desparate journeys retreats and parleying and then capture trial and death He is flawed as any man but shines through in this book as one ves his family has with and believes his place will make the country great and goodMs de Lisle has created a riveting and enjoyable book that for a one volume account of Charles and his life this is to be recommendedand and should be a must read for some time

  3. Orsolya Orsolya says:

    The reign of King Charles I in the sixteenth century England is nothing less than a tragedy ridden with civil war the dissolution of the monarchy the ‘reign’ of Oliver Cromwell and eventual regicide What went wrong during this dramatic time? Was Charles a victim or antagonist? Leanda De Lisle attempts to answer these uestions among others in “The White King Charles I Traitor Murderer Martyr Readers expecting a simple biography of Charles I or a portrait of the times will be sorely disappointed in “The White King” On the other hand rest assured that De Lisle’s work is a fresh look at the topic rather than a straight laced history piece “The White King” eschews a deep personal look at Charles in order to highlight the intricacies and the events that took place during his reign De Lisle’s view isn’t biased but is instead well researched and an encompassing take on all of the individuals and actions involved De Lisle does unfortunately in this vein have the habit of wandering off on a tangent and also comparing events to that of Tudor England not necessary This doesn’t impede the strength of “The White King” but it can occasionally slow the pace Noticeably “The White King” finds its stride as it progresses and becomes detailed and riveting De Lisle presents previously unseen manuscripts and is able to showcase new informationmaterial bringing varying angles to even those readers well versed on the topic This certainly makes “The White King” standout That being said ‘something’ about De Lisle’s voice feels stifled and held back even generalized in some sense One wants to tell her to just stand her ground and really vibrate “The White King” reverberates though with literary and floral language giving it an occasional narrative feel that makes history entertaining De Lisle would be very capable of penning an excellent historical fiction piece De Lisle’s coverage of the trial and execution of Charles is emotive and induces heightened responses so than the former sections of “The White King” while maintaining the academic edge This is certainly the climax of “The White King” Unfortunately after this the concluding chapter of “The White King” is very one note and rushed Even though De Lisle gives a run down briefing of the lives of figures involved with Charles’s downfall after his death; the wrap up is compulsory and unsatisfying De Lisle does redeem this with an afterword exploring the psychological personality of King Charles and some of the ualities that caused his downfall De Lisle’s arguments are solid and add substance to the piece De Lisle supplements “The White King” with some lightly annotated notes and a section of color photo plates which truly stick out – usually the same checklist of photos are used in history texts while De Lisle includes those unseen even by readers heavily focused on the Stuart period“The White King” serves as an ample introduction into the tragedy and psychological discourses of the fall of King Charles I Although not the best book on the market concerning the topic; De Lisle’s is solid readable and with an underlying narrative like entertainment value “The White King” is suggested for those interested in the topic of seeking an introduction or King Charles I aficionados whom must simply read any and all materials available

  4. Annette Annette says:

    The style of writing is explanatory and not engaging to me Therefore I’m not the right reviewer for this book There are others who appreciate this style of writing and they will reveal veracious reviews

  5. Andrea Zuvich Andrea Zuvich says:

    As I began the book I was a little sceptical – was this going to be yet another biography of King Charles I slamming him for his faults and never mentioning his ualities? Or would it be gushing like a hagiography? Out of all the biographies of King Charles that I had read the only one I thought well balanced was the short biography by the late Mark Kishlansky I wondered what de Lisle would bring to the sovereign’s story that hadn’t already been told many timesBy the end of the first chapter however all my doubts had vanished By the middle of the book I had learned interesting facts I hadn’t known before By the end of the book I was sure that this was one of the best books on Charles I yet writtenDe Lisle certainly does know how to write strong compelling narratives I think her research is impeccable and her access to and use of private letters from the closed archives at Belvoir Castle for example brought a fresh perspective to a story I – and many others know well Her best – and vital – talent is perhaps her commendable ability to see the whole picture the shades of grey and not once did I find her narrative biased one way or another De Lisle’s beautiful writing embraces nuance not the categorical; she also does not fill her narrative with irritating twenty first century judgements of the seventeenth centuryFor the full review please visit

  6. Charles J Charles J says:

    As with Nicholas II the last ruling Romanov how we view Charles I is largely set by how his days ended And as with Nicholas we have been further conditioned by generations of propaganda pumped out by the winners and their ideological allies claiming that it was Charles’s own bad philosophy coupled with incompetence rather than mostly bad luck and choices only wrong in retrospect that led to his death Leanda de Lisle’s The White King rejects the fake news and offers an even handed viewCharles’s appellation of “White King” is obscure and long forgotten De Lisle resurrects it in order to “inspire curiosity” for it is double sided and shows the split of views about Charles To some he was a saintly martyr White is the color of innocence and also the color of the pall of snow that covered Charles’s body as he was carried to his grave in February of 1649 Thus it was an emotional term used by his supporters after his death But during his life a “White King” was also the subject of an ancient prophecy of an evil king to come and therefore his enemies also called him by that name casting him as a malevolent presence the “traitor” and “murderer” of the subtitleThe history here is straightforward and begins with a brief account of the reign of Charles’s father James I who was also and first James VI of Scotland and became King of England in 1603 James succeeded because Elizabeth I had no issue; he was the great great grandson of Henry VIII and son of Mary ueen of Scots executed by Elizabeth in 1587 James died in 1625 generally regarded as not a bad king who continued the middle way of the Church of England rejecting Scots Presbyterianism and upholding episcopacy but persecuting Catholics as Elizabeth had He also oversaw the creation of the King James Bible an example of his general focus on domestic concerns avoiding foreign wars and critically not spending beyond his means James lacked Elizabeth’s gift for public relations although he was popular enough and he communicated to his son and to all his children—despite being rud to be homosexual he had eight children a lofty view of the divine right of kingsAs with so many things from that earlier age though the divine right of kings is not understood today being seen merely as in de Lisle’s terms “ridiculous and perverse” and Charles’s reputation is tangled up with the confused view we have of that political theory It probably has to recommend it than meets the eye and in the English context never meant the complete supremacy of the king rather that the authority he had was not derived from contract or consent It meant a strong king one who could stand above and control faction using his power to benefit everyone while Parliament also maintained considerable power; supremacy was “the king in Parliament” As de Lisle notes the English franchise was broad “Every freeman with property valued at over £2 had the right to vote—as much as 40 per cent of the adult male population” Moreover the king was “bound to make a reckoning to God for his subjects’ souls as well as their bodies” an ancient principle among monarchs in the Christian West—for example it was a major element of Charlemagne’s thought and actions What is some elements of what we think of as divine right theory are purely fictional for example as de Lisle mentions the idea that medieval English kings as children each had a whipping boy a friend who was punished for the prince’s transgressions because the king could not be struck due to his exalted status is a complete myth The king got spanked like everyone else But like so many myths about medieval times from prima nocte to the origin of “rule of thumb” it’s an ideologically useful myth in this case for those opposed to monarchy on principle and wedded to contract theories of political sovereignty In reality Charles did not think of himself divine right or no as an autocrat He recognized the critical role Parliament had in government; his objection was that Parliament was trying to hobble him to a degree that made him unable to fulfil his own critical role Given the other complexities of the age this made conflict inevitableUnlike his father Charles uickly became involved in European conflict raging since the beginning of the Thirty Years War in 1618 This was the original sin of his reign since without war the English crown didn’t need Parliament to vote it money; it received enough money from its own lands and traditional fee sources of income Much of Charles’s reign turned on ever shifting alliances and deals with France and Spain as well as distantly various Central European states all of whom were embroiled in their own wars which had but were not purely determined by a religious element His elder sister Elizabeth married Frederick Elector of the Palatine a German territory; she was called the “Winter ueen” since the Protestant Frederick was kicked out of his lands by the Catholic Habsburgs after only a few months of actual rule From the perspective of England these alliances turned largely on a combination of complicated religious alignments and other national priorities such as trade and the balance of powerCharles needed a suitable wife and tried to but was unable to find an appropriate Spanish bride That might not have been the best idea; the Spanish were on the wane and anyhow demanded significant concessions to Catholicism So uickly in 1625 Charles turned to Spain’s enemy France and married Henrietta Maria daughter of the assassinated French king Henri IV and Marie de Medici the powerful mother of Louis XIII and sometime regent of France As de Lisle is at pains to point out for hundreds of years the Roman Catholic Henrietta Maria has been cast as a malevolent little simpleton In de Lisle’s account this is grossly unfair and merely propaganda from the winners in the Civil War and their ideological descendants She was little true but fierce and extremely competent and a major asset to Charles De Lisle in fact located a previously unknown cache of letters between the two in the private archives of Belvoir Castle and uses them to great effect to support her point although I don’t know enough to have an opinion of my own It didn’t help her popularity however that mostly England fought France and was allied with Spain so between that and her religion the ueen was seen even during her lifetime by many as an alien and dangerous presenceRoyalists and Parliamentarians drifted to war tossed about by a confusing brew of religious conflict class conflict ethnic conflict among the three kingdoms now under one ruler England Scotland and Ireland and much else Even “Parliament” wasn’t really an entity for war purposes; many of those who served in the Commons as the war began joined up with Charles and most of the Lords did as well For a very long time both in America and England Parliament has been seen as the righteous party in the English Civil War and Charles as a benighted and sinister enemy of liberty although the Irish think otherwise due to their ill treatment by the Protestants as shown by the modern song by the Pogues with the refrain “God rot you Oliver Cromwell who raped our motherland” Again this is history as written by the victors through the prism of Enlightenment dogma and ignores that much of Parliament and most of England was strongly opposed to a large portion of the actions taken in Parliament’s name during the war and even to the execution of Charles And none of this can be comprehended without the backdrop of a complex set of Protestant groups English Catholics as such played almost no role in the Civil War Covenanters Presbyterians Arminians and so forth along with as the war played out increasingly radical sects such as the Levellers Diggers and Fifth Monarchy Men the latter not mentioned by de Lisle but they fascinate me all in a giant kaleidoscope collectively complicated matters in a way new in English historyOne especially interesting fact about the war is that it was conducted in parallel in the media It was the first English war where propaganda in the form of pamphlets and rapidly churned out books made a major difference in public opinion Some of this seems silly to us but was important at the time—for example parliamentarians accused Prince Rupert of the Rhine Charles’s nephew and an essential Royalist general of keeping a poodle that was a satanic familiar; Charles’s supporters wrote parody responses like a seventeenth century version of the Onion More seriously both sides wrote lengthy justifications for their positions including Charles’s last work the Eikon Basilike posthumously published which sold like hotcakes undermining Cromwell’s Protectorate and paving the way for the RestorationAfter several years of back and forth warfare in which a greater percentage of Englishmen died than in World War I although brutality was far less than in Continental wars with Parliamentary progress made possible only by cooperating with invasions by the radical Scots Covenanters and the rise of Oliver Cromwell Charles was defeated Even though he had lost Charles’s execution was far from inevitable English kings had than once been murdered after defeat but to execute a king after legal process was largely inconceivable His death resulted from a combination of his obduracy and refusal to compromise Scots and Puritan extremism and much else Certainly the vast majority of Englishmen were interested not in his death but in his restoration perhaps with strict limitations many of which were proposed to be time limited even by his opponents But the tiny remnant left of Parliament purged successively until only Puritan fanatics sat there combined with the strength of will of Cromwell meant that Charles was sentenced and executed He died well thus cementing his reputation and providing a rallying cry for future royalists Even so generations of historians have seen praise of Charles as a criticism of Parliamentary supremacy and maintained a dim view of his reignWhat is there for us to learn? Charles’s biggest strategic error as with so many Christian men of power who base their actions on what God wants not on what they want because they fear judgment for going too far was the inability to punish his enemies as they needed to be punished He shared much of what the Anglo Saxon Chronicle said of King Stephen reigned 1135–1154 “He was a mild man and gentle and good and did no justice” In the same manner he too often would not follow through; as Robert Tombs said in his The English and Their History” “He could be persuaded to plunge into reckless actions but repeatedly drew back ‘amazed’ when things went wrong” Under Charles political and religious executions were zero and he knuckled under to Parliament killing one of his chief ministers the Earl of Strafford through a bill of attainder coerced by mob violence a decision he bitterly regretted to the end of his life And one with resonance today; “MPs who had abstained from the attainder bill against Strafford were publicly named and shamed with news sheets and pamphlets driving the verbal assaults on them as ‘enemies of their country’ ” Like Nicholas II Romanov Charles might have done better mowing down his enemies at the right moment; instead like Nicholas driven in part by fear for his family he took half measures such as in person trying and failing to seize his major opponents thereby being publicly humiliated and then absented himself from London at the wrong moment letting his enemies consolidate their powerAnother fact to learn or reinforce is that the role of women in medieval and Renaissance England was much different than what “feminist” propaganda claims It is not that de Lisle shoehorns women into her discussion and she certainly does not offer history through a distorting and infantilizing lens Rather women simply had far power in medieval and Renaissance Europe than we are often told This was true at all levels of society and for centuries during the Crusades Muslims in the Holy Land were appalled at the power and liberties the women of the Franks had but most visible in the upper classes as with most historical matters In fact women get nearly as much print in this book as men because they were nearly as relevant to the events at hand One is Marie de’ Medici mother of three kings and critical support at times for Charles although de Lisle probably has a favorable view of her than most historians Another is Henrietta Maria intimately involved in moral and logistical support for the war Plus of course the Winter ueen key player in European wars and mother of Prince Rupert Also important were many non regal women too such as Lucy Hay Countess of Carlisle whom de Lisle does freuently insist on calling “Lucy Carlisle” even though that was not her family name married or unmarried Anyone who actually reads history realizes that the so called patriarchy is a myth although sadly this book or any book about this era probably gets a lot fewer readers than any given lying Twitter feed using the hashtags #toxicmasculinity and #smashthepatriarchyFinally and turning aside from power politics de Lisle points out a key different perspective of the time and one that is better in some ways than what we have inherited from the radical Protestants with their atomized view of human responsibility “The hierarchical society Charles imagined was underpinned by Christ’s example of self sacrifice Everyone owed service both to those above them commoner to noble noble to king king to God and to those beneath them to whom they owed a duty of care This included protecting the weak and promoting the talented and the brave” This in contrast to a pure meritocracy which suggests “that those who are not successful have less merit than those who excel” True the less successful may in fact have less ability or they may be ridden with vice but they do not necessarily have less merit and they have no less human dignity But this is forgotten today by many conservatives as well as by our ruling classes which is a major cause of the division of our society into a preening globalized ruling class dwelling in glittering palaces on the coasts and those increasingly left behind And that division is of course a major cause of the political turmoil today—turmoil that in many ways resembles the ferment of 1640s England You may draw your own conclusions

  7. Sue Sue says:

    This is the definitive book about Charles I It is beautifully written well researched and referenced with thought provoking interpretations of the personality of the king Absolutely brilliant I am re reading it straight away as it was so awesome I would love Leanda de Lisle to now turn her historical talents to a book about Henrietta Maria Fingers crossed??

  8. Stephanie Stephanie says:

    A fascinating compulsive story that also does a wonderful job of really humanizing both sides of the UK's Civil War The only time I slowed down in my reading came because I knew what was coming for many of these characters on both sides and they felt so real to me by then that I felt really depressed about the whole thing But then I went back to the book anyway because it's wonderful and I couldn't stay away Leanda De Lisle is my favorite working historian and at this point I'll read anything she chooses to write about

  9. Gareth Russell Gareth Russell says:

    Charles I who ruled Britain from 1625 until his execution on 30 January 1649 at the end of the Civil War has generally been portrayed as a martyr monster or moron The civil war he waged against his enemies in Parliament resulted in catastrophic bloodshed arguably in terms of percentage of the population than the First World War For this Charles earned the damning nickname the Man of Blood Even for those inclined to see idiocy rather than malice Charles was a weak king whose misrule resulted in 11 years of republican rule until the monarchy returned under his pragmatic son Charles IIHowever to the royalist faithful Charles I was a saintly victim of his opponents deranged fire breathing evangelical fundamentalists who drove two of the king's advisers up the steps of the scaffold humiliated the Crown beyond the point of endurance tipped the nation into war and then organised Charles's execution even when the majority of the population was opposed to it Leanda de Lisle's superb new biography of Charles I is sympathetic than critical There is no monster here only a little bit of the moron and plenty of martyrdomOpening with the legend that snow fell to cover Charles's coffin on the day of his funeral De Lisle moves backwards to present a surprisingly sympathetic characterHis determined struggle against his childhood disabilities which included a speech impediment and physical weaknesses is moving and even inspirational as are De Lisle's accounts of his diligence his chivalry and his dignity as his regime unravelled De Lisle excels at providing memorable descriptions of those who knew Charles His flamboyantly incompetent confidant the Duke of Buckingham was described by one contemporary as the best looking and best built man in the world and he had almost certainly been the lover of Charles's late father King James I who commissioned the King James translation of the Bible although how much Charles knew about the extent of their intimacy is debatableCharles's own sexuality was avowedly heterosexual and it is his wife French princess Henrietta Maria who emerges from White King as one of its true heroes She was demonised by anti monarchists in the 1600s as a meddling extravagant foreign shrew but De Lisle uses letters which she uncovered in the archives of the current Duke and Duchess of Rutland to show Charles's ueen as an elegant and heroically loyal woman When she was forced to leave her husband to support the royalist cause in exile De Lisle uotes a moving eyewitness account describing the ueen as the most woeful spectacle my eyes ever yet beheldWhite King is an impeccably researched and thought provoking biography which reads as well as a fine novel Charles I emerges from its pages as courageous resilient and increasingly hard nosed personally heroic but still ultimately a political failure It also revives one of this country's greatest stories a blinkered king a warrior ueen a war that turned brother against brother and scandals caused by money sex espionage and power woven together in the life of this extraordinary but flawed king

  10. Lois Lois says:

    This was interesting and detailedThe author has bias that she never attempts to separate from her workShe doesn't seem to understand the difference between 'race' and 'ethnicity' At the time that this applies 'race' as a concept hadn't yet developed Oh there was horrid antiblackness ueen Henrietta performed in Black face in a horribly racist and denigrating play So the idea that Black people were less than existed It just wasn't yet formalized into what we would today recognize as 'race'That being said white people in the UK are all the same race White Irish people aren't a separate race from White Scottish people🤦🏽‍♀️ What the author is referring to is ethnicity The Irish were never enslaved They were treated horribly ethnic cleansing was practiced upon them and they were forced into Indentured Servitude Indentured Servitude is awful and a crime against humanity It's not 'slavery' though That refers to chattel slavery in which your yet to be born children grandchildren great grandchildren into perpetuity will inherit your condition of slavery Indentured Servitude by design rarely lasted a whole lifetime occasionally but rarely inherited by a child It would be unheard of for it to extend past that Comparing the 2 is a classic tactic of white supremacy Again for the people in the back🗣THE IRISH WERE NEVER ENSLAVED Also the author is just not OKShe pretends that our current society is a meritocracy when that's never been true I would expect a historian to know that Meritocracy implies that our society is fair and eual when in fact your parents wealth determines your wealth Our modern society is built and predicated upon ineuality and unfairness There's nothing fair eual or merit worthy about colonialism Colonialism is theft genocide and slavery Wealth and land in our society is as concentrated in the upper classes as it was in this period Neither period reflects a meritocratic society😬How can a meritocracy suffer with racism sexism transphobia homophobia ableism fat phobia etc How does that flourish in a society based on merit🤔When books mislead in this way it makes me suspect all of the content of the bookSigh

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *