Why didn't the British take Indians as slaves like how other European empires at the time took south American's and Africans as slaves?

Why didn't the British take Indians as slaves like how other European empires at the time took south American's and Africans as slaves?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >Why didn't the British take Indians as slaves
    Basically did anon.

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    They tried, but the Indians weren't as disease resistant as the blacks. Also, generally smaller, less suited to hard labor.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Dot, not feather.

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    The British didn't believe in slavery

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    they did. But Bongs took over India after they outlaw slavery so Indians just worked as indentured servants across the empire

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Because the Pajeets weren't selling slaves. If they ran around enslaving random jeets they'd have rebellions out their ass. Western Countries sure had a role for the propagation slavery but most of the time they got their slaves from people who sold slaves. The last time Eurogays caught slaves themselves, Portugal & Spain learned the hard way that colonized people and neighboring powers will murder you if you tried that shit.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Basically this, the jeet horde would have been way more unruly had they been kidnapped and forced to work for no money.
      luckily, even a tiny fraction of your average European’s wage was a FANTASTIC salary for your average Jeet and so the Anglos got all the Pajeet workers and soldiers they needed on the (very) cheap.
      There’s an interview with a former British Indian army officer who said he didn’t mind potentially dying at all because he got three good meals a day and that his officer salary+whatever loot he brought back from his deployments were easily enough to buy all the food his six gorillion siblings could ever eat.
      Pajeets might get assmad about how they were colonized now, but the truth is that they were often pushing and shoving in line to serve the angloids.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >even a tiny fraction of your average European’s wage was a FANTASTIC salary for your average Jeet and so the Anglos got all the Pajeet workers and soldiers they needed on the (very) cheap
        /thread, it's why there's whole diaspora communities of Indians from Guyana to Fiji

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Pretty much this
      All the revionism about homies being genetically supermen who resisted disease and shit is just copes
      Nigs were used as slaves because they were a disgusting inferior civilization that consisted entirely in enslaving and selling each other to foreigner in exchange for seashells
      Africans bear most of the guilt for the Atlantic Slave Trade

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    They did, millions of Baljeets were enslaved and sent to British holdings in East Africa, the Caribbean, and Oceania (Fiji) to serve their white masters.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >she has an indian dad
      oh how they fall

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >she has an indian dad
      oh how they fall

      sauce? who is she?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Wtf is that eyebow?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >enslaved
      Labor contracts aren't slavery because they expire and then the workers get sent home

  7. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    As much as many people today want to believe that European Empires were all run and inhabited by the sort of evil men who would make the most over the top comic book villains look sane that generally wasn't the case. The British empire, particularly in India, was mostly an economic venture (not something motivated entirely by racism and evil, as the modern interpretation tends towards) and by then Britain had worked out that slavery is a lot less profitable than the alternatives. There was also a strong abolitionist component in British life, society, and politics; which had influenced policy for a long time and by 1858 (the beginning of Crown rather than Company rule in India) was pretty much a dominant force in British politics.
    >tl;dr - The history of the British Empire is a hell of a lot more complicated than "EMPIRE IS LE BAD!".

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >when you fight the British for freedom and win fewer property and political rights

  8. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Slavery bad
    Moving indians all over the empire as cheap labour good

  9. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >took south American's
    Lmao, not a single south american was an slave ever, serfs at feudal order at the most, post independence wasnt neither conquered

  10. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Because we're civilized

  11. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    because british men are natural born cuckolds and nehru (even tho a colossal homosexual) was fricking emperor's wife queen elizabeth II

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      My bad not Queen Elizzy it was Edwina Mountbatten

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Everyone was fricking her though. Mountbatten is proof that a man can frick as many women as pleases him and still be considered a disgusting worm if his wife is unfaithful.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Mountbatten was a pedo as is tradition aning British elite.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Mountbatten raped and killed little boys.

  12. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    industrialization removed the need for slavery

  13. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Africans enslaved about a quarter of their entire population and sold some of them to Europeans for rum and gunpower. Indians didn't do that.

  14. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    If British didn't did any other European empires?I remember reading about Portuguese getting involved in India as well

  15. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Moral superiority.

  16. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >Rule, Britannia!
    >Rule the waves-ACK

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Glad you finally got a chance to get that one out my Albanian friend! Enjoy yourself.

  17. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    test

  18. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Reminder that Gandhi had his political awakening when he realized whites in South Africa treated Indians and Blacks the same. Indians were in bondage the same way as blacks are, they just call it a different name

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Gandhi thought blacks being slaves was good you idiot

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Gandhi only hated blacks because a black slave kicked him off the train because a white brit told him to.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          So India's ideological king was a racist as well as a kiddy fiddler? Interesting.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Nothing racist about the caste system tbh. People just prefer their own castes

  19. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Brits have always been the good guys of history

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      r1b have always been the protagonists of history. We're currently in a timeskip between the vietnam war and the start of the next series, the collapse of american hegemony

  20. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Indians got enslaved just like africans in the 1600s and 1700s. But moreso by the Dutch and to be taken to work in the cape colony.

  21. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Slavery is a cultural practice and at that time only Africans sold each other as slaves. Indians didn't so there were no Indians to buy.

  22. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    India wasn't active in the international slave trade. The Empire functioned by slotting itself into the existing global trade networks and outcompeting the locals in quality, quantity, price, and efficiency; they sought to disrupt local customs as little as possible because instability was bad for business (unless you were selling guns or snatching market share from foreingers). Trying to push slavery in places it didn't already exist would have pissed off the locals and exposed the merchants to getting bumped out by an adversary

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