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 |
Beware Cat Shirt $21.68 |
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 |
Beware Cat Shirt $21.68 |
>Why didn't the British take Indians as slaves
Basically did anon.
They tried, but the Indians weren't as disease resistant as the blacks. Also, generally smaller, less suited to hard labor.
Dot, not feather.
The British didn't believe in slavery
they did. But Bongs took over India after they outlaw slavery so Indians just worked as indentured servants across the empire
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.
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.
>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
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
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.
>she has an indian dad
oh how they fall
sauce? who is she?
Wtf is that eyebow?
>enslaved
Labor contracts aren't slavery because they expire and then the workers get sent home
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!".
>when you fight the British for freedom and win fewer property and political rights
Slavery bad
Moving indians all over the empire as cheap labour good
>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
Because we're civilized
because british men are natural born cuckolds and nehru (even tho a colossal homosexual) was fricking emperor's wife queen elizabeth II
My bad not Queen Elizzy it was Edwina Mountbatten
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.
Mountbatten was a pedo as is tradition aning British elite.
Mountbatten raped and killed little boys.
industrialization removed the need for slavery
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.
If British didn't did any other European empires?I remember reading about Portuguese getting involved in India as well
Moral superiority.
>Rule, Britannia!
>Rule the waves-ACK
Glad you finally got a chance to get that one out my Albanian friend! Enjoy yourself.
test
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
Gandhi thought blacks being slaves was good you idiot
Gandhi only hated blacks because a black slave kicked him off the train because a white brit told him to.
So India's ideological king was a racist as well as a kiddy fiddler? Interesting.
Nothing racist about the caste system tbh. People just prefer their own castes
Brits have always been the good guys of history
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
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.
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.
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