Indian immigrants not indentured—scholar

Political updates and debates...
Post Reply
User avatar
socafighter
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 5:16 pm

Unread post

http://guardian.co.tt/news/general/2010 ... ed-scholar" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The first set of Indian immigrants who arrived in Trinidad between 1845 and 1847 were not indentured servants. This is the assertion made last night by Dr Dennison Moore who was the feature speaker at the Indian Arrival Day dinner held by the Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha.
Moore, a Trinidadian who now resides in Canada, said: “Most scholars and writers on Indian arrival here have asserted that the first Indian immigrants were indentured.” He said: “But the authors whom I have consulted, and they are legion, have not amassed a set of historical facts that would support their contention.”
Moore used retired University of the West Indies historian Prof Bridget Brereton definition of indenture: “A contract before they left India which bound them to accept certain terms. For the period that their indenture lasted, they were not free. They could not leave their employer. They could not demand higher wages, live off the estate they were assigned to or refused the work given them to do.” He explained that when the British government abolished slavery in 1838, the African ex-slaves abandoned the estates in Trinidad and British Guiana in droves. Moore said: “Their refusal to work steadily on the estates created a severe shortage of labour which speculators were eager to fill.” He said these “unscrupulous speculators” conned the former slaves in the smaller islands to enter into the “improvident contracts for labour to be performed in Trinidad and British Guiana.”
mapoui
Posts: 8507
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:07 pm

Unread post

{Big deal! My paternal
Submitted by roshan hanief on 29 May 2010 - 9:32am.
Big deal! My paternal ancestors came to T&T in 1845 whether they were 'bong' or not it makes no difference to me. At that time most servants whether white, brown, or otherwise were bonded ie they worked for a stipulated time. In my view, it is time to retire these labels of 'colonialism, indentured servants and slavery'. It makes no difference to me whether I descended from 'Homo Sapiens or Neanderthal or monkey.' Rik Hansel}




mister above so defensive for what reason? what in the hell is Rosgan fighting to protect ....his lil' fragile rass?

is he fighting to protect a sense of justification for current Indian behaviour in the westindies..justified by a story of exploitation that now may be not so true?

they have to tell us more man! for indeed the condition under which Indians lived in Titty and Guyana were pretty awful according to the history I know. revision must take care of that and all the other questions that arise immediatelty, opposed to the history we have been taught.

and if it turns out that Indians far from being indentured had a fair immigrants chance in the region, opposed to blac slavery a weight has been lifted. thats they way I would want to look at it. it is a removal that can free us of any sense of Indian vengence and justification for any exploitations their growing regional power may be giving rise to!

the removal of any such weight may establish a different postive, inclusive Indian regional social movement that may see Indians...west-Indians... lead a collective westindian population to true independence and properity.

the truth no matter how tuff...always sets us free!
Post Reply