Notable east Africans include – Rishi Sunak, Zohran Mamdani,Freddie Mercury and Kash Patel
South Africans include – Tyla Laural Seethal
Caribbeans include – Nicki Minaj
It’s not slavery if we don’t call it slavery mindset
Resident-Weekend-291 on
I had a 5th gen Indopak friend from Mombasa, Kenya
polishedrelish on
None in Australia?
Pale_Consideration87 on
Half of the diaspora mixed with black population, that’s why people talk about it less. The identity is diluted
For example, Kamala Harris, Nicki Minaj, tyla are results of this mix.
MetroBS on
There is a massive and discernible difference between slavery and indentured servitude
doublereload on
Seems to be missing the Indians brought to what is now modern day Myanmar. Many Indians are 3rd or 4th generation Myanmar born and still seen as second class citizens here as a result.
Flocculencio on
Rishi and Zohran’s East African Indian roots are in the wealthy mercantile community not the indentured labour groups. There are very much class and caste issues at play.
JG134 on
What about Suriname? Or is that included in British Guyana or Trinidad?
CoolAfternoon2340 on
Indentured labour ≠ Slavery
ThatMessy1 on
Indentured servants =/= slaves.
thatkoboldhero on
I worked in two pharmacies as a technician and one colleague from one pharmacy was a person of Indian descent from Fiji and another person from another pharmacy was a person of Indian descent from Guyana.
Lothdrak on
You forgot the most famous east african Indian : Freddy Mercury.
DrummerHistorical493 on
That may be the case however they were paid, despite it being a pittance. They endured very difficult times however likely not as difficult as the slaves brought over to the west from east Africa.
spoorloos3 on
Is Suriname not included?
JamCom on
Oh its talked about. But as youll noticed only 50ish thousand got anywhere near america which is reddits bread and butter. For those of us who work the other areas they went to, the Indian presence is well known
mane28 on
Bro india and other British colonies suffered so much under the British rule, it’s not talked about much in general.
Electrical-Art9601 on
In regards to the slaves in Dubai was the last time I talked about slavery
whistleridge on
1. Indentured servitude isn’t slavery, and it isn’t close. Indentures were for 5 years, they got free passage home, they couldn’t be beaten or bought and sold, etc.
2. ~1.5 million people over 80 years, from a region with a population of 280-290 million, is a tiny percentage.
3. By and large, those indentures were entered into willingly, in hopes of escaping poverty and terrible conditions at home.
Yes, it was euphemistically referred to as slavery by opponents of the day, but so was factory work in Europe. It was the 1840s – labor conditions *everywhere* were terrible. But there were constant reforms and attempts to improve, and while the system had real abuses, they did not amount to slavery.
rhino-hide on
South Africans definitely talk about it. Indentured laborers were brought to Natal sugar cane fields. Large Indian population in South Africa.
ThreePointedHat on
This would have massive political ramifications to this day. Guyana and Fiji would both have race wars due to Indian diaspora populations being voted into power as opposed to native peoples.
EngineeringFamous562 on
Most of them are from Bhojpuri region
ThatThingInTheCorner on
Rishi Sunak, Zohran Mamdani and the many other Indian-descent politicians who came from East Africa were not there because of indentured labour – they were wealthy families. They often ran businesses there.
Many left when Idi Amin expelled them from Uganda in the 1970s, because he believed they hoarded wealth.
India had a caste system, I think that is definitely a factor in which were the wealthy ones and which were there for slave labour.
political_dawg on
it is misleading to title this map as being of the ‘Indian Slave trade’, rather; it should’ve been titled “Indentured labor and slavery in colonial India”
Cicada-4A on
Probably because your inflating historical indentured servitude with that of chattel slavery.
Like half the European settlers in original colonies of North America were indentured servants as well.
Horrible but not really the same as chattel slavery.
ShadowMajestic on
How about todays slavery of Indians (and others) in Qatar, Emirates and Saudi.
There’s 5 times more people in slavery now than the total slaves shipped by the European powers.
hummingbird868 on
Indentured servitude was incomparable with african/chattle slavery you associate the term “slavery” with.
Indians willingly signed up, renewed their contracts while having other job options (and the ability to return when the contract expired) and decided to stay in the countries they worked in when they stopped taking contracts (also, they were *paid)*. The difference in socioeconomic status and cultural preservation between indentured indian labourers and african slaves should be proof enough these systems were entirely different. Remember this system was designed to *replace* slavery.
This narrative of this system being “slavery” is mostly propagated by indian diaspora nationalists who feel overshadowed by africans talking about their woes from slavery and want to pretend they have the same issue (and therefore the same clout and entitlement to compensation).
26 Comments
It’s not slavery if we don’t call it slavery mindset
I had a 5th gen Indopak friend from Mombasa, Kenya
None in Australia?
Half of the diaspora mixed with black population, that’s why people talk about it less. The identity is diluted
For example, Kamala Harris, Nicki Minaj, tyla are results of this mix.
There is a massive and discernible difference between slavery and indentured servitude
Seems to be missing the Indians brought to what is now modern day Myanmar. Many Indians are 3rd or 4th generation Myanmar born and still seen as second class citizens here as a result.
Rishi and Zohran’s East African Indian roots are in the wealthy mercantile community not the indentured labour groups. There are very much class and caste issues at play.
What about Suriname? Or is that included in British Guyana or Trinidad?
Indentured labour ≠ Slavery
Indentured servants =/= slaves.
I worked in two pharmacies as a technician and one colleague from one pharmacy was a person of Indian descent from Fiji and another person from another pharmacy was a person of Indian descent from Guyana.
You forgot the most famous east african Indian : Freddy Mercury.
That may be the case however they were paid, despite it being a pittance. They endured very difficult times however likely not as difficult as the slaves brought over to the west from east Africa.
Is Suriname not included?
Oh its talked about. But as youll noticed only 50ish thousand got anywhere near america which is reddits bread and butter. For those of us who work the other areas they went to, the Indian presence is well known
Bro india and other British colonies suffered so much under the British rule, it’s not talked about much in general.
In regards to the slaves in Dubai was the last time I talked about slavery
1. Indentured servitude isn’t slavery, and it isn’t close. Indentures were for 5 years, they got free passage home, they couldn’t be beaten or bought and sold, etc.
2. ~1.5 million people over 80 years, from a region with a population of 280-290 million, is a tiny percentage.
3. By and large, those indentures were entered into willingly, in hopes of escaping poverty and terrible conditions at home.
Yes, it was euphemistically referred to as slavery by opponents of the day, but so was factory work in Europe. It was the 1840s – labor conditions *everywhere* were terrible. But there were constant reforms and attempts to improve, and while the system had real abuses, they did not amount to slavery.
South Africans definitely talk about it. Indentured laborers were brought to Natal sugar cane fields. Large Indian population in South Africa.
This would have massive political ramifications to this day. Guyana and Fiji would both have race wars due to Indian diaspora populations being voted into power as opposed to native peoples.
Most of them are from Bhojpuri region
Rishi Sunak, Zohran Mamdani and the many other Indian-descent politicians who came from East Africa were not there because of indentured labour – they were wealthy families. They often ran businesses there.
Many left when Idi Amin expelled them from Uganda in the 1970s, because he believed they hoarded wealth.
India had a caste system, I think that is definitely a factor in which were the wealthy ones and which were there for slave labour.
it is misleading to title this map as being of the ‘Indian Slave trade’, rather; it should’ve been titled “Indentured labor and slavery in colonial India”
Probably because your inflating historical indentured servitude with that of chattel slavery.
Like half the European settlers in original colonies of North America were indentured servants as well.
Horrible but not really the same as chattel slavery.
How about todays slavery of Indians (and others) in Qatar, Emirates and Saudi.
There’s 5 times more people in slavery now than the total slaves shipped by the European powers.
Indentured servitude was incomparable with african/chattle slavery you associate the term “slavery” with.
Indians willingly signed up, renewed their contracts while having other job options (and the ability to return when the contract expired) and decided to stay in the countries they worked in when they stopped taking contracts (also, they were *paid)*. The difference in socioeconomic status and cultural preservation between indentured indian labourers and african slaves should be proof enough these systems were entirely different. Remember this system was designed to *replace* slavery.
This narrative of this system being “slavery” is mostly propagated by indian diaspora nationalists who feel overshadowed by africans talking about their woes from slavery and want to pretend they have the same issue (and therefore the same clout and entitlement to compensation).