[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/his/ - History & Humanities


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




File: 627fd93fa3d49.jpg (175 KB, 1024x1024)
175 KB
175 KB JPG
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?
>>
>>13755402
>Why didn't the British take Indians as slaves
Basically did anon.
>>
>>13755402
They tried, but the Indians weren't as disease resistant as the blacks. Also, generally smaller, less suited to hard labor.
>>
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
>>
>>13755402
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 Eurofags caught slaves themselves, Portugal & Spain learned the hard way that colonized people and neighboring powers will murder you if you tried that shit.
>>
>>13755436
Dot, not feather.
>>
>>13755552
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.
>>
File: 1657743933800.jpg (162 KB, 640x1136)
162 KB
162 KB JPG
>>13755402
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.
>>
>>13755770
>she has an indian dad
oh how they fall
>>
>>13755770
>>13755782
sauce? who is she?
>>
>>13755402
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!".
>>
Slavery bad
Moving indians all over the empire as cheap labour good
>>
>>13755402
>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
>>
>>13755402
Because we're civilized
>>
File: iNEHRU+QuEEN+mg046.jpg (925 KB, 2226x1590)
925 KB
925 KB JPG
>>13755402
because british men are natural born cuckolds and nehru (even tho a colossal faggot) was fucking emperor's wife queen elizabeth II
>>
>>13756332
My bad not Queen Elizzy it was Edwina Mountbatten
>>
>>13756339
Everyone was fucking her though. Mountbatten is proof that a man can fuck as many women as pleases him and still be considered a disgusting worm if his wife is unfaithful.
>>
industrialization removed the need for slavery
>>
>>13756358
Mountbatten was a pedo as is tradition aning British elite.
>>
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
>>
>>13755552
Pretty much this
All the revionism about niggas 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
>>
>>13756358
Mountbatten raped and killed little boys.
>>
Moral superiority.
>>
File: Screenshot_8412.png (130 KB, 327x833)
130 KB
130 KB PNG
>>13755402
>Rule, Britannia!
>Rule the waves-ACK
>>
>>13757534
This
>>
>>13755402
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
>>
>>13755770
Wtf is that eyebow?
>>
>>13759153
Gandhi thought blacks being slaves was good you idiot
>>
>>13759253
Gandhi only hated blacks because a black slave kicked him off the train because a white brit told him to.
>>
Brits have always been the good guys of history
>>
>>13755581
>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
>>
>>13755402
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.
>>
>>13759258
So India's ideological king was a racist as well as a kiddy fiddler? Interesting.
>>
>>13757640
Glad you finally got a chance to get that one out my Albanian friend! Enjoy yourself.
>>
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.
>>
>>13759825
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
>>
>>13760278
Nothing racist about the caste system desu. People just prefer their own castes
>>
>>13760278
Yeah India is based like that.
>>
>>13755402
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
>>
>>13755770
>enslaved
Labor contracts aren't slavery because they expire and then the workers get sent home
>>
>>13756002
>when you fight the British for freedom and win fewer property and political rights



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.