2004Palgrave Macmillan US eBooksRequires access

East Indian/West Indian: Racial Stereotype, Hosay, and the Politics of National Space

Shalini Puri

Open publisher page 1 citations

Abstract

Why is Indo-Caribbean belonging in the Caribbean even an issue today? The answer lies in the particular circumstances of Indian arrival in the Caribbean. After the abolition of slavery in Trinidad in 1834, Indian and subsequently Chinese indentured labor was recruited from 1845 to 1917 to replace slave labor so as to keep the plantations functional. But indentured labor differed from slave labor in two crucial regards. First, indentured laborers were never considered property; their humanity was never in question. Second, at least in theory, their servitude was limited and contractual; the contract of indentureship lasted five to seven years, after which the colonial government was to pay for the laborers’ return passage to India. However, the working and living conditions of indentured labor were often comparable to those of slaves. Moreover, several features of the indentured contract system combined to make the Indians captive labor: the legal obligation to work, the promotion of indebtedness through unmeetable workloads, and the requirement that they fulfill the purposes of the employer during the period of indentureship in order to secure their freedom. 1 In fact, less than a quarter of the 144,000 Indian indentured laborers returned “home.” These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Why is Indo-Caribbean belonging in the Caribbean even an issue today? The answer lies in the particular circumstances of Indian arrival in the Caribbean. After the abolition of slavery in Trinidad in 1834, Indian and subsequently Chinese indentured labor was recruited from 1845 to 1917 to replace slave labor so as to keep the plantations functional. But indentured labor differed from slave labor in two crucial regards. First, indentured laborers were never considered property; their humanity was never in question. Second, at least in theory, their servitude was limited and contractual; the contract of indentureship lasted five to seven years, after which the colonial government was to pay for the laborers’ return passage to India. However, the working and living conditions of indentured labor were often comparable to those of slaves. Moreover, several features of the indentured contract system combined to make the Indians captive labor: the legal obligation to work, the promotion of indebtedness through unmeetable workloads, and the requirement that they fulfill the purposes of the employer during the period of indentureship in order to secure their freedom. 1 In fact, less than a quarter of the 144,000 Indian indentured laborers returned “home.” These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Why is Indo-Caribbean belonging in the Caribbean even an issue today? The answer lies in the particular circumstances of Indian arrival in the Caribbean. After the abolition of slavery in Trinidad in 1834, Indian and subsequently Chinese indentured labor was recruited from 1845 to 1917 to replace slave labor so as to keep the plantations functional. But indentured labor differed from slave labor in two crucial regards. First, indentured laborers were never considered property; their humanity was never in question. Second, at least in theory, their servitude was limited and contractual; the contract of indentureship lasted five to seven years, after which the colonial government was to pay for the laborers’ return passage to India. However, the working and living conditions of indentured labor were often comparable to those of slaves. Moreover, several features of the indentured contract system combined to make the Indians captive labor: the legal obligation to work, the promotion of indebtedness through unmeetable workloads, and the requirement that they fulfill the purposes of the employer during the period of indentureship in order to secure their freedom. 1 In fact, less than a quarter of the 144,000 Indian indentured laborers returned “home.” These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Key concepts: Colonialism, Politics, Government (linguistics), Promotion (chess), Obligation, Stereotype (UML), Humanity, Political science

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
East Indian/West Indian: Racial Stereotype, Hosay, and the Politics of National Space — Research Paper | ScholarLens