Write a note in fifteen lines the exploitation of labour under colonialism
Answers
Answered by
1
I believe that it was quite common at the beginning of the age of colonialism, when colonizers thought of colonised peoples as uncivilised savages and sources of slave labour. For example, the early Spanish and Portuguese conquistadors of the 16th and early 17th centuries often forced the Amerindians in their colonies into slavery, compelling them to work in gold and silver mines or in agricultural entreprises.
Later, colonising nations began to see indigenous peoples as partners, if not necessarily as equals. The French and British colonisers of North America, for example, concluded military alliances with various native tribes (such as the Algonquin or the Iroquois) and engaged in the fur trade with them.
By the Victorian era, colonialism began to popularly idealised as a method of civilising peoples, and thus unfair exploitation of colonised peoples were generally frowned upon. The slave trade had been denounced in Europe after the Congress of Vienna in 1815, slavery itself was banned in the British Empire in 1833, and across the Atlantic in the USA by the end of the Civil War. Though conditions for colonised peoples were still far from fair, they were at least generally no longer thought of as human chattel. However, atrocities were still committed in this period, most notably in the Belgian colony of the Congo Free State. Here, at the close of the 19th centuries, native Congolese were forced by the Belgian colonial administrators to meet quotas on the extraction of natural resources such as rubber and ivory. Those who failed to meet such quotas were faced with horrible punishments at the hands of Belgian soldiers, including rape, murder, and mutilation.
The horrified reaction from the rest of Europe after these Belgian atrocities came to light in the wake of the Casement Report (the product of a British inquiry) demonstrated that such actions by a colonial power were unacceptable. The Belgian government was forced to take direct control of the Congolese territory (previously it had been run as a private economic venture by King Leopold II) and conditions improved for the Congolese after that point.
Later, colonising nations began to see indigenous peoples as partners, if not necessarily as equals. The French and British colonisers of North America, for example, concluded military alliances with various native tribes (such as the Algonquin or the Iroquois) and engaged in the fur trade with them.
By the Victorian era, colonialism began to popularly idealised as a method of civilising peoples, and thus unfair exploitation of colonised peoples were generally frowned upon. The slave trade had been denounced in Europe after the Congress of Vienna in 1815, slavery itself was banned in the British Empire in 1833, and across the Atlantic in the USA by the end of the Civil War. Though conditions for colonised peoples were still far from fair, they were at least generally no longer thought of as human chattel. However, atrocities were still committed in this period, most notably in the Belgian colony of the Congo Free State. Here, at the close of the 19th centuries, native Congolese were forced by the Belgian colonial administrators to meet quotas on the extraction of natural resources such as rubber and ivory. Those who failed to meet such quotas were faced with horrible punishments at the hands of Belgian soldiers, including rape, murder, and mutilation.
The horrified reaction from the rest of Europe after these Belgian atrocities came to light in the wake of the Casement Report (the product of a British inquiry) demonstrated that such actions by a colonial power were unacceptable. The Belgian government was forced to take direct control of the Congolese territory (previously it had been run as a private economic venture by King Leopold II) and conditions improved for the Congolese after that point.
Answered by
0
Extraordinarily common.
Many colonies had slaves, either locals (Latin America, India) or imports (Anglo-America). In some cases, the systems were even set up so that freed slaves or their families or ethnic group could also own slaves.
Indentured servitude was also very common. This system may seem like a fair business contract in theory, and sometimes it was, but often the master/employer used fraud or force to make the indentured into slaves in all but name*. As an American, I regret that this fact is not known more widely in my country. Formal slavery is appropriately studied and vilified, but colonial communities with indentured servitude are often given a pass when they should be recognized as being built essentially on white slavery.
Throughout the period of modern colonialism, most colonies were economic ventures, and for obvious reasons most of those ventures were simple, extractive industries like plantation farming or mining - colonies were usually chosen because they had some useful climate or resource. Otherwise, it would have been easier to start a workshop at home.
Likewise, many colonies weren't intended as a major destination for immigrants. At least early on, it was usually exceptional groups like military detachments, chartered businessmen, whalers, criminals, missionaries, and victims of religious persecution who moved to a colony. It takes time to build a society that normal families would risk crossing an ocean to join. It does not take a long time to set up a silver mine or a sugar farm.
Extractive industries don't require highly-trained or educated workers, but they do require a lot of them. For much of the period, the easiest and cheapest way to get and keep masses of labor was through force.
*Indentured servants were obviously still better off than African slaves. There were many more ways their legal circumstances could improve, I don't believe their children were indentured, and if nothing else, it was much easier to escape.
Many colonies had slaves, either locals (Latin America, India) or imports (Anglo-America). In some cases, the systems were even set up so that freed slaves or their families or ethnic group could also own slaves.
Indentured servitude was also very common. This system may seem like a fair business contract in theory, and sometimes it was, but often the master/employer used fraud or force to make the indentured into slaves in all but name*. As an American, I regret that this fact is not known more widely in my country. Formal slavery is appropriately studied and vilified, but colonial communities with indentured servitude are often given a pass when they should be recognized as being built essentially on white slavery.
Throughout the period of modern colonialism, most colonies were economic ventures, and for obvious reasons most of those ventures were simple, extractive industries like plantation farming or mining - colonies were usually chosen because they had some useful climate or resource. Otherwise, it would have been easier to start a workshop at home.
Likewise, many colonies weren't intended as a major destination for immigrants. At least early on, it was usually exceptional groups like military detachments, chartered businessmen, whalers, criminals, missionaries, and victims of religious persecution who moved to a colony. It takes time to build a society that normal families would risk crossing an ocean to join. It does not take a long time to set up a silver mine or a sugar farm.
Extractive industries don't require highly-trained or educated workers, but they do require a lot of them. For much of the period, the easiest and cheapest way to get and keep masses of labor was through force.
*Indentured servants were obviously still better off than African slaves. There were many more ways their legal circumstances could improve, I don't believe their children were indentured, and if nothing else, it was much easier to escape.
Similar questions