WI: British ban of the Indian indentured system continued

In the wake of Britain’s ban of slavery, a manpower shortage emerged in the Caribbean. Ex-slaves refuses to continue to work on their former masters’ fields. The result was a labour crisis. To solve this, indentured Indian labourers were transported across the British Empire, and later other empires imported Indian labourers from Britain to their own colonies. From 1833 until the 1910s, Indians were transported, with this movement of people only ending with Indian nationalists’ pressure. By this point, millions of Indians had been transported across the British Empire, especially in Fiji, Mauritius, and the Caribbean, as well as in French and Dutch parts of the Caribbean, substantially influencing demography in all of those regions.

However, even at the time, there was much criticism of the indentured system, especially so soon after the ban of slavery. An anti-indenture movement emerged, employing many of the same people as the anti-slavery movement. This movement achieved success in 1839, when the East India Company banned indentured labour. Unfortunately, the planters in turn influenced the East India Company, and in 1842, the ban was overturned. Indentured labour became a mainstay of the British Empire until the 1910s. In 1920, finally, the system was banned for good.

What if this ban hadn’t been overturned, and what would have been the effects on Fiji, Mauritius, the Caribbean, and the wider British Empire in its absence?
 
In the wake of Britain’s ban of slavery, a manpower shortage emerged in the Caribbean. Ex-slaves refuses to continue to work on their former masters’ fields.

Wait seriously? Sugar is so much of a cash cow it should be trivial.

"Let's see. It took X pounds to feed my slaves. Y is how much rent and taxes they will pay when they become free (probably just rent since most money was tariffs and land taxes at this time). Ok, I just need to pay my newly freed slaves 8/7*X+ Y. That's enough to cover living costs and some money to spare for entertainment or whatever farmhands do with their money"

These ex-slaves knew how to farm. They were not trained in other tasks like hunting, sailing, being a bouncer, or street sweeper. Economics say that unless the ex-masters were supremely stingy or the ex-slaves were given some farmland of their own, the labor problem should be solved quite easily. If the ex-masters didn't go through my calculation, they are being too spiteful for their own good. If they did and the ex-slaves refused, the ex-slaves would be earning much less on a per hour basis on whatever other job that they took (and are a novice at). If the ex-slaves were given their own land, good for them and I see how this problem occurred.
 
Wait seriously? Sugar is so much of a cash cow it should be trivial.

"Let's see. It took X pounds to feed my slaves. Y is how much rent and taxes they will pay when they become free (probably just rent since most money was tariffs and land taxes at this time). Ok, I just need to pay my newly freed slaves 8/7*X+ Y. That's enough to cover living costs and some money to spare for entertainment or whatever farmhands do with their money"

These ex-slaves knew how to farm. They were not trained in other tasks like hunting, sailing, being a bouncer, or street sweeper. Economics say that unless the ex-masters were supremely stingy or the ex-slaves were given some farmland of their own, the labor problem should be solved quite easily. If the ex-masters didn't go through my calculation, they are being too spiteful for their own good. If they did and the ex-slaves refused, the ex-slaves would be earning much less on a per hour basis on whatever other job that they took (and are a novice at). If the ex-slaves were given their own land, good for them and I see how this problem occurred.

Back then, most weren't exactly considering that sort of stuff.
 
Wait seriously? Sugar is so much of a cash cow it should be trivial.

"Let's see. It took X pounds to feed my slaves. Y is how much rent and taxes they will pay when they become free (probably just rent since most money was tariffs and land taxes at this time). Ok, I just need to pay my newly freed slaves 8/7*X+ Y. That's enough to cover living costs and some money to spare for entertainment or whatever farmhands do with their money"

These ex-slaves knew how to farm. They were not trained in other tasks like hunting, sailing, being a bouncer, or street sweeper. Economics say that unless the ex-masters were supremely stingy or the ex-slaves were given some farmland of their own, the labor problem should be solved quite easily. If the ex-masters didn't go through my calculation, they are being too spiteful for their own good. If they did and the ex-slaves refused, the ex-slaves would be earning much less on a per hour basis on whatever other job that they took (and are a novice at). If the ex-slaves were given their own land, good for them and I see how this problem occurred.
Capitalism's ruthless drive to exploitation is economically damaging and undermines the source of its own wealth? I'm shocked.
 
Wait seriously? Sugar is so much of a cash cow it should be trivial.

Note that the manpower shortage began in 1807 with the ban on the slave trade, as there simply weren’t enough black people. The full ban on slavery just made it even worse. Importing Indians solved the manpower issue, and they were imported to such an extent that they make up a plurality in many Caribbean nations.

I guess merely paying ex-slaves’ rent and food wouldn’t solve that problem, and Caribbean planters heard about Indian indentured servants doing a good job in Mauritius and Natal. Therefore, they imported Indians, enough that they became the largest ethnic group in much of the Caribbean.
 
Note that the manpower shortage began in 1807

The OP stated it started with the ban of slavery and talked about ex-slaves refusing to work. This means that the ex-masters were unwilling to pay a bit to make much more £££ at harvest, the ex-slaves were given their own farms, or they took non agricultural jobs (which means taking a pay cut)
 
Capitalism isn't a person. While the system as a whole can bring consequences bad for everyone including the system, why would a person undermine the source of his own wealth.
The point.









Your head.


Yes capitalism isn't literally a person. It is, as you stated, a system. But inherent to that system is exploitation and incentives to intensify that exploitation. The long-term consequences of this exploitation often results in rather detrimental consequences for the people being exploited which can also undermine the ability of the system to exploit them. Saying that capitalism has a drive that undermines the source of its wealth is a metaphor to communicate the point across.

As an aside I think that your analysis overlooks a few reasons why ex-slaves wouldn't want to continue working for their former masters.

The first being that, by all accounts, the sort of labour involved in sugar production at the time wasn't particularly pleasant as backbreaking labour goes, they did have to literally force people to do it after-all, and even with higher pay many would probably want to seek less horrible forms of employment.

Secondly, they used to be slaves and the plantation system was pretty integral to that slavery. It's not unreasonable to assume that many of the ex-slaves would have associated working on a sugar plantation with slavery and would therefore want to abandon that career path.

I believe something similar happened in Haiti after their revolution where the government ended up facing an economic and political crisis because emancipated population refused to go back to growing sugar, despite their economy being so heavily dependent on it (especially to pay off the French indemnity).
 
Anyways, to end this digression, here’s an idea. IOTL, many Javanese indentured servants were imported into Suriname, to the extent that 18% of its total population is Javanese today. ITTL, I presume that we’d see more of that, maybe even to the extent that by the time indenture comes to an end it is majority-Javanese and majority-Muslim. A Muslim-majority nation in the Americas, now that’s an interesting idea.
 
Wait seriously? Sugar is so much of a cash cow it should be trivial.

"Let's see. It took X pounds to feed my slaves. Y is how much rent and taxes they will pay when they become free (probably just rent since most money was tariffs and land taxes at this time). Ok, I just need to pay my newly freed slaves 8/7*X+ Y. That's enough to cover living costs and some money to spare for entertainment or whatever farmhands do with their money"

These ex-slaves knew how to farm. They were not trained in other tasks like hunting, sailing, being a bouncer, or street sweeper. Economics say that unless the ex-masters were supremely stingy or the ex-slaves were given some farmland of their own, the labor problem should be solved quite easily. If the ex-masters didn't go through my calculation, they are being too spiteful for their own good. If they did and the ex-slaves refused, the ex-slaves would be earning much less on a per hour basis on whatever other job that they took (and are a novice at). If the ex-slaves were given their own land, good for them and I see how this problem occurred.

I think you are overlooking the opportunity costs of working on a sugar plantation. Ex-slaves could earn more money elsewhere, even without their own land, at considerably lower death rates.
 
Top