NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/culture/celtic/8466

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-29 | 5.5 KB

Xref: sparky soc.culture.celtic:8466 soc.culture.british:18085
Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!network.ucsd.edu!fledgist
From: [e-mail] (Fragano Ledgister)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: The story of the Scottish flag
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Dec 92 23:35:40 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of California, San Diego
Lines: 118
NNTP-Posting-Host: weber.ucsd.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Christopher R. Dunlea) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Fragano Ledgister) writes:
>>>
>>
>>It needs to be noted here that indentures were in vogue for only a
>>few decades, while African slavery lasted for over two centuries. In
>>no way, even given horrible conditions of life and work, could
>>indentured servants be considered chattel property.
>>
>
>A "few decades" translates into roughly 1600-1690. I don't know, call

Indentures were only significant from the 1620s to the 1640s.
Thereafter in the
West Indies and the southern mainland colonies slave labour provided
the bulk of the workforce.


>it what you will, but if you are forced to endure all the above,
>and you have no rights but as your master (same word here) allows,
>you sound like a slave to me. If you look and act like a duck...

Indentured servants had legal rights. These might have been ignored,
but they were there. Furthermore, those who skipped their indentures
could blend into the general white population in a way not available
to black slaves. In the British empire slaves were granted no legal
protections until 1823.


>Seiously, about 2/3 of the population south of New England in Colonial
>times started out as servants. Of this number, about 40% died in
>servetude. Of THAT remaining number (we're talking smaller now) about 30%
>actually got tenancy. Of THAT even smaller number about 10% even got to own
>land and were called Mister.

What proportion of slaves attained that?

>>
>>By no means all white indentured servants were criminals, some were
>>people down on their luck who were given the choice of signing an
>>indenture or going to the workhouse.
>>
>
>We know that the years for the most indentures were the middle decades of the
>1600's. But what were those years? Irish rebellion, Civil War, and other
>forms of activity not approved by the government. There was no shortage
>of people to threaten.You yourself admit that Montserrat and Barbados
>were filled with the Irish--why do you think they were there at all?
>Barbados was a sugar colony--not exciting about chopping cane
>till you croaked.

Montserrat was a sugar colony as well. In neither case did
intentured labour have much to do with sugar production, since that
did not begin on a large scale until the 1640s. Prior to that such
colonies as Barbados produced tobacco and dyestuffs.


>>
>>Indentured service was of little significance in the colonisation of
>>Jamaica. The problem of runaways was greater in that colony, since
>>in the late 17th century an alternative to working on the
>>plantations was available on the island. That alternative, service
>>on a privateer, seems to have been quite popular.
>>
>ALL the colonies relied to an extent on indentures. Remember, the whole
>idea was to get rid of undesireable scum (as the English saw it) in
>some useful purpose for the Empire. No surprise that some of them wound
>up as pirates.

I repeat, indentured service was of little significance in Jamaica.
A decade after the conquest was completed it relied on slave labour,
rather than contract labour. Privateers, by the way, are not pirates
(their actions are commerce raiding in time of war -- under license
-- rather than simple thievery).


>>
>>>cost 20 lbs because they were criminals (ie, no overhead). While you may
>>         ^^^
>>           \ this is pounds weight, not pounds sterling
>Hey, give me a break, I don't have a pounds sterling symbol on this
>network thing.

Neither do I  -- there are other ways such as using the # sign -- of
indicating what you mean.

>>prevalent and operate on a far larger scale. You need to explain
>>why, if slaves were more expensive, there were far more of them.
>
>Over time, there were more slaves, but slavery from Africa was irrelevant
>before 1690. No one could afford them! 60 pounds was a lot to pay when

Not in the West Indies. Slavery was of considerable importance there
by the 1690s. The first major slave revolt in Jamaica occurred in
1690, and the guerrilla war between runaway slaves and the English
which followed that revolt was to last nearly half a century.

>
>>Indentured servitude, by the way, was reintroduced in the mid-19th
>>slavery. Most of the bonded labourers came from the Indian
>>subcontinent, though some were brought from Germany and from
>>Madeira, and some were recruited in China.
>>
>
>I didn't know that, but I guess you're right. That's how the Chinese
>built the railroads. (And you can still see it in the Mexican grapepickers
>in California, who I read are dependent on their bosses for everything).
>
>Chris
>
I should note that in the paragraph above I was referring to British
colonies, rather than to contract labourers imported to the US.

--
Dawn over the dark sea brings on the sun;
She leans across the hilltop: see, the light!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail]