Ever so often, I get this feeling, during the 30 years I’ve returned to Guyana, that I am in a time loop. Take this claim that keeps on being made by African Guyanese ideologues, that Indian indentured labourers undercut the bargaining power of the freed slaves after 1838, and that is what pushed them off the plantations. “It’s like déjà vu all over again”, as Yogi Berra was alleged to have quipped.
In vain I’ve pointed out, over the years, that it’s futile to play the “blame game” when, in the development of capitalism, after constructing its base on the back of African chattel slave labour (following genocide of the Indigenous Peoples), it went on to appropriate the very form of unfree labour it had used before slavery – indentured labour (of Europeans). There is no question the planters did intend to undercut the bargaining power of the freed slaves after Emancipation – but the new 19th Century indentureds were also contributing to what Marx dismissed as “primitive accumulation” in the drive of capitalism to create what he ironically called “doubly free labour”: free to sell their labour-power to anyone they choose, and freed from any ownership over the means of production!
But I was just as unsuccessful in pointing out that the details of their claim were so blatantly incorrect that it suggested that more was at play than careless historiography. In 1998, I noted in my paper, “Aetiology of an Ethnic Riot”: “It was not Indian labour that broke the back of African attempts to wrest higher wages from the planters. Rather, if labour were to be “blamed”, it was more the Portuguese and, ironically, fellow Africans from both the WI and Africa, who played key roles.
The ex-slaves called the strike of 1847 at a point of financial crisis for the planters, who — encouraged by the indentureship of 15,747 Portuguese, 12,897 Africans from the WI, and 6957 Africans from Africa; a total of 35,601 compared with only 8692 Indians — held off the demands for higher wages. After 1848, by when more than half of them had moved into villages and towns, the unskilled ex-slaves, by and large, decided to make their living off the plantations, because even though Indian indenture was suspended between 1838 and 1845, and then again in 1849-50, there was no movement back to the plantation by the Africans, nor was there any increase in the wage scale. Available land was the pull factor for the move.
What is also overlooked is that eventually there were more indentured Africans arriving from the Caribbean (40,783) than the Portuguese (30,078) from Madeira and from Africa (13,355). In fact, between 1835 and 1838, exactly 5000 ex-African slaves had been brought from the smaller islands into Guyana. Somehow, these African indentured servants – mostly from Barbados – have been forgotten. Ironically, there were several instances recorded of Indian indentureds protesting that the West Indian indentureds were undercutting their wages!
I wrote to one interlocutor in 2004: The point I have been making is that we are going against the analyses of history made by eminent West Indian historians such as Williams and Rodney (among others) when we lay blame on the immigrants – whether Portuguese, Indian, Chinese, West Indian or African – who were all indentured.
It was the working of the systems imposed on us by the British, whether political (imperialism), economic (pre-capitalist) or cultural (cultural hegemony), that kept us all in thrall. Today, we are still busy blaming each other for our mess, and not questioning whether those bequeathed systems are not still contributing to our problems; and not determining whether we should get busy, as a first step, modifying them to assist in leading to greater equity and justice for all of us.
Twelve years later, after capitalism’s latest globalised financialised phase has imploded, the travails of “doubly free” labour continues, as Britain, Europe and the US blame immigrants who “took away their jobs”.
To what will I wake up tomorrow?
