Dear Editor,
Your editorial “Misuse of history” (Sep 15) — in response to commentaries on slavery and indentureship — does not say specifically how mentioning and or studying or comparing (contrasting) each with one another or with other labour systems “have been misused”. Your editorial stated and rightly so that the two systems of labour can’t be conflated (confused with one another) and neither can they be equated. No serious examples or illustrations were offered on misuses of either labour system or on how commentators conflated the two. No missives equated or conflated indentureship and slavery.
Also, in my voluminous readings on and studies or research of both systems, I did not come across any writings that equate both systems or sought to conflate them. There are many studies in the literature comparing and contrasting both. Comparing and contrasting is not the same as equating or conflating two subjects or systems. In my many years of studies in varied subjects and achievement of multiple degrees, comparative study was and still is a norm at all levels of education.
Comparing and contrasting is a standard method of studies across all disciplines. It is central to all studies even in architecture and the natural sciences as well as in culture and ethnic conflict. It is a lens to understand something. It is employed in almost every subject imaginable. History, slavery and indentureship are not excluded. I recall taking a course on Africana Literature at CUNY City College campus in 1979; the professor, James DeJongh, a St Thomas native, insisted that comparisons be made between Black West Indian and Black African literature and between Black writers and Indo West Indian writers or between the Black and Indian experiences. My paper compared VS Naipaul with other Black West Indian writers on their writings on growing up in the Caribbean — between Indian and African. That is not conflating topics or subjects. When I took Black Studies courses, slavery and indentureship were compared (contrasted) as part of the curriculum.
The comparative method in any subject helps students and scholars and even lay people to understand two or more subjects or people or systems. Communism and capitalism are compared as a method of study to better understand economic systems. Democracy and dictatorship are compared to understand political systems. By understanding other people or systems, we can better understand ourselves and appreciate their and our own cultures and history and our political life.
Having explained the concept of comparative studies as a methodology, it is the position of Africanist writers that slavery and indentureship should never be compared or contrasted. Your editorial also seems to take a similar position. That position should be honoured since Africanists are very sensitive on studies in slavery and who can write on that dehumanizing
system of labour. Africanists have also taken the position that reparative justice for the indentured should not be included in the group that pursues same for slavery. That should also be honoured as clearly bringing the two groups together or pursuing reparative justice as one group would only lead to deeper division in the society along ethnic lines. The descendants of indentureship should seek their own reparative justice perhaps teaming up with those who champion reparations for the indigenous people.
Yours sincerely,
Vishnu Bisram
