Dear Editor,
I am writing to shed light on the historical terminology and practices that the British employed in Guyana, specifically regarding the term “indentured servants.” While often considered distinct from slavery, the reality for many indentured labourers in Guyana was alarmingly similar to that of enslaved individuals.
The term “indentured servant” was coined by the British as a means of repackaging and sanitizing a form of exploitation that closely mirrored slavery. This practice began in the mid-19th century, following the abolition of slavery in 1834. Seeking to sustain their colonial agricultural economy, British plantation owners turned to indentured labour, primarily recruiting from India.
These indentured labourers, bound by contracts often riddled with coercion and deceit, faced severe hardships. They worked long hours under harsh conditions, for meager wages, and with little recourse to improve their circumstances. The promise of eventual freedom and land ownership was rarely fulfilled, and the system perpetuated a cycle of poverty and dependence.
Historical records and personal accounts from that era reveal the stark reality that these labourers were subjected to, which was in many ways indistinguishable from the experiences of enslaved Africans. The indenture system restricted their movements, subjected them to physical punishment, and denied them basic human rights.
It is crucial to acknowledge and rectify the narrative that downplays the oppressive nature of indentured servitude. By understanding and disseminating the true nature of this exploitation, we honour the resilience and suffering of those who endured it and ensure that history accurately reflects their experiences. I urge readers and historians to delve deeper into the past and recognize that the term “indentured servant” was merely a modification of slavery, serving to mask the continued exploitation of labourers in Guyana under British rule.
Sincerely,
Keith Bernard