English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

7 answers

There were indentured servants, who had their travel and accommodation paid by landowners/plantation owners, and had to work for them until they had worked off what they owned.
Also there were also convicts that were transported to all parts of the Empire before the colonisation of Australia, they had to work as part of their punishment, so in effect they were slaves.

2007-02-27 10:09:04 · answer #1 · answered by Hendo 5 · 0 0

After the Battle of Kinsale at the beginning of the 17th century, the English were faced with a problem of some 30,000 military prisoners, which they solved by creating an official policy of banishment. Other Irish leaders had voluntarily exiled to the continent, in fact, the Battle of Kinsale marked the beginning of the so-called “Wild Geese”, those Irish banished from their homeland. Banishment, however, did not solve the problem entirely, so James II encouraged selling the Irish as slaves to planters and settlers in the New World colonies. The first Irish slaves were sold to a settlement on the Amazon River In South America in 1612. It would probably be more accurate to say that the first “recorded” sale of Irish slaves was in 1612, because the English, who were noted for their meticulous record keeping, simply did not keep track of things Irish, whether it be goods or people, unless such was being shipped to England. The disappearance of a few hundred or a few thousand Irish was not a cause for alarm, but rather for rejoicing. Who cared what their names were anyway, they were gone

2007-02-27 03:11:57 · answer #2 · answered by Barbara Doll to you 7 · 1 1

Although not strictly slaves there where quite a few Irish that went to the carribean that effectivly gave themselves into bondage (effectivley slavery) as a means of escaping the potato famine and also there where many white prisoners sent to the plantations much in the way there sent to Austrailia. Both of these groups although not strictly speaking slaves would have had little or no better treatment.

2007-02-27 03:04:23 · answer #3 · answered by Ian L 1 · 1 1

The previous answers hint at "indentured servitude", which was extremely common in the seventeenth and eighteenth century. However, most migrants chose America, rather than the West Indies.

Basically, one would agree to work for a pre-determined length of time - usually ten to twenty years - for little more than food and shelter. This in exchange for passage to the new land, which was otherwise unaffordable.

After years of dutiful service, you might also expect to earn a plot of land as a reward - and a place in the community as a free man. It was a great trade.

Most migrants were Irish, German or continental Europeans, fleeing their overcrowded homeland in search of a better life. I'm not sure whether they would describe their experience as "slavery".

But whatever!

2007-02-27 09:02:33 · answer #4 · answered by Zerg Proletariat 2 · 1 1

No white slaves as far as I know to Windies. However, thousands of so-called 'indentured' servants were sent from UK to the American Colonies and elsewhere. These 'indentured' servants, often young men, were more or less 'enslaved' for up to twenty years while working for next to nothing as an apprentice to a tradesman.

2007-02-27 03:27:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Yes. England and Scotland. A few other European Nationalities,
soldiers of fortune, captured fighting with Scotland may have also been sentenced to transportation.

2007-03-02 01:07:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

No no whites.The whites in in the west indies came from Spain,France,Holland,Denmark and England as colonists if thats what you mean?

2007-02-27 02:56:14 · answer #7 · answered by frankturk50 6 · 0 3

fedest.com, questions and answers