Hacker News Reader

One additional bit of context on the Indian indentured labour is that crossing the seas was considered a great taboo among Hindus, leading to a loss of your "caste" because you had lost contact with the holy land. So only the very desperate and destitute were willing to take this deal. Or the adventurous.

The British Cellular Jail on the Andaman Islands were considered double jeopardy because of this as well.

Does this apply today to construction workers in the Middle East, whose families remain in SE Asia?

That taboo is long since gone (I'm assuming you're talking about South Asia, though).

> Guyana speaks English.

The article says “My major historical sources include a 1992 US Military-commissioned study of Guyana and Belize. No, I have no idea why they lumped those two countries together”

This seems to be the connection: only mainland countries south of USA primarily English speaking. (Of course both related to British colonialism)

> for some reason, Indians were never officially called "slaves" by the British

An indentured worker and a slave are not the same thing. While one would prefer to be neither of those things, generally the former voluntarily entered into the arrangement (or in lieu of prison), were bound for a fixed term, weren't considered property, and had at least some legal recourse. Were some indentured workers de-facto slaves? Almost certainly. That doesn't mean they were the same thing though.

Its neighbor, French Guyana is French territory. Thanks to that, Brazil is the country with the largest border to France.

Equatorial launch site for French space program.

Pushed my favourite geography trick question of "what is the tallest mountain in Europe" to second place.

Technically, Guyana's neighbor is Suriname to the East, not French Guiana - there isn't a shared border.

sure, I always mix the positioning of the orignal Guyanas (Suriname as called Dutch Guyana)

> In fact Guyanese and Belizeans are able to pick and choose what to indicate on forms regarding their ethnicity, as it suits them.

I thought everyone could do this

> for some reason, Indians were never officially called "slaves" by the British

The same goes for chinese, japanese and filipino "slaves". In official capacity, they may not have been called slaves, but unofficially, they were. There are old portguese books that claimed japanese made the best slaves. And there was a british viceroy who claimed indians made the best slaves.

> Guyanese are often considered "Hispanic" in the U.S.

Maybe in official documents but certainly not in everyday life. Guyanese are considered and treated like indians or 'hindus' and they themselves view themselves as indians, not hispanic.

>for some reason, Indians were never officially called "slaves" by the British

I suppose it's because they weren't. It's sort of fashionable to compare hard conditions to slavery in many fields, but back in those times the difference would be obvious.

Indentured labour was done by contract for a fixed period, and they were paid. For people who believe that there was workers who got on the ships through their own agency this is important. This undoubtedly happened along with those who were compelled or deceived.

Frankly, I think the reason that it is not more often referred to as slavery is because it wasn’t officially referred to as such contemporaneously. But there is legitimate debate around the differences between Indian indentured servitude and slavery.

To add to this, Indians could choose to return back home to India after their contract was over. Of course lots decided to stay, but some did return.

Thank you making note of this. The Guyanese I know have an oral history of being decieved and compelled. They were tricked into getting on board a boat and once there not allowed to leave. They were heart broken that their families did not know what happened to them. The return to India was offered later as reparation. But by then they had built entire lives and had new families of their own. The British did not call it slavery because slavery was outlawed by this time.

The author's heavy reliance on a historical narative authored by the U.S. military probably contributed to the rather sanitized recounting of the role Britain had in imigrating 286,000 Indians to Guyana.

I am curious to know if anyone else here shares this history in their family.

> - Yes, there are countries in "Latin" America that speak English.

Which one?

Guyana and Belize.

Latin Americans don't associate Guyana and Belize as Latin America, beyond the proximity. Latin Americans are associated with Spanish and Portuguese mainly (romance languages). Also, the colonization by Spain and Portugal. Guyana and Belize are associated specifically with the Caribbean area.

That's why the original says "Latin" in quotes, but geographically they're in Central/South America and, as this discussion has illustrated, that means "Latin" as far as most Americans are concerned.

Caribbean countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caribbean

When you say good weather, where would you place Guyana in this map? https://xkcd.com/1916/

Thanks for the link. I'm keeping it for future reference. My ideal weather is "slightly warm and slightly humid" all the time. Alas, I live in a place where we have 7 months of winter each year. One day....

> - Yes, there are countries in "Latin" America that speak English. There are also countries that mainly speak French.

"Latin America" has multiple definitions. Most of those definitions do exclude English-speaking Belize and Guyana (and Dutch-speaking Suriname).

Ah yes, Dutch too!

Imagine explaining this to middle-America.

"Latin America" is an US-American invention. It is all America. The US is just one of the American countries (and culture, which is very similar to the other American countries but rich).

Don't think "Latin America" is a US invention, the term "Latino" is, though. Latin America is just a term for the countries in America colonised by romance language countries. As the sibling comment says the exact definition varies, but wouldn't say it's a US invention.

What you say about the US just being one of the American countries is correct, and it's often a source of confusion (intended or not)

> Don't think "Latin America" is a US invention, the term "Latino" is, though

You are right. But also the term Latino "creates" Latin America, which are the countries Latinos come from. And then also a subculture of immigrants in the US, which funnily is a bit excluding of Brazilians as not real Latinos (as there is also a expectation that everybody below the US speaks Spanish).

> You are right.

You should have stopped right there.

Latino is a US term to refer to people in the US by their origin.

Outside of the US people use Latinoamérica to refer to the central and South American former colonies of France, Portugal and Spain.

Iberoamérica is used too if you want to be more specific and exclude the French colonies

> Iberoamérica is used too if you want to be more specific and exclude the French colonies

Oh yeah it's very funny when you start the "actually Quebec is part of Latin America, but the Guyanas aren't, except for French Guiana, which isn't actually a country, and about Louisiana...."

That is why we get back to "Latin America" doesn't exist :) It is all America, for the grievance of US Americans.

No, Latino is a US person of latinoamerican origin, it's something they invented. For example, I am latin american, but don't consider myself Latino since I'm from South America, but not from the US.

It's a bit of a complex issue since it's the US taking over a term or culture and normalising it as the only valid one.