Talk:Emancipation of the British West Indies

How to clean up this article
This article desparately needs a map. I couldn't point out where these places are with a map in front of me.

It should probably have an intro that explains that there was slavery there, and why, how long, and by whom/of whom.

Needs some sections

Vvuppala 08:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The article needs references to the historians that argue the different causes and motives behind the abolition movement. The Carrington - Drescher debate may be of some value.

User: JD Morgan 11:43, 06 February 2007

This article
This article does duplicate a lot of information available elsewhere, in articles on the Abolition of Slavery, etc and individual campaigners. But I do think it has value, nevertheless. I cannot believe that there is no mention of William Wilberforce. I will attempt to adress these issues in the coming weeks. – Agendum (talk) 09:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This articles makes a huge, simplistic and wholly inaccurate leap in logic and history by suggesting, without any references or attribution whatsoever, that since the abolition of slavery in the 1800s the West Indies has remained mired in poverty and thus opted for drugs trafficking and offshore banking as prime industries. This is not only highly misleading but prejudicial and pejorative. There is absolutely no mention of the rise of the labour movement linked to the disturbances of the 1930s, the significant rise in living standards and incomes, the granting of universal adult suffrage and the subsequent rise of largely peaceful, stable democratic leadership by the descendants of West Indian slaves. At the very least, the final paragraph should either be amended immediately or deleted. As the article presently stands, it should be considered wholly unreliable as a source of information on this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gittensj (talk • contribs) 19:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Real slavery and route to rebellion
When slavery is mentioned, there is a general tendency to avoid all mention of what real slavery is and was in South Asia.

Slavery in South Asia was not a statutory item established and maintained through any administrative law.

Social system is graded into different levels by the local feudal languages. The lowest sections automatically become the slaves. They were generally treated like domestic cattle. They live in very feeble huts inside an agricultural plot. They do not have any right to come out, unless the are rented out to some other farmer.

They had no proper dresses, lived without amenities for sanitation, and literally lived terribly dirty. So they could be used for dirty manual labourer without any qualms.

They were seen as half-animals. Animals do not revolt. In a similar manner, these slaves do not revolt.

The drastic social change came during the English rule in the subcontinent. In the new social system wherein the traditional upper classes lost their statutory administrative rights, many slaves escaped to other farm lands wherein they were merely paid labourers. Next came the slavery abolishment Act in English East India Company ruled locations.

Many converted to Islam and improved the social life. The English rule was a heaven-sent opportunity for the slaves in thousands of years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.193.88 (talk) 07:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)