Colonialist capitalism or capitalist colonialism
-
“The fruit of our labour was used to build your nation” tell the lyrics in Debris by Asian Dub Foundation. I think this idea is conveyed in both Visram’s chapter and in Gilliat-Ray and Mellor’s writing. Both Ayahs and Lascars are used as cheap labour for the benefit of Britain’s economy and are then left with no job and no passage back to their country once they are not needed anymore. For lascars, they were useful until the shipping industry started to decline post WW2; they started to face socio-economic difficulties that were not addressed (Gilliat-Ray & Mellor 466). The ones from lower castes were unable to find work or to go back, and the question of repatriation was only brought up when they were considered too much of an issue for the city. The discussion mainly was about the financial burden of repatriation for taxpayers (Visram 29). In the case of Asians servants, more than cheap labour, they were considered like goods. It was “fashion” to have an Asian servant, more than an African (Visram 13). Visram explained how they used to disguise Africans in Oriental costumes which refers to Said’s concept of Orientalism.
These readings made me reflect on the links between capitalism and colonialism. Bringing back Ayahs to Britain started with the time of the East Asian Company since British families had luxurious lives with servants that they wanted to keep when going back to Britain. This company was delocalized for cheap labour to maximize profit which led to colonial behaviours towards locals. It could be seen as the capitalist hunger inducing colonial practices. However, if colonialist and racist ideas were not that deeply entrenched in Westerner’s minds, they would not think of using Asians as cheap labour and as the Asian Dub Fundation’s song says “sucking us dry our country’s natural juice”. Colonialism has fueled capitalism through the use of locals as cheap labour and extraction methods of resources.
The song also shows the paradox between having brought Asians for cheap labour and racism. I interpret the lyrics “we’re only here ‘cos you were there” in Debris as “you colonized our country, you exploited us and brought us here and now you complain that we are”. This paradox is also demonstrated in Visram’s chapter since British families bring servants to Britain, then leave them without work and complain that there are so many “destitute” in the streets. There is also a paradox in the way the “Muslim” neighborhood of Cardif became gentrified due to the charm of multiculturalism while Muslims had to move out to a poorer neighborhood. On another level, it made think of how this happens in many big cities with the “hipsters” wanted to move to former working-class neighborhood for its charm and authenticity and the community culture while making it unaffordable for communities to stay.
-
Your point about Lascars made me think about how the French definition is a very derogative word for cunning. I think it’s interesting they were able to find work until after WWII, and stay “afloat” which speaks to the resourcefulness they were able to employ.
I also thought it was very interesting how your argument was financially focused because I believe the need for cheap labor played a significant role in framing Indians as chattel instead of human beings. For example you mention the “fashion” example of having an Indian servant. The most prominent then would be Queen Victoria’s ‘munshi’.
Although she promoted him and even awarded him a grant of land, the munshi was there in the first place for fashion. The queen “was excited about them as a child would he with a new toy” (30, Visram). His objectification began before his arrival and his relegation to his “proper place” a very telling story of his less than human treatment as even the queen, who was given an “ultimatum” (33, Visram) was powerless in front of race. His identity brought accusations of political treason and spying showing that they were always suspicious of the munshi and only wanted him for his primary purpose which was to entertain the Queen. They became threatened when he was promoted to more.
Continuing on with the thread of false sense of humanity, an example that shows financial motivations for “better” treatment of Indian servants is when ayahs were more heavily informed of “the nature of their arrangement to help them secure ‘a satisfactory arrangement’ for their return passage” (23, Visram).This was just another strategy to alleviate the “burden” (27, Visram) the East India company and the British government faced in bringing back these people.
As you claim. Their livelihoods only come into question when they become bothersome to the white community. Otherwise they remain anonymous and invisible and only re-appear through a mention of status. “All foreigners look the same it would appear” (19, Visram) the racism present in British society at the time show that their masters did not place value on a individual life that was anything other than white.
-
@eva_rajzman said in Colonialist capitalism or capitalist colonialism:
“The fruit of our labour was used to build your nation”
This discussion provides a compelling analysis of how capitalist and colonial systems intertwined to exploit Asian labor for Britain’s economic gain while simultaneously marginalizing and abandoning those same workers. Your connection to the Asian Dub Foundation’s Debris and its lyrics, “The fruit of our labour was used to build your nation,” captures the extractive relationship between Britain and its colonies. The exploitation of Ayahs and Lascars, as detailed in Visram and Gilliat-Ray & Mellor’s writings, exemplifies how colonialism’s logic extended beyond land acquisition to the systemic commodification of human labor. Ayahs and Lascars were treated not as people but as disposable commodities, useful only as long as they served Britain’s economic interests, and then left destitute and excluded from society.
Your point about how colonialism and capitalism are deeply intertwined is particularly striking. The idea that “capitalist hunger” drives colonial practices offers a critical perspective on imperialism. Often understood primarily as military conquest, imperialism also represents the highest form of economic domination, using cheap labor and resource extraction to fuel capitalist expansion. The East India Company’s reliance on cheap local labor to maximize profit is a clear example of this, showing how the British colonial apparatus commodified both land and people. This reinforces your observation that colonialist and racist ideas were not separate but integral to this process—without the dehumanization of Asians as “cheap labor,” such systems could not have functioned.
The paradox you highlight between the exploitation of labor and racism is also well-illustrated. The lyrics “we’re only here ‘cos you were there” resonate strongly with Visram’s depiction of British families importing servants for their convenience and then abandoning them when they were no longer useful. This contradiction continues today, as seen in the gentrification of formerly working-class or immigrant neighborhoods like Cardiff’s Muslim area. The commodification of multiculturalism as a “charm” for outsiders, while displacing the very communities that created it, mirrors colonial logics of extraction and erasure. Your comparison to gentrification in other cities adds a contemporary lens to this discussion, showing how colonial and capitalist dynamics persist in modern urban contexts.
An additional layer to consider is the cultural and psychological legacy of this economic imperialism. The abandonment of Ayahs and Lascars not only left them destitute but also alienated from both the societies they served and their homelands. Similarly, modern gentrification reproduces cycles of displacement and alienation for marginalized communities, reinforcing a sense of cultural erasure. This invites a broader reflection on how imperialism, in its economic form, continues to shape global and local dynamics, embedding structural inequities that persist long after military conquest has ended. By framing imperialism as economic domination rather than merely military conquest, we can better understand its enduring and systemic impact.