Human debris
-
The role of Britain's imperial and trade projects in bringing racialized people to the UK was to essentially bring comfort and convenience to British society by using them as disposable devices to do their harsh labor to further the progress of their nation. Entire personalities and human characteristics were stripped down to how able they were to do work for the nations' comfort, who caused them the least amount of disruption while also saving their wealth as some servants/workers were "worth less" than others. Though many racialized people did the same work, one race often times over another such as Indians were cheaper than people of others. Warren Hastings went to India and came back to Britain with two Indian boys, and they were described by a German as boys with "kindly intelligent faces" (Visram, p. 11). This language suggests that British orientalist thought got people thinking of Indians through their appearance of being kind, as a sign of intelligence to their standard, meaning once they view them as kind, then they are not barbaric or "stupid" as we have seen in previous readings where non-British/Christians folks described racialized people and slaves.
Both men and women were viewed as objects that comply and not in need for comfort. However, there was a distinction in Britain in what sort of roles were suitable for them to serve them. Women tended to child care along with other duties, whereas men often were made to do harsh manual work.
They were seen as reliable because they got accustomed to English whims, unlike British servants who wished to tend to other aspects of their life such as marriage and business work for those who were able. This shows the extent to how dehumanized they were to just chattel, and nothing else, as the idea of them even having difficulties with adjusting themselves on new land, with new people, with most probably no friends or family, was viewed as easy. They are difficulties that this set of humans do not have challenges with, as they had a natural disposition for servitude. I also think they might have thought this because of their oriental anthropological understanding of the pre-existing caste system and feudal structures in parts of India, where some caste members were doing "impure" jobs compared to the upper castes that did "pure" jobs. Thus, there was an expectation that they would listen to their authority in Britain.
Another reason Britain brought back servants from India, was because they wished to recreate the "nostalgic splendor of Indian life" (Visram, p. 12). This is associated with the romanticization of their way of life, and even their subjugation for the "good" feeling they got from having them around. Some of them, I assume had the opportunity to stay there if they liked India so much, but instead picked elements, in this case, humans for their pleasures. Thus, as with all pleasures, theirs too was temporary leading to many of them disposing of servants as debris whenever they felt they were being an inconvenience or was no longer of use to them.
In the other reading by Gilliat-Ray and Mellor, we see some similarities between people who went through many struggles. Yemenis, and Somalians, including others, faced being viewed as a vessel for economic growth. However, in this case, there is the notion of refuge from the community and through their religious faith while enduring their challenges. We also see that their labor was not only used economically but also for political gain by Britain authorities by appeasing their religious wants. One of their challenges was fighting racism due to them doing cheap labor work instead of British workers, which led to them living in segregated areas away from the white British folks. These racial divisions based on economic factors and status in society laid the groundwork for later cultural and religious stereotyping, including islamophobia.