1. Did Empire Matter?
Review of Adam McKeown Online Presentation. Tuesday
November 8, 2011. 2:00 - 3:30 pm Eastern Standard Time
LINK: http://mediasite.cidde.pitt.edu/mediasite/Viewer/?
peid=830f75a04b794876b5dfda06a4012802
By Guillermo Pineda
2. Why this question?
¤ Because a large literature of colonialism and migration studies in
Southeast Asia focused on the British Empire as the main actor
during the 18th and 19th Century.
¤ However,
¤ McKeown hasn’t seen a BIG role of the Empire toward migration
trends in Asia and/or in the rest of the globe.
¤ Why?
¤ Less than 10% of Indians or 3% of Chinese were indentured to
Europeans. (Great Narrative).
¤ Empire has been hardly a coherent unit in Asia. Specially in regard
to India during the 19th and 20th Century.
6. Where to start the “empire” analysis?
¤ INDIA
¤ IN INDIA less than 10% of the migrations were
indentured.
¤ 2/3 were Tamil
¤ At least 97% went to the British Empire
¤ 10% indentured in European plantations
¤ Moved through family and village networks
9. New Conclusions
¤ The British Empire did nothing to override larger economic
cycles.
¤ Once a flow is established the market and its processes
continued.
¤ The British Empire was in fact a fragment that had lots of
fragmentations (local empowerment) that didn’t allowed
for them to control the migration flux.
¤ The Empire DID HAVE strong influence only in the
destinations (migration via a laissez faire Asia).
10. One more Conclusion
¤ MIGRATIONS NETWORKS and the INFORMATION it
involved was as fundamental then as it is now.
11. What about other Empires?
¤ Russian and Japanese were the most interventionists.
¤ Qing opened Manchuria to frontier colonization.
¤ U.S.A. excluded Asians from White Settler territories.
¤ Dutch & French relaxed regulations via the chaos of its un-ruling
in the territories.
¤ EACH EMPIRE MATTER DIFFERENTLY.