Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even though all Asian immigration in general is seen as new compared to European in many Anglo nations and other New World ones, the Chinese and Japanese seem to have a long history compared to the further westward or inland Asian countries of the Indian subcontinent. There are exceptions like the UK, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana etc. but in many of the larger bigger ones besides the UK, like America, Brazil, Australia, Canada, South Asians are newer than East Asians. Is this just a function of geography? The Chinese and Japanese immigrated more than say Indians, simply because of more access to a boat arriving to the US, Canada, Australia and these locations they were most known for immigrating to?
I mean, racial discrimination laws for entering in equally applied to East and South Asians, right? Why didn't you get more (and I know they were there) Punjabi people in west coast USA or Canada alongside the Chinese or Japanese railroad workers and miners? I don't know as much about Australia but it seems like Chinese are still more represented among early immigrants than Indians.
Well, the New World is also a much further trip from India than it is from Eat Asia, isn't it? Back then, ships were the fastest route and going from India to even the west coast of the Americas was quite a lug.
There was pretty substantial immigration from South Asia to Eastern and Southern Africa and many of the nearby islands whereas there was very limited East Asian immigration to those parts of the world in comparison. There was also Indian immigration to parts of Southeast Asia, but there was a lot of that from China, too. Another factor is that East Asia (most notably China) was substantially more populous than South Asia for most if not all of the colonial period.
Well, the New World is also a much further trip from India than it is from Eat Asia, isn't it? Back then, ships were the fastest route and going from India to even the west coast of the Americas was quite a lug.
There was pretty substantial immigration from South Asia to Eastern and Southern Africa and many of the nearby islands whereas there was very limited East Asian immigration to those parts of the world in comparison. There was also Indian immigration to parts of Southeast Asia, but there was a lot of that from China, too.
This would be my guess. The British Empire probably sucked up everyone in south Asia who was interested in moving. Most parts of the Americas in the British Empire had more people than they knew what to do with by the time administration of India passed to the government. The exceptions being the areas that would become Canada, but by this time they were already being given a substantial amount of home rule (I think) so they could probably stop immigration they didn't want.
This would be my guess. The British Empire probably sucked up everyone in south Asia who was interested in moving. Most parts of the Americas in the British Empire had more people than they knew what to do with by the time administration of India passed to the government. The exceptions being the areas that would become Canada, but by this time they were already being given a substantial amount of home rule (I think) so they could probably stop immigration they didn't want.
That and why go to work as a hard laborer all the way in Canada when South Africa and other parts of the empire were much closer by?
I used to go to Canada in the early 90s a lot. The south Asian community did not seem too visible then. I could be wrong and my experiences could be limited. But what is the history of south Asian immigration to Canada. I started another thread in Toronto forum asking whether the Chinese and South Asian canadian communities grew side by side with each other.
Well, the New World is also a much further trip from India than it is from Eat Asia, isn't it? Back then, ships were the fastest route and going from India to even the west coast of the Americas was quite a lug.
There was pretty substantial immigration from South Asia to Eastern and Southern Africa and many of the nearby islands whereas there was very limited East Asian immigration to those parts of the world in comparison. There was also Indian immigration to parts of Southeast Asia, but there was a lot of that from China, too. Another factor is that East Asia (most notably China) was substantially more populous than South Asia for most if not all of the colonial period.
But you are mistaken. Trade has always been global. Look up the Manila Galleon trade. Many people traded goods & commodities and migrants, servants and slaves to the New World using the Pacific Ocean. Jewish traders & merchants had lots of influence in traveling worldwide and controlling trade.
Here is an example of people from South Asia immigrating to the New World:
Filipinos were the first Asians in America. They arrived in California in October 18 1587 on board Spanish galleon during the Manila - Acapulco galleon trade.
There is proof that Filipinos arrived to the Americas much earlier than the 1560s, or probably even earlier which is interesting.
But you are mistaken. Trade has always been global. Look up the Manila Galleon trade. Many people traded goods & commodities and migrants, servants and slaves to the New World using the Pacific Ocean. Jewish traders & merchants had lots of influence in traveling worldwide and controlling trade.
Here is an example of people from South Asia immigrating to the New World:
I have no idea why you think what you said is relevant to what I said. I know the M.O. is to try to tie the Philippines to anywhere it can, but at least try to keep it within reason.
Well, the New World is also a much further trip from India than it is from Eat Asia, isn't it? Back then, ships were the fastest route and going from India to even the west coast of the Americas was quite a lug.
There was pretty substantial immigration from South Asia to Eastern and Southern Africa and many of the nearby islands whereas there was very limited East Asian immigration to those parts of the world in comparison. There was also Indian immigration to parts of Southeast Asia, but there was a lot of that from China, too. Another factor is that East Asia (most notably China) was substantially more populous than South Asia for most if not all of the colonial period.
Actually India has been very populous for a long time, and even in 1700 it wasn't that far behind China.
The British 'utilised' a lot of South Asian labour in East Africa, parts of Arabia like the UAE, Burma, Malaysia, Singapore and Fiji. Fiji is still almost half of Indian ancestry. The Indian presence in Malaysia and Singapore is old (dating back to the 1800s), yet they still seem to maintain a lot of their customs, like the Chinese.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
