Cases where colonial subjects were moved from one colony to another

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,931
SoCal
#1
Which cases were there where colonial subjects were moved from one colony to another? Basically, I am thinking of something similar to the British-encouraged migration of Indians to colonies such as Uganda, South Africa, and Fiji. Basically, Indians moved from British India to these other British colonies for various reasons--such as in order to perform labor there or in search of better economic opportunities.

In turn, I am wondering if there were any other cases where large numbers of colonial subjects (in the case of Indians, it was in the millions) were moved (either voluntarily or involuntarily) from one colony to another. Also, if so, what were these cases? (Note: I am not counting cases of people moving from the metropole to the colonies. So, Brits moving to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, et cetera don't actually count for this--and neither do French people who moved to Algeria and to various French colonies.)

In addition, what about cases where this didn't occur but could have easily occurred?
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,212
#2
French from what is now the maritime provinces of Canada were forced to leave for Louisiana when the British took control.

Native Americans were sold from tribe to tribe and then to British or US settlers. Often they were then traded to Bermuda, Bahamas, etc. for black slaves.

Native American slaves were also moved from one part to another of the Spanish Empire.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,931
SoCal
#3
French from what is now the maritime provinces of Canada were forced to leave for Louisiana when the British took control.

Native Americans were sold from tribe to tribe and then to British or US settlers. Often they were then traded to Bermuda, Bahamas, etc. for black slaves.

Native American slaves were also moved from one part to another of the Spanish Empire.
Excellent examples; thanks!

Also, while I'm not sure if this actually counts for this, what about the Sakhalin Koreans? I mean, they were moved from Korea to southern Sakhalin Island (both of which were under Japanese rule) and then ended up under Soviet rule once southern Sakhalin Island was returned to the Soviet Union in 1945.

In addition, were there any cases of European countries transferring black slaves specifically from their colonies to the New World?
 
Apr 2017
1,387
U.S.A.
#4
The Chinese to South Africa (brought by dutch from Batavia).
East Indians to Suriname by the dutch.
Philippinos to Hawaii.
Russia move its subject peoples all over.
Syrians/Lebanese to French Africa.
Ottomans resettled many of their peoples.
Assyria/Babylon were famous for forcibly moving its peoples.
Rome did this with the jews.
The Avars did this to a certain degree with the slavs in eastern Europe.
The English dumped Scotts in Ireland.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,931
SoCal
#5
The Chinese to South Africa (brought by dutch from Batavia).
OK.

East Indians to Suriname by the dutch.
You mean just Indians, no? After all, East Indians can also refer to Indonesians, no?

Also, didn't Britain get a lot of Indians to move to British Guyana?

Philippinos to Hawaii.
It's Filipinos, but Yes, that does appear to be a good example of this. :)

Russia move its subject peoples all over.
True--especially in Stalinist times. I'm not really counting Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian migration here since they were the dominant ethnicities in Tsarist Russia and the USSR.

Syrians/Lebanese to French Africa.
Where?

Ottomans resettled many of their peoples.
Turks and Circassians to Palestine, Armenians to Syria, who else?

Assyria/Babylon were famous for forcibly moving its peoples.
Which ones?

Rome did this with the jews.
To where?

The Avars did this to a certain degree with the slavs in eastern Europe.
With which ones?

The English dumped Scotts in Ireland.
Why?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,931
SoCal
#6
BTW, I do wonder if a victorious Imperial Germany could have tried doing some of this after a CP WWI victory. I'm specifically thinking of getting Poles, Ukrainians, and Jews to settle the Baltics (and especially Latvia and Estonia) so that the Baltics would have a much larger population. After all, a larger population means a stronger military and also this would allow Germany to play divide-and-conquer in the Baltics (perhaps similar to what the British did in British India).

Do you think that this is actually plausible?
 
Apr 2017
1,387
U.S.A.
#7
OK.



You mean just Indians, no? After all, East Indians can also refer to Indonesians, no?

Also, didn't Britain get a lot of Indians to move to British Guyana?

It's Filipinos, but Yes, that does appear to be a good example of this. :)

True--especially in Stalinist times. I'm not really counting Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian migration here since they were the dominant ethnicities in Tsarist Russia and the USSR.

Where?

Turks and Circassians to Palestine, Armenians to Syria, who else?

Which ones?

To where?

With which ones?

Why?
I meant the Javanese, which they brought there as well.
Yes they did, I didn't include Indians because you mentioned them. The British settled them in many colonies in the Caribbean, Malaysia, Africa and other places.
Stalin forcibly deported peoples from the autonomous republics to the various ends of the union. Just look at the demographics for some of the regions, you'll find stuff like 1% Chechen, 2% Mari, .5% german, 1.3% Lithuanian, .7% Armenian, etc.
All over, mostly west Africa as traders. Look at some of the demographics, you'll find a lot of 1-2% Lebanese/Syrian.
Various tatars to Anatolia, Chechens to the levant, Europeans all over as slaves and probably others I can't think of at the moment.
Everyone and anyone, the ancient world was a brutal place. After conquering a place they would move large portions of the populations to their homelands as slaves. The old testament makes mention of this.
Rome forcibly deported much of the jewish population from Israel/Palestine throughout the empire. Mostly to urban areas, which helped to spread Christianity.
The south slavs (which is how they got to the Balkans) and to a lesser degree the west slavs.
They were short on colonists and it helped displace the Irish while simultaneously lowering Scotland's population.

There is no point in moving more people to the Baltics if they don't have something to do. What would they do there?
 
Likes: Futurist