> for some reason, Indians were never officially called "slaves" by the British
An indentured worker and a slave are not the same thing. While one would prefer to be neither of those things, generally the former voluntarily entered into the arrangement (or in lieu of prison), were bound for a fixed term, weren't considered property, and had at least some legal recourse. Were some indentured workers de-facto slaves? Almost certainly. That doesn't mean they were the same thing though.
An indentured worker and a slave are not the same thing. While one would prefer to be neither of those things, generally the former voluntarily entered into the arrangement (or in lieu of prison), were bound for a fixed term, weren't considered property, and had at least some legal recourse. Were some indentured workers de-facto slaves? Almost certainly. That doesn't mean they were the same thing though.