Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I apologise for this derailment by nitpicking the 1850s; just to be clear: you correctly point out that the guy in the Yahoo! Answers quote tries to explain away thumb-cutting with something that happened after them (whether they happened in the early 19th century or the second half of the 18th century).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Sep 2nd, 2013 at 06:16:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Politically speaking, from the late 18th century to the early 19th century the East India Company was more and more government controlled and less and less about (monopolized) trade and more about administration.

So the thump cuttings stories or at least their true core seem to belong in the late 18th century, when the Company was still a trade monopoly, less supervised and indian textile exports still relevant.

by IM on Tue Sep 3rd, 2013 at 12:29:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Indeed, the Act of 1933 stripped the East India Company of many of its earlier export monopolies, though not opium, and surely it is no coincidence that the period 1815-1835 was the collapse of Indian textile export markets and 1835-1855 the growing dominance of UK textile in domestic Indian textile markets. The Act of 1833 seems to represent in part the East India Company surrendering trade monopolies that were no longer lucrative, with the period 1935-1855 demonstrating their incapacity to operate as the de facto imperial government of the subcontinent.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Wed Sep 4th, 2013 at 02:17:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Sep 10th, 2013 at 10:44:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series