In Good Company: Re-evaluating the legacy of the East India Company

by Guest Tue Sep 16, 2014 6:22 pm

First topic message reminder :

Between 1709 and the mid-19th century the East India Company helped expand international trade, nurtured the City of London and propelled the Industrial Revolution and British prosperity. Yet the Company has come to represent the exploitation and plunder of both the human and economic resources of the Indian subcontinent. Riddled with crony capitalism, the Company suffered an ignominious end, yet its legacy needs re-evaluating.

Last week at the Legatum Institute, as part of our History of Capitalism series, Professor Huw Bowen of Swansea University delved into the inner workings of the Company. Placing it in the context of its own time, he illustrated how it opened an entire sub-continent to economic and political development, with huge ramifications for India, Britain, and the world.

For many, the East India Company is seen as a rapacious extension of the British state, even at the time it was described as a ‘crew of monsters’ by Horace Walpole, yet this simplistic conclusion is false. The Company’s nature evolved dramatically from 1709 when the newly consolidated ‘United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies’ emerged, to when the company was disbanded in 1874.

Initially few in the Company had territorial ambitions and at first it maintained small outposts in Bombay, Calcutta and Madras. It was from these outposts that imports of Indian textiles and Chinese tea made their way to Britain. This trade contributed to the development of the domestic manufacturing sector, while the urban wage-earning class in Britain helped stimulate demand for foreign products. In this respect the Company contributed to the Industrial Revolution – Edmund Burke even suggested that the fortunes of the Company and the country moved in lock-step.

http://www.historytoday.com/blog/2014/09/good-company-re-evaluating-legacy-east-india-company

Interesting, but only paints one picture of the story.

by Eilzel Thu Sep 25, 2014 3:20 am

Erm, ever heard of the English civil war veya? We got rid of our monarch while France was as absolutist as it was possible to be. Sure we had the Restoration but the monarchy was significantly weakened and parliament strengthened thereafter, more so after the 1689 Glorious Revoultion and Bill of Rights.

You see Britain was on the more democratic path 100 years before the French Revolution. We also made our progress post civil war with far less spilled blood and chaos than occured in France. George III was no dictator either since by that time parliament was really governing Britain, we weren't entirely a democracy in the sense we understamd it today, but we were totally not an absolutist monarchy with one man calling the shots. If that is what you think we were you have little understanding of British history.

As for Alexander, Alfred et al, of course they are most fondly remembered for their military accomplishments, and so is Napoleon.

by Eilzel Thu Sep 25, 2014 3:22 am

Neither I nor didge have claimed Britain was never bad either. We were, incredibly horrible a lot of the time. But we aren't the ones painting a warlord dictator as a liberator and one nation as a regressive evil.

by Cass Thu Sep 25, 2014 3:32 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Eilzel wrote:Veya, how do you explain Britain's evolution into a full and free democracy without the blood of the French revolution? I dare say many would have preferred the stability of the UK in the 18th and 19th centuries to the terror of the revolution in the late 18th centuries and the constant upheavals of the 19th century.

Nations do not exist in Bubbles, England would never have even asked(and still had several small wars) for freedom if they didn't have French people next to them with it.
Just like the French would not have had their revolution IF the USA hadn't just PROVED nations do not need Monarchs and Nobility to exist. The USA made people Question what was possible.. Napoleon PROVED it could be done even against some of the longest established powers.. He Showed the Common people that those guys telling everyone 'God has chosen them to rule' were full of shit and men of skill and intelligence regardless of their breeding can defeat them and win Freedom.

right.....Napoleon was such a common man that he first became First Consul then crowned HIMSELF Emperor .....

by veya_victaous Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:12 am

Cass wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
Eilzel wrote:Veya, how do you explain Britain's evolution into a full and free democracy without the blood of the French revolution? I dare say many would have preferred the stability of the UK in the 18th and 19th centuries to the terror of the revolution in the late 18th centuries and the constant upheavals of the 19th century.

Nations do not exist in Bubbles, England would never have even asked(and still had several small wars) for freedom if they didn't have French people next to them with it.
Just like the French would not have had their revolution IF the USA hadn't just PROVED nations do not need Monarchs and Nobility to exist. The USA made people Question what was possible.. Napoleon PROVED it could be done even against some of the longest established powers.. He Showed the Common people that those guys telling everyone 'God has chosen them to rule' were full of shit and men of skill and intelligence regardless of their breeding can defeat them and win Freedom.

right.....Napoleon was such a common man that he first became First Consul then crowned HIMSELF Emperor .....

After an interesting and quiet childhood Napoléon joined the French artillery at the age of sixteen. Through hard work, bravery, political connections, and being born in a turbulent age, Napoléon rose to the rank of general. In 1799 Bonaparte was elected First Consul of France and Her Dependencies for Life and began his astonishing political career. Later he proclaimed himself France's emperor.

Napoléon reformed much of European law and spread the idea of republicanism throughout much of Europe. His ideas continue to be incorporated into Switzerland's law. Napoléon also reformed schools and strengthened Paris' reputation as one of the cultural capitals of the world.

Napoléon's life was not without setbacks. In 1814, the Allied armies of Britain, Spain, Portugal, Russia, Prussia, and Austria captured many French possessions and some of France herself. Napoléon was forced into exile on the island of Elba and Louis XVIII was restored to power. SO England Restoring a Monarch against the peoples will

Napoléon returned the following year to a beach near Marseilles. From this small area he advanced towards Paris, throngs of his soldiers following behind. King Louis XVIII fled France and Napoleon resumed his post as Emperor. Over the next one hundred-thirty-six days Napoléon advanced into Belgium with more than one hundred thousand troops. There the combined armies of Prussia, Britain, and Belgium won a narrow victory at Waterloo, Wavre, Ligny, and Quatre Bras. These battles caused the demise of Napoléon's military and political careers, as well as his second exile to St. Helena.

A Man with NO legal power Nothing more than his words and his dreams Inspired 100,000 Veterans (men that knew the horrors of war) to march with him.... While England Still commanded its armies with the lash

http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/napoleon/c_youth.html

He was not Common but Quite extraordinary,
Michael Ney was a Commoner that became a Marshal
it is the fact that Men like Ney could rise, that shows the start of what we have today.

by Eilzel Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:13 pm

Eilzel wrote:Erm, ever heard of the English civil war veya? We got rid of our monarch while France was as absolutist as it was possible to be. Sure we had the Restoration but the monarchy was significantly weakened and parliament strengthened thereafter, more so after the 1689 Glorious Revoultion and Bill of Rights.

You see Britain was on the more democratic path 100 years before the French Revolution. We also made our progress post civil war with far less spilled blood and chaos than occured in France. George III was no dictator either since by that time parliament was really governing Britain, we weren't entirely a democracy in the sense we understamd it today, but we were totally not an absolutist monarchy with one man calling the shots. If that is what you think we were you have little understanding of British history.

As for Alexander, Alfred et al, of course they are most fondly remembered for their military accomplishments, and so is Napoleon.

by stardesk Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:15 pm

Veya, you said on the previous page: 'PS. in 1788 England Rounded up it's own citizens but them in chains sand sent them to the other side of the world as slave labour for the colony of New South Wales.... So yeah France was mean to weaker nations like everyone else but AGAIN they were free Citizens with rights that far exceeded anything a British commoner could dream of.'
--------------------------------------
Veya, I don’t know where you got your information from, concerning the rounding up of the innocent public, putting them in chains and sending them to Australia.

Clearly Australia has a rich migration history. However attitudes to migration and particularly to the ideal source of migrants have changed considerably over these 218 years. The first migrants were decidedly involuntary, the convicts transported from Britain, Ireland and, to a lesser degree, other British colonies. Altogether 80,000 arrived in New South Wales between 1788 and 1840. From the 1830s they were joined by small numbers of voluntary migrants, again principally from Britain and Ireland. Some came under their own resources, others with assistance from one of the public or private schemes then available.

Perhaps you’d be good enough to let us know from where you got your information, I for one, would like to read it.

by veya_victaous Thu Sep 25, 2014 11:29 pm

what do you mean you just said the same thing confused

all but a small number of voluntary migrants (a.k.a Rich guys that have done something unspeakable but have connection enough to not face justice, are offered land and the convicts to work it)

Involuntary Migrants a.k.a the convicts, more often than not Poor people charged with spurious minor offences not given access to fair and independent justice system or fair trial are told get on this boat (where they are put in chain gangs) or we are going to hang you.

As the convicts were not paid, force to do hard labour and could be flogged because the Rich guy with Friends in England decides to... that is pretty close to slavery

by Lone Wolf Fri Sep 26, 2014 8:00 am

"FREE Settlers" actually began arriving in Sydney Town in small numbers, from Botany Bay's early days from 1788 onwards, not only "..from the 1830s..", as they needed some people besides the Rum Corps and a few naval officers to establish farms and businesses in the new colony..
(Some 'shady' farmers and tradesmen who may have been jailed if they stayed back in Britain were allowed to come out here as free men as long as they set up the required businesses to supply the colony. Prostitutes were also allowed to travel out here for free during the late 18th and early 19th century, arriving in the country with their past history wiped clean, and with a few guineas in their pockets that they earnt along the way ~ these ladies were among the early publicans, shop owners and small farmers in the early colonies; with their offspring happily rubbing elbows with the naval officers, mercantile and merchant class, and the 'landed gentry' during the 19th century..).
A FEW of the navy officers and personnel, the Rum Corps and later on the "troopers" also took up land grants around the colony, and moved here permanently after leaving the services.. sunny

THERE must have also been a few extra immigrants during the 1830s, '40s and 1850s (when the influx of future Aussies was greatly increased by (i) the discovery of Gold, first around Ballarat and Bendigo in Vic., and then later just up the road from Bathurst in NSW; and (b) the opening up of the "coalfields" in the Hunter, Illawarra and Lithgow regions in the second half of the 18th century..), for the Australian population to have reached 5 million+ in the early 20th century, 17 million+ in the 1970's, and 23 million+ today.

A lot of people from China, Afghanistan, Turkey and the Americas found their way here over the 19th century (The "Ghan" train service that runs North-South through central Oz is named after the Afghani' camel drivers who helped "open up" the central parts of the continent..); European migrants flooded in after the two World wars in the first half of the 20th century; and refugees from Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos during the 1970's and through to the early/mid 1990s; and more recently Bosnia and Herzegovina, Rwanda, the Sudan, Somalia, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan.. ::footie::

by stardesk Fri Sep 26, 2014 9:11 pm

Thanks for that, Wolf. It helps to put the record straight. I had never, ever heard of or read anything like innocent people being chained and transported, as described by Veya. I know about the criminal transportations and two of my ancestors were among them. Their descendants still live in Aus', whom I've been in touch with.

by Eilzel Sat Sep 27, 2014 1:39 am

While the crimes of the convicts may have been petty, they were still crimes. Of course justice was appalling in the past, but no use judging that by modern standards.

I saw the chains used to march prisoners in unison from Lancaster to Liverpool, not nice Sad

but these were not used on totally innocent people...

by veya_victaous Sat Sep 27, 2014 6:54 am

stardesk wrote:Thanks for that, Wolf. It helps to put the record straight. I had never, ever heard of or read anything like innocent people being chained and transported, as described by Veya. I know about the criminal transportations and two of my ancestors were among them. Their descendants still live in Aus', whom I've been in touch with.

Don't Worry Stardesk When Australians get to rewrite history as thoroughly as the English have everyone will know that is fact pirat

Besides Even the American teach that Freedom is achieved by defeating the English.. because England is systematically opposed to Freedom tongue

Or Are you saying George Washington wasn't fighting for freedom and liberty Suspect

by veya_victaous Sat Sep 27, 2014 6:57 am

Eilzel wrote:While the crimes of the convicts may have been petty, they were still crimes. Of course justice was appalling in the past, but no use judging that by modern standards.

I saw the chains used to march prisoners in unison from Lancaster to Liverpool, not nice but these were not used on totally innocent people...

we get shown a list of crimes as school kids majority are things like stole loaf of bread Evil or Very Mad

Starving People stealing because as yet British freedom only extended to the rich and well connected... so not really freedom at all Neutral

by Ben Reilly Sat Sep 27, 2014 10:19 am

"I dinna cry when me own father was hung for stealing a pig.But I'll cry now."

by Ben Reilly Sat Sep 27, 2014 10:21 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Eilzel wrote:While the crimes of the convicts may have been petty, they were still crimes. Of course justice was appalling in the past, but no use judging that by modern standards.

I saw the chains used to march prisoners in unison from Lancaster to Liverpool, not nice but these were not used on totally innocent people...

we get shown a list of crimes as school kids majority are things like stole loaf of bread
Starving People stealing because as yet British freedom only extended to the rich and well connected... so not really freedom at all

Stuff like that is what kills me when the right say the state was set up to steal from them. Actually, the right set up states to protect the wealthy ... the rich have just tired of paying for it!

by Guest Sat Sep 27, 2014 10:28 am

Many stole, because the country was addicted to gin, and thus many were pissed, so some blame must fall on some people placing food above everything else.
Of course stealing at one point had the death penalty even for children, which is barbaric just as is shipping them off for such a petty crime, when may needed to eat.

The reality is yes it was wrong the convict ships, but many Australians would not be living in Australia if these events had not happen, I mean Veya would be living in France eating frog legs lol

by Ben Reilly Sat Sep 27, 2014 10:32 am

Didge wrote:Many stole, because the country was addicted to gin, and thus many were pissed, so some blame must fall on some people placing food above everything else.
Of course stealing at one point had the death penalty even for children, which is barbaric just as is shipping them off for such a petty crime, when may needed to eat.

The reality is yes it was wrong the convict ships, but many Australians would not be living in Australia if these events had not happen, I mean Veya would be living in France eating frog legs lol

Or he could be in the South of France on his motorscooter, hollering "Ciau" at the lovlies ...

by Guest Sat Sep 27, 2014 10:35 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Didge wrote:Many stole, because the country was addicted to gin, and thus many were pissed, so some blame must fall on some people placing food above everything else.
Of course stealing at one point had the death penalty even for children, which is barbaric just as is shipping them off for such a petty crime, when may needed to eat.

The reality is yes it was wrong the convict ships, but many Australians would not be living in Australia if these events had not happen, I mean Veya would be living in France eating frog legs lol

Or he could be in the South of France on his motorscooter, hollering "Ciau" at the lovlies ...

Yeah you have a point and i think some French women with the accent is definitely jaw dropping time, but they have nothing on the Irish Ben, what with those eyes and their beautiful accents.

by nicko Sat Sep 27, 2014 1:57 pm

Eyes and beautiful accents! Didn't take much notice when some of them were trying to kill me! [know what you mean didge, some of the girls were knock outs ] even when they were trying to knock me out with lumps of concrete and dustbin lids!

by Guest Sat Sep 27, 2014 2:24 pm

nicko wrote:Eyes and beautiful accents! Didn't take much notice when some of them were trying to kill me! [know what you mean didge, some of the girls were knock outs ] even when they were trying to knock me out with lumps of concrete and dustbin lids!

Not much I can say to that Nicko, only that I do not think you would receive such hatred today.
Sorry did not mean to offend, as I know this brings back memories, just do love the Irish, but not the cold blood murder by the IRA.

by nicko Sat Sep 27, 2014 2:48 pm

IT'S ok didge, it don't worry me so much now.

by Original Quill Sat Sep 27, 2014 5:26 pm

Didge wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

Or he could be in the South of France on his motorscooter, hollering "Ciau" at the lovlies ...

Yeah you have a point and i think some French women with the accent is definitely jaw dropping time, but they have nothing on the Irish Ben, what with those eyes and their beautiful accents.

Neu, neu, neu...French women...WOW! cheers

by veya_victaous Sun Sep 28, 2014 2:03 am

Didge wrote:Many stole, because the country was addicted to gin, and thus many were pissed, so some blame must fall on some people placing food above everything else.
Of course stealing at one point had the death penalty even for children, which is barbaric just as is shipping them off for such a petty crime, when may needed to eat.

The reality is yes it was wrong the convict ships, but many Australians would not be living in Australia if these events had not happen, I mean Veya would be living in France eating frog legs lol

So now you're calling my mums ancestors Alcoholics Evil or Very Mad

I'm half caste mums family came as convicts (mainly Irish) Dad came over when he was 14...

by Sponsored content

In Good Company: Re-evaluating the legacy of the East India Company

In Good Company: Re-evaluating the legacy of the East India Company

Re: In Good Company: Re-evaluating the legacy of the East India Company

Re: In Good Company: Re-evaluating the legacy of the East India Company

Re: In Good Company: Re-evaluating the legacy of the East India Company

Re: In Good Company: Re-evaluating the legacy of the East India Company

Re: In Good Company: Re-evaluating the legacy of the East India Company

Re: In Good Company: Re-evaluating the legacy of the East India Company

Re: In Good Company: Re-evaluating the legacy of the East India Company

Re: In Good Company: Re-evaluating the legacy of the East India Company

Re: In Good Company: Re-evaluating the legacy of the East India Company

Re: In Good Company: Re-evaluating the legacy of the East India Company

Re: In Good Company: Re-evaluating the legacy of the East India Company

Re: In Good Company: Re-evaluating the legacy of the East India Company

Re: In Good Company: Re-evaluating the legacy of the East India Company

Re: In Good Company: Re-evaluating the legacy of the East India Company

Re: In Good Company: Re-evaluating the legacy of the East India Company

Re: In Good Company: Re-evaluating the legacy of the East India Company

Re: In Good Company: Re-evaluating the legacy of the East India Company

Re: In Good Company: Re-evaluating the legacy of the East India Company

Re: In Good Company: Re-evaluating the legacy of the East India Company

Re: In Good Company: Re-evaluating the legacy of the East India Company

Re: In Good Company: Re-evaluating the legacy of the East India Company

Re: In Good Company: Re-evaluating the legacy of the East India Company

Re: In Good Company: Re-evaluating the legacy of the East India Company