But England wasn't in India not in a big way until 1700 +, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/state/empire/east_india_01.shtml
http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A016 and not before the Armada, which was the last time until post WWII era that you could describe England as a backwater rather than as a great power. After you've smashed Spain, then (under James I) united England/Wales & Scotland, meanwhiule developing a vibrant merchantile capitalist economy, you're not a backwater. --- Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Britain came to India before mid 18th C. > > > On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 10:41:41AM -0700, andie > nachgeborenen wrote: > > England a backwater in the mid 18th Century? Au > > contraire. Before the Aramada (1588), England > might > > have been regarded as a backwater. In 1750, it was > a > > contender for Numver One Nation. jks > > > > --- "Perelman, Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > I hope that we can discuss this without > acrimony. I > > > understand that at > > > the time of the British conquest of India, India > was > > > probably more > > > advanced in England, which was a backwater of > > > Europe. England had, > > > however, extraordinarily good cannons -- may be > the > > > equivalent of our > > > airplanes in Iraq. India had nothing to counter > > > them. Unlike the US, > > > understand that England was able to harness some > of > > > the traditional > > > feudal government structures in India. > > > > > > But please, I sense some irritation boiling up > in > > > this discussion as > > > well as the Russian thread. Let's keep it > amicable. > > > > > > > > > Michael Perelman > > > Economics Department > > > California State University > > > michael at ecst.csuchico.edu > > > Chico, CA 95929 > > > 530-898-5321 > > > fax 530-898-5901 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On > > > Behalf Of Doug > > > Henwood > > > Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 10:08 AM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Eurocentrism and capitalism > > > > > > Devine, James wrote: > > > > > > >It looks to me as if the basic story is that > the > > > Western Europeans > > > >enjoyed some sort of luck that has nothing to > do > > > with genetic or > > > >cultural differences between Europeans and > Asians. > > > This luck allowed > > > >them to (1) conquer the Asians and other > > > non-Europeans and (2) get > > > >beyond mere market economics to develop the > > > capitalist mode of > > > >production before the Asians and other > > > non-Europeans did so. > > > > > > I know this is dangerous territory, since it > will > > > cause explosions in > > > certain volatile quarters. But is "luck" the > right > > > word? Something > > > happened within Europe that encouraged conquest > and > > > led to the > > > reinvestment of surplus rather than its > consumption. > > > I realize that > > > historians have devoted their lives to examining > > > just what this > > > something was, but luck makes it sounds like > winning > > > at roulette > > > rather than something explicable by social > science. > > > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu > _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
