I liked this but it had several annoying aspects, per below.
Faculty-lounge style word choices and denigration of "corporation" and "profit". Then within a few pages he's reciting, apparently entirely un-self-aware, how the corporation started off with tremendous risk, limited resources, and big losses in the early going.
And recites how the Mughals swept into India - but with none of the loaded-negative word choices - apparently that form of conquest or imperialism or "colonialism" was just fine? If a force structured as an imperial dynasty sweeps in and brutally takes, that's somehow different from a force partially structured in corporate form?
Makes a big deal about "corporate" contributions or bribes to MPs - of course that's bad, but we're talking about an era where large-scale bribery was common across governmental forms (still is!)
The usual "I hate the west" formula.
Which is not to say the East India Company, or Britain writ large, didn't do plenty of nasty things. I just get tired of the differing treatment from so many current historians.
But the overall story here is good enough to overlook all this. Yes the EIC screwed up many things even where intentions weren't terrible, and it was good that Britain took over. Even if that didn't end the problems.
Useful discussions of key players - Robert Clive; Wellington; Warren Hastings.
Military success was not inevitable. Somewhat like Mexico or Peru - there were local forces willing to work with the Europeans. Significant competition from the French.
No comments:
Post a Comment