Re: Recent Macrohistories

As always, thanks for your notes.


>And in any case - India was in the nineteenth century NOT run on British
>capital - thus, for example, the Bombay - let alone the Ahmedabad
>textile-industry was by and large (Ahmedabad completely) financed by Indian
>capital.
        
        I was discussing (from the part you left out of the quote) 'ruralizing'
aspects of the CHANGE of British investment strategies in India--from its
previous around 1790s as you note--switch from supporting textile workers
to dropping them. And actually, there was a section (that I cut out of the
final draft because of length) discussing exactly what you are talking
about, because it falls in with my argument about the special
physcial/social characteristics around textiles worldwide. Yes, I agree
that textiles were special in short, though what I was talking about was
the change of British investment patterns instead of claiming that all
India was locked up with British capital.       As for what I said about British
capital, I was talking about the later plantation crops and mining
expansions, instead of making an argument for everything being British. My
point was the switch of investments strategies by British capital around 1790. 
        (Another world historical tidbit I came across--the disturbances of 
trade
with the French Revolution and the loss of purchasers for the finer stuffs
coming out of India, were important as well in demoting textiles.) 


>6.)
>
>To facilitate this demotion of gilded labor as well
>>as expanding the tax base for the monarchy, the king even had 'immigration
>>drives' to lure the Dutch over into England. >
>
>Dutch immigration concerns mostly highly skilled and very well-paid labor
>which should in no way be compared to the `proto-industrial' labor force
>since
>that's basically cheap, unskilled or semi-skilled labor (women in
>particular). Dutch workers were paid higher salaries than English to lure
>them over, had to - since Dutch salaries in general were higher than English
>salaries.
>

        The comparison had nothing to do with what I was saying. You added it
in--it is your  interjection here. I do agree with your characterizations
though.


Regards,

Mark Whitaker
University of Wisconsin-Madison