East India Company - Wikipedia, the free e

"The East India Company traded mainly in cotton, silk, indigo dye, saltpetre, tea, and opium. The Company also came to rule large areas of India, exercising military power and assuming administrative functions, to the exclusion, gradually, of its commercial pursuits; it effectively functioned as a {[{ megacorporation }]}. Company rule in India, which effectively began in 1757 after the Battle of Plassey, lasted until 1858, when, following the events of the Indian Rebellion of 1857, and under the Government of India Act 1858, the British Crown assumed direct administration of India in the new British Raj. The Company itself was finally dissolved on 1 January 1874, as a result of the East India Stock Dividend Redemption Act." - Thomas Page

Initially, the Company struggled in the spice trade due to the competition from the already well established Dutch East India Company. The Company opened a factory (trading post) in Bantam on the first voyage and imports of pepper from Java were an important part of the Company's trade for twenty years , pstp hist http://friendfeed.com/citizen... - Thomas Page

How Maritime Routes Led to Cultural Exchanges http://www.nytimes.com/2011... - Thomas Page

. - Thomas Page

Boston Tea Party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki... , ~ The protest movement that culminated with the Boston Tea Party was not a dispute about high taxes. ~ Another major concern for merchants was that the Tea Act gave the East India Company a monopoly on the tea trade, and it was feared that this government-created monopoly might be extended in the future to include other goods.[46] ~ There were mass protest meetings in Philadelphia. Benjamin Rush urged his fellow countrymen to oppose the landing of the tea, because the cargo contained "the seeds of slavery" ~ , 3 -31 sort [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki... , [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki... , 4 -4 Patriot http://www.urbandictionary.com/define... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki... http://www.urbandictionary.com/define... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki... , 4 -5 Astroturfed see also rube RWNJ [ moderate secular centrist pragmatist = socialist or communist to fundamentalist RWNJs , 5 -12 http://www.politicususa.com/the-ori... - Thomas Page

Factor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki... Sot-Weed Factor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki... Traders - Slavers 7 -20 http://www.slate.com/blogs... Cotton Factor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki... sort http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki... http://www.nytimes.com/2009... , 9 -1 http://nplusonemag.com/slave-c... , 9 -24 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki... - Thomas Page

Overseers A supervisor or superintendent; one who keeps watch over and directs the work of others, often in the context of forced labor or slavery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki... - Thomas Page

Sort http://friendfeed.com/citizen... http://friendfeed.com/citizen... - Thomas Page

http://davidbrin.wordpress.com/2014... Steering our outrage in all the wrong directions The “Secret Science Reform Act” considered by the House “Science” Committee would require the Environmental Protection Agency to make public all data, scientific analyses, materials and models before promulgating any regulations. Sound like some “transparency” that I would easily support? Always sniff for the evil lies that underpin anything that comes from the present House “science” committee. In this case note that there is no accompanying requirement for industry to make data public or to waive privacy rules. In fact, the same bill clearly states that EPA may not publicly disclose any such information. Hence, this Catch-22 uses faux transparency to — in-effect — prohibit the EPA from doing anything at all. Wow… and I thought the House “science” committee was run by troglodyte science-hating morons. Clearly they are troglodyte science-hating geniuses… or else (more likely, given past behavior) the morons have a pub-relations genius on their staff. (They do! Several veterans of the successful 30 year campaign to obfuscate and delay any regulation of Big Tobacco.) == Remind you of anything? == This kind of maneuver is identical in its nefarious trickery to “voter repression” laws in many red states that require registered voters present levels of ID that our parents never had to show and that are often hard to come by for the poor, minority, young, married or divorced women and so on. Coincidentally — surprise — these are often (lo and behold) democratic-leaning demographies. Now let me take one of my “all sides exaggerate” stances. In fact, as a moderate, I am not opposed to gradually increasing the demand that voters prove who they are! Even though at-precinct voting fraud is virtually nil, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with improving care and accountability. People who are against voter ID improvements in any form are probably dogmatic, too. But – and here is a very big “but” – if these laws weren’t aimed solely at stealing elections for the GOP, the states in question would have accompanied the new regulations with measures aimed at helping their citizens to comply with the new burdens. States routinely give “compliance assistance” to major corporations, when new regulations apply to them. But apparently not one red cent has been appropriated in any red state to help the poor, or young, or women, or minorities to get the required ID, a move that would also help them in so many other aspects of life. Please dig that well, because it is the alarm and utter proof of both nefarious motives and lying hypocrisy. How much have red states allocated to help newly disenfranchised citizens to comply with onerous new state regulations? Not… one… red… cent. This is what the once honorable and intellectual movement of Goldwater and Buckley is reduced to. Not winning elections based on the merits of their evidence or the outcomes of past periods of rule. Rather, all efforts go to cheating, cheating, cheating and more cheating. And if you support this cheat, then no amount of arm-waving will let you escape the clear fact – that you are a cheater, too. ==The American Revolution’s Biggest Misconception== If you watch cable news or heed Facebook-snarky jpegs, you might believe the Big Grievance that provoked the American Revolution was “bureaucracy” … and a tax on tea. What… you actually believe that? Bureaucarcy? A tax… on tea? Actually read. The grievance — the Big One — that Ben Franklin spent 7 years in London fighting, was that British king and lords and oligarchs owned 60% of the land in the colonies and refused to sell it or even let it be taxed by colonial legislatures, resulting in economic stifling. The other Big Grievance was forcing all trade to pass through a few ports and major corporations owned by the king and lords. Above all, those lords were monopolizing political power, refusing to allow the colonies to send representatives to Parliament — the ultimate gerrymandering. Oh, that’s not the narrative today’s oligarchs want hard-pressed middle class Americans pondering right now… not if your aim is to rebuild that feudal social structure. It’s no wonder the New Oligarchy uses its media shills to focus on a tax on tea! Because that lets you ignore the real similarity with those times. The fact that lords and monopolies were denounced by Adam Smith and by the Founders. That the Revolution was against their unbridled power while denying us representation that might let the people change the rules. Sorry, “tea” guys. You folks are the lord-loving Tories. - Thomas Page

. - Thomas Page

. - Thomas Page

book-discussion-empire-cotton http://www.c-span.org/video... John Ellisor talked about his book, The Second Creek War: Interethnic Conflict and Collusion on a Collapsing Frontier, about the conflict that arose when the federal government attempted to move the Creek Indians from their land to make it available for cotton farming. http://www.c-span.org/video... - Thomas Page

Friends

Login

Service