I don’t disagree with anything you said in this comment, but in the previous comment that the EIC was created to control the colonies for the crown. This really only begins to happen after the fall of Aurangzeb.
There’s much more details to discuss about how the EIC plays a role in developing capitalism and capitalist control considered it existed for two and a half centuries. But I think we’re bracketing our discussion to their activities in the 17th century.
They absolutely were creating colonies. They did the same thing in India that colonial powers did all over the world. They kept testing the boundaries. Which is why they fought and lost a war to Aurangzeb. They had always been there to conquer and their first instinct was war, not trade.
I don’t know how you support the statement that “their first instinct was war, not trade”. Even the war you referenced was because trade negotiations broke down. For about 80 years they had been granted trading rights by the Mughal Empire. Skirmishes during that time were with other European powers and not with the Mughal Empire. What events transpired that support their role as colonists and not trade partners?
My second issues is claiming that these activities were for the crown. They were not “founded to make it easier for the crown to colonize and control those colonies.” You are regularly ascribing intention to the founding by flattening activities across 100-150 years.
According to them. Even today Israel blows up their own negotiations to justify oppressing Palestinians harder. Colonizers all follow the same playbook. And they absolutely went after the Mughal’s ships, that’s why negotiations broke down and they got stomped.
And yeah it was absolutely for the crown. The crown wouldn’t have authorized it and fought colonial wars against the Spanish and Dutch if they weren’t using it to spread their rule in all but name. They wouldn’t have allowed the EIC to even exist, same with the Spanish, French, and Dutch companies.
I don’t disagree with anything you said in this comment, but in the previous comment that the EIC was created to control the colonies for the crown. This really only begins to happen after the fall of Aurangzeb.
There’s much more details to discuss about how the EIC plays a role in developing capitalism and capitalist control considered it existed for two and a half centuries. But I think we’re bracketing our discussion to their activities in the 17th century.
They absolutely were creating colonies. They did the same thing in India that colonial powers did all over the world. They kept testing the boundaries. Which is why they fought and lost a war to Aurangzeb. They had always been there to conquer and their first instinct was war, not trade.
I don’t know how you support the statement that “their first instinct was war, not trade”. Even the war you referenced was because trade negotiations broke down. For about 80 years they had been granted trading rights by the Mughal Empire. Skirmishes during that time were with other European powers and not with the Mughal Empire. What events transpired that support their role as colonists and not trade partners?
My second issues is claiming that these activities were for the crown. They were not “founded to make it easier for the crown to colonize and control those colonies.” You are regularly ascribing intention to the founding by flattening activities across 100-150 years.
According to them. Even today Israel blows up their own negotiations to justify oppressing Palestinians harder. Colonizers all follow the same playbook. And they absolutely went after the Mughal’s ships, that’s why negotiations broke down and they got stomped.
And yeah it was absolutely for the crown. The crown wouldn’t have authorized it and fought colonial wars against the Spanish and Dutch if they weren’t using it to spread their rule in all but name. They wouldn’t have allowed the EIC to even exist, same with the Spanish, French, and Dutch companies.
I think I’d like something more specific and I don’t think you are capable of doing that.