Crowning the dragon: Chinese GDP PPP will exceed America's by year's end.

[Valmy]

That's the question.  I don't know of a historian that doubts the general outline above.

Well here is an example forever I just took it on faith that a major driving force in the Crusades was seeking land for second sons.  Recent studies pretty much destroy this claim, but man that one had some legs.  So these things I see mainly introduced by Left wing sources I am becoming a bit more skeptical on.  Not that I think they are entirely wrong, unlike the Crusades bit, but it makes me interested to learn how nuanced things are. 

The de-industrialization of India, in particular, has caught my attention largely because of a bit of a kick I went on recently about the Princely states.

[Jacob]

There was a lot more symbolism to it than a simple boycott though: why cloth?

Because weaving of cloth was so basic to the British industrial revolution, it was widely sold in India, and one of the few industrial goods even the poorest Indians might actually own.  More could participate than if they boycotted British machine tools or something.

Yeah, it was widely sold in India when previously India had been an exporter of cloth until British tariffs and economically destructive policies had destroyed the Indian cloth manufacturing industry.

[Jacob]

Well here is an example forever I just took it on faith that a major driving force in the Crusades was seeking land for second sons.  Recent studies pretty much destroy this claim, but man that one had some legs.  So these things I see mainly introduced by Left wing sources I am becoming a bit more skeptical on.  Not that I think they are entirely wrong, unlike the Crusades bit, but it makes me interested to learn how nuanced things are. 

The de-industrialization of India, in particular, has caught my attention largely because of a bit of a kick I went on recently about the Princely states.

Look, I'm definitely no expert on the subject so I'd be very happy to hear about any sources you've come across that contradicts the prevailing view. And yeah, there's probably all kinds of nuance there once you dig into it; but right now it does seem like you're saying "I don't really want to believe that, not because I've seen contrary evidence, but simply because I chose not to."

[Sheilbh]

Well here is an example forever I just took it on faith that a major driving force in the Crusades was seeking land for second sons.  Recent studies pretty much destroy this claim, but man that one had some legs.  So these things I see mainly introduced by Left wing sources I am becoming a bit more skeptical on.  Not that I think they are entirely wrong, unlike the Crusades bit, but it makes me interested to learn how nuanced things are. 

It seems like you're objecting to the way history works as a discipline

[Valmy]

It seems like you're objecting to the way history works as a discipline

Am I?  Explain.  I am interested in reading more of it not crusading against it.

[Admiral Yi]

It seems like you're objecting to the way history works as a discipline

Seems  he objects to the way repeated falsehood becomes accepted as truth.

Can someone explain to me how Britain destroyed India's weaving industry?  Import tariffs would have prevented Indian exports to the  Metropole, but not how British cloth drove out domestically produced cloth  in the Indian market.

[Sheilbh]

Am I?  Explain.  I am interested in reading more of it not crusading against it.

Basically thesis-antithesis-synthesis. Well you start with one narrative/explanation for a historical event. Later historians look at it or research other data and suggest a new theory/explanation/narrative. Often there's an element of over-reaching in correcting the previous version's faults. Then later research and interepretations supplant that - again often with an element of over-reaching.

I'll take your word for it that the landless son aspect has been destroyed, but I doubt anyone, even critics, would say it wasn't worthwhile because it will have advanced research and knowledge in this aspect of the Crusades even if only to allow us to say it was a minimal factor.

And it's not a left-right thing, though there's bound to be different theoretical schools. I'm no expert but from what I understand the current trend in history of British India is to emphasise the continuities between the Mughal and the British Empires. That's arguable right-wing, but more importantly probably created in reaction to the previous dominant school which thought that the British Empire largely represented a clean break.

[grumbler]

Can someone explain to me how Britain destroyed India's weaving industry?  Import tariffs would have prevented Indian exports to the  Metropole, but not how British cloth drove out domestically produced cloth  in the Indian market.

The British were producing cloth via machinery. Even low-wage Indian weavers couldn't compete with machines.  The lower classes in India were perfectly willing to buy two sets of less-well-made British textiles rather than one set of domestic clothes.

British policies certainly favored their own products rather than Indian ones (especially when it came to getting the raw cotton and indigo), but I think the efficiency of the Industrial Revolution was the more significant factor.

[DGuller]

But it was devastated. Indian industrial production as a percent of the global total went from 25% in 1750 to under 2% in 1900.

That kind of statistic can be incredibly misleading when the base is not stable (and global industrial production has not exactly been stable between 1750 and 1900).

[Valmy]

Am I?  Explain.  I am interested in reading more of it not crusading against it.

Basically thesis-antithesis-synthesis. Well you start with one narrative/explanation for a historical event. Later historians look at it or research other data and suggest a new theory/explanation/narrative. Often there's an element of over-reaching in correcting the previous version's faults. Then later research and interepretations supplant that - again often with an element of over-reaching.

I'll take your word for it that the landless son aspect has been destroyed, but I doubt anyone, even critics, would say it wasn't worthwhile because it will have advanced research and knowledge in this aspect of the Crusades even if only to allow us to say it was a minimal factor.

And it's not a left-right thing, though there's bound to be different theoretical schools. I'm no expert but from what I understand the current trend in history of British India is to emphasise the continuities between the Mughal and the British Empires. That's arguable right-wing, but more importantly probably created in reaction to the previous dominant school which thought that the British Empire largely represented a clean break.

I am not necessarily anti the left wing guys.  Just that I read their stuff, made assumptions what they said was accurate, and moved on.  I mean geez when Nehru claims things how could he be wrong?  He was there for Godsake.  Now I am questioning my own assumptions.

One of the big holes in the second son thing was that landless nobles were not even particularly well represented in the Crusade itself.  Which, when I thought about it, was obvious and I felt sort of silly.  But the main thing was the economic forces pushing for the Crusades were just not there.

[Malthus]

I'd be careful about using a source like this - it is clearly a source with a political agenda, citing a book that also has an agenda.  Not that they are necessarily wrong, but they should be used only as necessary.

Fair enough; it was a quick google search.

What is your skepticism based on?

That's the question.  I don't know of a historian that doubts the general outline above.

Indeed, I'm still wondering about that.

There is no doubt that Indian cloth-making drastically declined, relative to the world output.

What is in doubt, is which factors were more significant for causing this relative decline: (1) Deliberate British policies of discriminatory tariffs and taxes, and other such imperial manipulations, designed to keep India poor? or (2) The fact that Britian was going through an industrial revolution centered on machine textile-weaving and transportation the likes of which the world had never seen, and so it was actually a lot cheaper to ship cotton all the way to Britian, weave it by machine, and ship the cloth all the way back again, than have people weave their own as they had from time immemorial - even though the results were less pretty than the genuine hand-made stuff?

[Razgovory]

One wonders why India didn't build it's own factories or buy from other countries like the US or Germany.

[Jacob]

One wonders why India didn't build it's own factories or buy from other countries like the US or Germany.

I wonder if it had anything to do with the policies of the colonial administration?

[The Minsky Moment]

But it was devastated. Indian industrial production as a percent of the global total went from 25% in 1750 to under 2% in 1900.

I am not sure conditions in 1750 are really comparable to those in 1900.  2% in 1900 may actually be higher in absolute terms than 25% in 1750.  But anyway I am not disputing at all that Indian industry declined as their hand crafts were unable to compete with factory goods (and influenced by an administration that was essentially acting in their competition's interests) But the details and extent of the damage is just something I want to know more about.  I have just taken what I was told for granted, and I just recently read a bit on the Kingdom of Mysore and it seems like their cloth industry was damaged but was still functional throughout.  Things might be different in a princely state, but things were different all over the place as India was a pretty complicated place back then.

here is a shorter paper From Williamson focusing just on India:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w10586.pdf?new_window=1

His basic argument is
1) Coincident with the collapse of the Moghul Empire, agricultural productivity in India stagnated in the late 18th century, pushing up prices and nominal wages and thus harming competitiveness of domestic manufactures.
2) The industrial revolution in the UK and the West along with the global transport revolution drove down textile prices and made Indian manufacture even less competitive. [the traditional story]
3) Just as significantly, the two hig revolutions drove up grain and raw material prices and thus caused Indian land and business owners to shift production to more lucrative primary products.

the result was that India once the world's biggest textile exporter became a big importer.
One doesn't have to assume a complete eradication of all production.

[Malthus]

One wonders why India didn't build it's own factories or buy from other countries like the US or Germany.

Lots of countries did not industrialize successfully during the 19th century, even though they could see the Brits doing it. There were lots of reasons for that. Certainly British policies played a part, but that only goes so far - consider that places like China and Thailand also did not successfully industrialize, even though they were not part of the British Empire (while Japan did successfully industrialize, likewise while not being a European colony).

I suspect that the problem was that to industrialize wasn't simply a question of building a couple of factories, but of creating - in effect, changing - traditional society more or less completely, which most societies were very reluctant to do (Japan being a notable exception).