The East India Company was the worlds first multinational company

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRQE44FClgQ&feature=related

Overview:

This source is a youtube video called The East India Company was the world’s first multinational company. This video filmed in a British Library and has a co-star that is a historian from the Library. The spice peppercorn was the most profitable export of India; however the Dutch controlled this trade. It would not be long until a group of 200 business men requested Queen Elizabeth to sign a Royal Charter giving them exclusive rights to trade with Asia. The historian showed us the original ledger of the Charter; it provides a list of the 200 merchant names.  This Charter, over the next two centuries, made England one of the world’s super powers. According to the video presently one-third of all of the major business in the world are located in England. If the East India Company never exists, England today would not be as such a powerful country. In the year 1600 captain James Lancaster set out to India in hope of a profit in the peppercorn trade. By the 1700 the East India Company became so powerful; they became the ruling power in India. They even had 200,000 Indian soldiers at their disposal. The English became very greedy and began to exploit the Indian people. They set low wages, they over tax the people, and excluded the Indians from high ranking government positions. In 1857 a munity of the Indian Army,   forced the British government to send troops to protect the company. The British government then takes the sub-continent under imperial control and dissolves the East India Company. 

 ARGUMENT:

The perspective of the source is unclear at first. In the Beginning of the video the reporter referred the company as the “Honorable” East India Company. As the reporter closed out his segment he questions the legitimacy of the East India Company considered to be “honorable.” The reported stated, “it might have been called the “Honorable” East India Company but it did not always live up to that name” The video is very persuasive against the East India Company. The reporter also dives into details about the mistreatment of the Indian People and the destruction of their land.

SOURCE:

This source is a YouTube video; I could not find and author or the original website. I have presumed the reporter is English from his accent. Also the reporter seemed to be passionate about exposing the hidden story of the East India Company. I feel that this is a very bias source. The video shows bias toward the conquered Indian people. Even though I could not find the author and the video has a bias spin I do believe it is reliable. The reason for this is because of the setting of the video, in a world famous British library with a historian to collaborate and provide the facts.

EAST INDIA COMPANY

http://www.umich.edu/~ece/student_projects/exoticism/Eng417/EastIndiaCompany.html
Overview

December 31 1600 Queen Elizabeth I signed a royal Charter. This Royal Charter allowed English business men to establish a monopoly on trade with Asia. The company was also known as, the Company of Merchants of London Trading. From 1708-1873 the Royal Charter became the United Company of Merchants. In 1708 United Company of Merchants became the official British trading unit. The East India formed from the two rival companies combining their resources together to form the most powerful company the world has ever seen.  In 1757 the company took control of Bengal, this prompted the British government to establish regulatory board that reported directly to Parliament. Before the year of 1773 share holders made all rules and policies.  However this was a corrupted system, shareholders are given more shares to go along with the company decisions.  Regulating Act of 1773 arose, soon after the India Act of 1784 established by Parliament to carefully watch the company. Gaining political control, by the year of 1813 the long standing monopoly en. Between the years of 1857-1873 following the Indian Mutiny the company was broken down and the British Government took control of India, this officially made it a colony.

Augment:

The perspective of the source was completely unbiased.  throughout the piece I could not find evidence of it being persuasive, on the contrary I found it to be informative. In the last paragraph the author informs us of the argument between historians that it was England’s extreme nationalism and their national church that that gave them right to ignore trading agreements that were in place, by the Spanish, Portuguese, and Dutch. This paragraph shows the author perspective, in a sense giving an excuse to the East India Company.       

  Source:

The Author of this source is Michelle Brown, Nicole DeRosia, Amber Matheson, and Paul Winterstein. They are students at the University of Michigan. I feel that they are a reliable source. The passage was published on a college website. Also The website appears to have been researched extensively

Imperialism in india

http://www.slideshare.net/micdsrams10/imperialism-in-india-4069384
Overview:

In the late 1400’s, the demand for Eastern spices was in high in Europe. A group of business men approached Queen Elizabeth about a royal charter to exclusively trade with the East. The Queen granted the royal charter in 1599. A year later, five ships left for India. Over the years, this trading company called the East Trading Company rapidly grew and added many more trading posts.  The company hired Indians to protect the posts.  These Indian defenders were called Sepoys.  The Sepoys protected the trading post from opposing countries such as France and Portugal.  By 1857, the East Trading Company controlled most of the sub-continent, through military control and or imperial influence.  The East India Company began to function as India government. The company had an army of soldiers, forts, and court system.

In 1854, it was the beginning of the end of the East India Company. The company loss their monopoly over India; accumulated huge debts due to the wars; occupation of India; and the Sepoys revolted against the company. In 1858, British government had to step and take control of the Indian territories.  

The enactment of “Government of India Act”, took control of India from the East India Company to the Royal Monarchy of Britain. Until 1947, India was England’s top producing colony. 

Born in India and educated in England, Mahatma Gandhi became one of India most famous leader in the struggle for India’s independence from British rule.  He introduced the technique of peaceful civil disobedience called satyagraha. The “Salt March” was an example of satyagraha.  To protest the high taxes on salt, Gandhi urged the Indian people to make their own salt from salt from the Ocean. 

ARGUMENT:

As I read this PowerPoint created by Tomo Hereford and Annabelle Cella,  I have a sense that they were slightly on the side of the East India Company. Although they did represented both sides of the conflict very well, they did not go into details of the abusive treatment of the Indian people or the complete destruction of the sub-continent by East India Company. This presentation is not a persuasive piece; it is more of an informative presentation. 

Source:  

The authors of this PowerPoint are Tomo Herford and Annable Cello. I was not able to find any additional information about the authors.  I am assuming that they are students.  The PowerPoint was unbiased.  I believe that the information presented is reliable because my previous in-depth studies on this subject coincided with their findings in this sideshow.    

East India Company- its history and results

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/07/11.htm

Indian stamp honoring Marx

Overview
This source is from the New-Yorker Daily tribune, written by Karl Marx in 1853, The East India Company It History and Results. In the beginning  passage, Marx wonders why it took many years before the East India Company became a ministerial issue in England. “Why is this”  is the question Marx posed to his readers.  In the article, Marx  gives his readers a critical account of East India Company history. According to Marx, the East Indian company was official created in 1702. The rival companies decided to ban to together to form a monopoly over India and the Eastern trade. This monopoly did not benefit common people; they were excluded from doing business in the East. However, the East India Company was able to continue to exploit the systems by bribing and giving gifts to the leaders of English parliament and to the king. However, the company never paid taxes to England. Marx explains that the East India Company’s would have never survived if the Bank of England were not established in 1694.  The company loaned England money which created a national debt. The Bank of England, which is a private company, was under the control of the English government and was considered the “state bank”. The Bank of England was giving the important task of issuing the currency. When the East India Company royal Charter was up for renewal they would offer fresh low rate loans and “gifts”.
According to Marx, the British government took control of India throughout several wars. The Seven-year war ushered in an epoch of military dominance in India. This War, caused by the colonial and commercial competition between England and France, help raise the East India Company stocks. The British were able to seize control over almost all of the French colonies in India. The capture of the rich province of Bengal reaps in the most benefit for the Company.  Under the name of the East India Company the British were able to seize India. The British fought hard to keep the imperial rule they had over India.
ARGUMENT:
Karl Marx’s perspective is very clear throughout the article. His belief inequality is apparent in this passage. Marx believes that the British Government seized India under the name of the East India Company,”Thus the British Government has been fighting, under the Company’s name, for two centuries, till at last the natural limits of India were reached.” Marx is opposed to the imperial rule of India by the British Government under the assumed name of the East India Company. Marx talks in detail about the many bribes and gifts that where paid out to the corrupt government also about the oppressive treatment of the Indian people and also the toll the company took on common English people.    
Source
Karl Marx is the “father of communism”. Marx was a communist revolutionary, he firmly believed in equality for everyone, In 1848, Marx wrote a document call the”Manifesto of the Communist Party”. In this passage he writes about the call to revolution of the working class people. Marx is very critical of how East India maintain their hold in India through bribing to the leaders of the England government officials. Marx’s philosophies are the cornerstone of Communist Party

The British Presence in India in the 18th Century

Inscription on a stone laid by the Honourable Warren Hastings

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/east_india_01.shtml


Overview:

The British Presence in India in the 18th Century, written by Professor Peter Marshall, discussed the growing power of the East India Company. According to Marshall the East India Company, at the mid 18^th century, transitioned from a powerful trading presence to an imperial ruler of India. The East Indian Company was established as a trading company in 1600. It was given a royal grant which gave the company a monopoly over trade in Asia. In the year of 1750 the company began, through military means, conquered eastern and southern India during the Anglo-French conflicts. The capture the wealthy province of Bengal mark a huge victory, and over the next fifty years the East India Company established there rule all the way to Delhi and eventually to rest of India. English Governors replaced the leaders of the province or the Indian leaders were control by the company.

Cotton cloth that was woven by Indian weavers was their main product. There was a great demand, throughout the world, for cheap fabrics. Also India agricultural goods for example sugar, indigo dye and opium. The British also began to collect taxes. There system of taxes was corrupt everyone involved felt entitled to take a share for them-selves.

Robert Clive 

Argument:

Marshall Perspective of the East India Company as they were corrupt business men that forced there rule and influence over India. In the text he states that the British even made their Indian clients kings, and where paid handsomely for it like Robert Clive for example. They taxed the people harshly and gave them nothing in return. As I read this source I feel that Marshall takes the side of the Indian people, however he does write about the efforts of the British to keep their rules and traditions and the improvements to education in India.    

 source: 

Peter Marshall, the author of The British Presence in India in the 18th Century, was a professor at London University. I feel that Marshall is a reliable source, he taught Imperial history for twelve years. In addition Marshall has several books published about British India occupation. Also Marshall was an editor of The Cambridge Illustrated history of the British Empire. Peter Marshall devoted his life to this period of history. Marshall passion for British history is reveal through his works. I did not since any bias, I felt that Marshall represented both sides of the story.