In Henk L. Wesseling’s The European Colonial Empires, 1815–1919 (2003), what aspect of the nineteenth-century global context do the statistics about India’s rising imports of English textiles (1814 to 1890) most likely illustrate? A) The deteriorating working conditions of British industrial workers B) The growing demand for calicoes and other Indian textiles in Britain C) The role of British imperial policy in reversing the development of Indian textile manufacturing D) The spread of socialist ideology in the colonies in response to European economic exploitation
To be sure, the immense productivity of English textile workers from the early nineteenth century on made this branch of British industry superior to all of its former competitors, colonial and noncolonial alike. But while other countries could shield themselves from this danger by introducing protectionist tariffs, such protection did not exist in the British colonies. So here, in the case of the destruction of Indian textile industry, we see the importance of the colonial situation, namely the colonies’ political dependence on the West, in arresting their economic development.”
Henk L. Wesseling, Dutch historian of colonial South and Southeast Asia, The European Colonial Empires, 1815–1919, book published in 2003
C) The role of British imperial policy in reversing the development of Indian textile manufacturing. Wesseling uses the import figures and the productivity comparison to show how British industrial advantage, combined with colonial rule that prevented protective tariffs, undermined and deindustrialized India’s textile sector.
What the question is really asking
You are matching Wesseling’s numbers to the big nineteenth-century trend they support. The key is to connect the statistics to his explanation of how colonial power shaped economic outcomes.
What the statistics show (not just the raw numbers)
Wesseling highlights two related data points:
- Productivity gap: an English textile worker using machines produced about $350$ to $400$ times as much yarn per hour as an Indian spinner using a traditional wheel.
- Import surge into India: English textile imports rise from about $1$ million meters (1814) to $13$ million (1820) to more than $2$ billion (1890).
Those figures point to Indian markets being flooded with cheaper, machine-made British textiles over time.
Linking the numbers to the colonial context
Wesseling directly argues that what made the consequences “fatal” for Indian production was the colonial situation:
- Other countries could respond to British industrial competition with protectionist tariffs.
- British colonies could not, because political dependence meant local producers were not protected.
So the statistics are evidence for imperial policy and colonial dependence accelerating the decline of indigenous industry, often described as deindustrialization.
Why C fits and the others do not
- C is correct because it matches Wesseling’s claim that British rule gave manufacturers “free rein” and blocked protections for Indian producers, reversing or arresting Indian industrial development.
- A is off-topic: the passage is about outcomes in India, not British factory labor conditions.
- B reverses the direction: the numbers show India importing British textiles, not Britain demanding Indian textiles.
- D is not supported: Marx is mentioned, but the statistics are used to explain economic impact and colonial policy, not the spread of socialism in colonies.
Comments (0)
Please to leave a comment.