By 1830 an English textile worker was already producing with his mechanical spinning machine 350 to 400 times as much yarn per hour as an Indian craftsman with his traditional spinning wheel. The consequences for Indian textile production were fatal. In 1814 India
imported one million meters of English textiles, in 1820 it imported 1 million and in 1890 more than two billion. British rule in India gave the British manufacturers free rein and made the protection of indigenous producers impossible. It stands to reason that Karl Marx
condemned the driving force behind British expansion in India by calling it the 'millocracy [meaning rule by the owners of textile mills).


To be sure, the immense productivity of English textile workers from the early nineteenth century on made this branch 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.



Wesseling's argument in the second paragraph best illustrates which of the following important distinctions within the practice of imperialism in the nineteenth century?


A.The difference between European and non-European imperialism

B.The difference between land-based imperial expansion and overseas or maritime imperial expansion

C.The difference between the economic costs of imperialism and its economic benefits

D.The difference between the economic effects of direct and indirect imperialism

D. The difference between the economic effects of direct and indirect imperialism.