The Industrial Revolution serves as a great division throughout the history of globalization. Not only are many of the effects of the Industrial Revolution still felt immensely in today's society, but also the Industrial Revolution is what set Europe apart from other early great powers, such as those of Asia. This European domination and concurrent Asian subordination has sparked debate between many scholars such as David Landes and Kenneth Pomeranz. In both Landes’s and Pomeranz’s works, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations and The Great Divergence respectively, the authors reach starkly different conclusions as to why Europe was able to industrialize in the nineteenth century and Asia, aside from Japan, was not. While Landes’s argument …show more content…
stems from studying cultural differences between Europe and Asia, Pomeranz bases his argument on economic difference. With in his work The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, Landes argues that European global dominance resulted from inherent cultural characteristics within European society that do not exist within Asian culture.
In Landes’s opinion, Europe was able to succeeded in its industrialization because its past experiences and unique culture. Europe’s long history of fragmentation not only lead to the development of a uniquely dynamic culture, but also to competition. Decisions of European monarchies were fueled by this competitive drive; likewise, monarchs would make decisions that benefited their subjects (36?). In contrast, Landes contends that Asia was too self-satisfied, turned inward, and lacked the competitive curiosity of European culture.
With the advancement of technology following the Scientific Revolution and the beginnings of European exploration and expansion, Europeans began to extend this competition to other parts of the world. It is this dynamic culture that made Europeans not only more willing to experiment with technology and science, but also allowed them to become more driven by the acquisition of profit. Because of these attributes, Landes argues, Europe quickly dominated the technologically primitive Native Americans and the culturally static and despotic Asians (CITE). → move this
…show more content…
sentence? Culture is also Landes' explanation for why Europe and other parts of the world have experienced—and continue to experience—periods of economic growth, stagnation, or recession.
Within Europe itself, he believes that as soon as any European state lost some of its cultural dynamism, another more dynamic European state quickly became dominant. He argues that Early Spanish and Portuguese dominance declined as these societies became increasingly religiously intolerant, only to be superseded by the more dynamic Dutch and British. The Dutch then lost their economic advantage as they became lazy. Landes follows this line of reasoning through to the industrial era and the present day. Britain industrialized first because of a variety of institutional factors, but most importantly because of its dynamic culture and openness to scientific experimentation. The other parts of the world that soon industrialized (France, Germany, the United States, and Japan) did so because of their flexibility, cultural dynamism, and willingness to embrace change and to copy the British model. Spain, Italy, eastern Europe, and most of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, which did not rapidly industrialize, were unable to embrace change because of despotic rulers or some element of cultural stasis or religious intolerance.
In contrast with Landes’s work, within The Great Divergence, Kenneth Pomeranz attempts to answer the same question through the comparisons economic developments in Europe and China. Pomeranz
sets up his argument by comparing the regions in terms of population density, technological capabilities, and economic structures. In fact, he even states, “the most developed parts of western Europe seem to have shared crucial economic features with other densely populated core areas in Eurasia" (107?). For Pomeranz, the first notable difference is the presence of large and readily accessible coal deposits in Britain. Britain was lucky in that it had plentiful coal deposits close to its industrial heartland (cite). On the other hand, China’s coal deposits were located on the opposite side of the country from its most prosperous regions (cite). While not a completely defeating factor, in not having easy access to coal, China is already set up for less industrial success when compared to European countries such as Britain. Pomeranz also analyses trade as a basis for his argument. He argues that while Britain and China were roughly equal in terms of their consumption of luxury goods, ultimately Europe was more aggressive in their tactics of trade. These European trade tactics not only allowed for European control of the Americas, but also allowed Europeans such as the Portuguese and the Dutch to become integral to Asian trade in the Pacific Ocean. Ultimately, in Pomeranz’s account, the biggest dividing factor between European ability and Asian inability to industrialize is European access to the New World. Both Europe, especially Britain, and Asia, specifically China, were experiencing Malthusian crises, that is in terms of their ability to support growing populations with limited resources. However, whereas China encouraged settlements in the margins of its empire as well as emigration to Southeast Asia, Britain chose to colonize the Americas. While China’s solution to their ecological issues proved only a short-term fix, the Europeans were able to find a solution that allowed for a proliferation of resources. In colonizing the Americas, the Europeans were not only able to acquire resources through the sheer acquisition of new lands, but also Europeans also set up plantations and mines that produced mass imports that in turn fueled Europeans economies (cite). In this view, European dominance could only occur because Europeans were able to take advantage of slave labor and silver mines in the Americas. Europeans could then put the profits to use in global trade markets. However, Pomeranz argues that none of these factors alone would have led to European industrialization, but the combined effect of all factors allowed Europe to industrialize first (CITE). In conclusion, both Landes and Pomeranz use very different approaches in analyzing the same question and arrive at very different conclusions. While Landes analyzes the question of European supremacy and Asian inferiority in terms of culture, Pomeranz takes a more economic approach. Ultimately, Landes’s argument paints Europe’s earlier industrialization as inevitable, whereas Pomeranz views it more as luck of circumstance. While both authors’ offer unique insight into the issue, it is not clear that one or the other is necessarily correct.
The small environment no longer had enough resources to sustain such a large population which motivated them to subdivide and move on. They expanded southward and eastward. They developed seasonal rounds of activity and movement. Climate change expanded the temperate forest throughout North America allowing them to become more familiar with their land. Early Americans. Soon the domestication of plants and animals established. They developed different cultures traditions diets and languages. During the late fifteenth century, Europeans developed the navigational technology and ambitions which allowed them to explore and conquer the world's seas. The Atlantic Ocean once a barrier became a bridge to vast lands and people. The Europeans traveled to the West Indies and India by traveling around Africa. The new discoveries transformed Europe into one of the most dominant continents. European Christians first felt surrounded by their Muslim neighbors. The Muslims were more a more powerful religion extended to North Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central Asia. The Europeans Christians got an opportunity to break out of the Muslim world and spread their beliefs to the newly discovered world and search for the trade riches such as gold, silks, and
European countries were able to benefit economically by spreading cultural ideas to Africa. The Europeans in the north had a more advanced way of living than the Africans. Document C states that Europe had invented the first machine gun as well as the repeating rifle in the late 1800s. Both of these
1.) As a whole, the entry of the Europeans into the Asian sea trading network had relatively little effect on the entire system. The entry of the Europeans into the network led to the establishment of new trade routes in the Indian Ocean to the southern Atlantic near the Cape of Good Hope. In water, the Europeans were superior militarily, but on land against fortified Asian settlements, the Asians far surpassed the Europeans technologically. The only superior items that the Europeans had were small, fast sea vessels such as caravels, clocks, and weaponry. This situation of inferiority led to the Europeans’ plan of adaptation to the Asian network instead of trying to control it. Although the Europeans had little to offer, the agricultural items introduced such as crops first cultivated in the Americas proved to be very sustainable and led to large amounts of population growth, but the growing numbers eventually led to the spread of epidemic diseases that ultimately ravaged both Asian and European populations.
Much of Western Europe quickly industrialized after Great Britain. If they did not, they were immediately outclassed by the British in trade and military strength. Industrialization made good use of the natural resources in a state. Some nations industrialized a while after Great Britain and were falling behind. Two of these states were Russia and Japan. These countries experienced change in governments, economic power, and social structure as a result of industrialization. Yet, these states went through their industrializations in very different ways than each other.
...nd expansion. History has proven this time and time again. One of the reasons that the European empire was so successful was due to its great advanced in the realm of technology. But, what one must keep in mind is that with this technology comes the factor of time. As time ticks, technology may advance but also, people find ways around this technology or the technology fails you. For example, in Vietnam air power failed due to adaptation. Much like in Kosovo, technological use of air power failed due to other circumstances. While Serbians were driven out of Kosovo, murders went up and fighting increased due to people’s frustrations and will power ti fight for what they believe in. Therefore, while technology can gain a great edge over your opponents, it can never replace the will and desire for one nation to achieve its goals and in time, that technology can fail.
...conomically beneficial trade and technology development. In this regard the Epilogue uses sound logic to plausibly answer the wealth question. On the other hand, Mr. Diamond uses the same "national competition" thesis to purport that Asia's large, centralized governments were conspicuously growth-inhibitive. This argument would not seem to pass muster given what we have learned about the role of governments. Professor Wright's slides state that "Centralization may limit predation and even allow for growth" as "centralized predation = incentives to maximize the haul " This clearly refutes Mr. Diamond's argument that centralized, monopolistic Asian governments impaired societal advances. Thus, Guns, Germs, and Steel can scantly explain why China and the Middle East remain emerging markets while Western and Northern Europe enjoy significantly larger national wealth.
Beginning in the 1600s, one of the main concepts for England, France, and Spain at the time was mercantilism. These were the three most powerful and blooming countries at the time. Starting from the earliest years as the late 1500s, and continuing on, all three countries were soon to battle for claim of the new land. Only one country could triumph. Despite success, even the strongest can become the weakest.
In the course of approximately four hundred years, Western European colonists and prominent historical figures were particularly known for exploiting and devastating distant cultures and civilizations around the world. This included groups ranging from the Aboriginals and the Aztecs in the remote “New World”, to groups in East Asia such as the Chinese and the Mughals. However, historians today debate whether or not these prevailing and prospering Western European nations were as successful at influencing the cultures of nearer empires such as the Ottoman Empire. It is questionable as to whether or not the Ottoman Empire should be compared to other cultures devastated through their interactions with the West, largely due to the Ottomans’ vast success in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries and eventual internal problems. However, the Ottoman Empire’s inability to remain as successful as its adjacent Western neighbours indicates that they too, were a victim of Western dominance. As the Ottomans began its descent, much of the West continued its prevalence. Therefore, it is fair to say that the Ottoman Empire’s considerable interaction with the West led to the demise and alteration of its culture. The Western powers’ economic supremacy, exploitation of the Ottomans’ internal failures and influence on its religious state each significantly contributed.
The Chinese empire had once been one of the greatest and most powerful empires in the world. Before the 19th century, China had a large population and was ruled by families or dynasties. It was considered technologically advanced as China had a history of many miraculous inventions, such as: writing, magnetic compasses, movable sails, porcelain, abacus and paper money. Although China was isolated from the rest of the world, it coped well on its own, and saw no need to begin trading with the west, (as Lord McCartney proposed in 1793), since it was a self-sufficient nation. At that particular time, the Chinese empire was still able to exclude the ‘barbarians’, thus forcing them to only trade at one port. However, China soon took a turn for the worst as important ...
Starting in the mid 1700s and continuing to the late 1850s, arguably still ongoing today, industrialization is centered on the development of machinery and urbanization. This new era found its roots in Great Britain, and later in the entirety of Western Europe once the French Revolution and the Congress of Vienna were resolved. Development was essential in Great Britain simply because it was not connected to continental Europe and Britain had the resources, like coal, to fuel the industrial revolution. Once the idea of industrialization was sparked, it burned like wildfire and spread to the rest of Europe. Results of industrialization were exceptional and robust; calling for others to join. Industrialization was a time for growth, both economically and politically, wide
He meant that economically open doors for countries throughout Europe to stimulate their economy. Describe the different global economies that Europeans participated in or created during the European age of expansion. A global economy was made solely reliant on produce of its province; gaining free labor from slaves also shipment bringing in byproduct colonies. This encouraged growth for Europe to extend their boarder and riches. One of the most striking features of Indian societies at the time of the encounter with Europeans was their diversity. Support this statement with several examples. Examples of this can be irrigation, roadway systems, the pyramids, and the diversity of different languages in different cities. Compare and contrast European values and ways of life with those of the Indians. Consider addressing religion, views about ownership of land, gender relations, and notions of freedom. The Indians believed that if they lived on property then it is theirs but if it is not inhabited then it is free where as Europeans believe that wealth comes from land ownership and fortune. Indian women won homes and tools and European women do not. What were the main factors fueling the European age of expansion? The main factors for expansion were resource, new route to India resource and pillaging. Compare the different economic and
The Europeans brought with them not only a desire and will to conquer the new continent f...
Stewart Gordon is an expert historian who specializes in Asian history. He is a Senior Research Scholar at the Center for South Asian Studies at the University of Michigan and has authored three different books on Asia. Gordon’s When Asia Was The World uses the narratives of several different men to explore The Golden Age of medieval Asia. The fact that this book is based on the travels and experiences of the everyday lives of real people gives the reader a feeling of actually experiencing the history. Gordon’s work reveals to the reader that while the Europeans were trapped in the dark ages, Asia was prosperous, bursting with culture, and widely connected by trade.
The Great Divergence is term used to portray the gradual shift of dominance that Europe gained by establishing itself as the most powerful world civilization by the 19th century. While a case could be made that the Great Divergence occurred because of the pre-eminence of Europe and Britain, as well as their supposed superiority in invention and innovation above anywhere else in the world, this argument is flawed. A more compelling argument would be to state that it was rather through the geographical advantages that Europe obtained that lead it into eventually becoming the most powerful civilization after 1500 A.D., as this essay will strive to demonstrate.
...not on governments, but on men of initiative, determination, ambition, vision, resourcefulness, single-mindedness, and (not infrequently) good, honest greed” (117). The Industrial Revolution, led by Great Britain, greatly changed the existing attitude of powerlessness towards nature to one of power because now people were able to produce enough goods and food to support the expanding population. The ability to produce a surplus that arose from the ongoing industrialization meant that people no longer had to worry over nature and its effects on the economy. The Industrial Revolution led by Great Britain radically changed Europe's social and economic ways of life and provided the impetus for the tremendous progress of the 19th century.