Which Was More Important in the Rise of Global Inequality Between 1750 and 1900?
Which was more important in the rise of global inequality between 1750 and 1900:the industrial revolution or European overseas empires.
The European occupation and control of overseas empires contributed strongly to their ability to expand at home, via the industrial revolution. The rise of Global inequality and the birth of the third world was due to neither parties demand for luxury, nor forced labour, but erratic economic standings and uncontrollable weather patterns. Trade policy passed and tariffs imposed to benefit the English may be argued to be mere greed. Yet global inequality can in no way be argued as coincidental, but a carefully implemented plan to benefit the few over the suffering of the many. Both the industrial revolution and global inequality are mutually beneficial, and neither can exist without one another.
The industrial revolution “transformed the energy base of human society”[1]through coal power. Able to utilise stored energy built up by thousands of years of sun exposure[2], the British empire gained a competitive advantage over the surrounding industries that could not be contended. Without inexpensive energy India in particular had no opportunity to compete[3]. What would eventually become the third world were increasingly reliant upon the inefficient practices of old, whilst the Europeans were capable of completing the works of many. The birth of factory labour allowed for greater efficiency in exchange for harsh, dull working conditions.
India's artesian's whom had crafted garments for centuries were suddenly left without trade. When trade barriers were closed, markets disappeared and British product flooded the market with inexpensive alternatives. New technologies, making use of the cheap power, made way for an efficiency others could not compete with. This 'deindustrialisation' left many without a job, and, as a result they were forced into the fields to grow crops for the Opium addicted Chinese and hungry British.
The European occupation and control of overseas empires contributed strongly to their ability to expand at home, via the industrial revolution. The rise of Global inequality and the birth of the third world was due to neither parties demand for luxury, nor forced labour, but erratic economic standings and uncontrollable weather patterns. Trade policy passed and tariffs imposed to benefit the English may be argued to be mere greed. Yet global inequality can in no way be argued as coincidental, but a carefully implemented plan to benefit the few over the suffering of the many. Both the industrial revolution and global inequality are mutually beneficial, and neither can exist without one another.
The industrial revolution “transformed the energy base of human society”[1]through coal power. Able to utilise stored energy built up by thousands of years of sun exposure[2], the British empire gained a competitive advantage over the surrounding industries that could not be contended. Without inexpensive energy India in particular had no opportunity to compete[3]. What would eventually become the third world were increasingly reliant upon the inefficient practices of old, whilst the Europeans were capable of completing the works of many. The birth of factory labour allowed for greater efficiency in exchange for harsh, dull working conditions.
India's artesian's whom had crafted garments for centuries were suddenly left without trade. When trade barriers were closed, markets disappeared and British product flooded the market with inexpensive alternatives. New technologies, making use of the cheap power, made way for an efficiency others could not compete with. This 'deindustrialisation' left many without a job, and, as a result they were forced into the fields to grow crops for the Opium addicted Chinese and hungry British.