Riello and Burnard Flashcards
In the article, Riello and Burnard express their own position in the debates about the development and the timing of the Industrial Revolution and global economic divergence. How do they relate this to the chronology of slavery and cotton? When did both become important? Formulate their claims and position in your own words.
Riello and Burnard argue that the New History of Capitalism (NHC) overemphasizes the importance of coercion to economic growth in the eighteenth century. They contend that the political economy of European states and empires, rather than coercion, played a key role in the transformation of capitalism at a global scale.
They also challenge the NHC’s claim that slavery was linked to industrialization, proposing a different chronology.
They argue that cotton produced in large quantities in the United States came too late to cause an Industrial Revolution, which they believe developed gradually from the latter half of the seventeenth century and was well established by the 1790s, when cotton started to arrive from the American South.
They also assert that during early industrialization, sugar, not cotton, was the main plantation crop in the Americas.
Additionally, they critique the NHC for being overly concentrated on production and slave plantation economies, and for underplaying the role of consumption in shaping the global market.
They argue that slavery’s role in fostering the preconditions of industrialization and the Great Divergence must be seen in the context of supporting the expansion of consumption, as well as production.
In summary, Riello and Burnard position themselves as advocates for a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between slavery, cotton, and the development of capitalism, challenging some of the claims made by the NHC.
