Let me preface my paper by stating that one cannot truly compare China to Europe as stated in our quiz section. Generalizing Europe with a country versus continent mentality incorrectly suggests that it was unified economically. Therefore, this paper will serve as an exploration of Kenneth Pomeranz’s argument as well as others. The Industrial Revolution was synonymous with the rise of consumerism in the form of mass production, as seen by the advancement of technologies in steam power and factory work (ex. textiles.) When one reflects on the histories of the Industrial Revolution, one is immediately drawn to Europe, specifically 18th century Britain (for the economy of Britain had rapidly shifted into self-sustained growth as a consequence…show more content… His efforts were made in hopes to explain the occurrence of sustained industrial growth in Northwest Europe and ultimately the ‘Great Divergence’ between the East and West. Pomeranz’s argument at times feels convoluted due to his depiction of China’s growth as somewhat parallel to that of Europe’s, at times omitting the negative consequences of China’s economic and international regulations on trans-regional growth. He draws this parallel by juxtaposing luxury consumption, market economies, and overseas expedition between Asia and Europe. Through this juxtaposition, Pomeranz stresses the strategic choices of government and marketplace within these regions and suggests that China was no less capable of industrial revolution than Europe. Essentially, Pomeranz argues that China’s economic performance was comparable to that of Western Europe, therefore…show more content… This access permitted Europe to acquire financial stability due to cultural and ecological exchange as well as the exploitation of resources for European economies. We can see this exchange of commodities and people within the “Triangular Trade” system, which enabled Europe to advance technologically, industrially, and financially. ‘Triangular Trade’ led to developments in commerce and navigation systems as a result of intensified trade between regions such as the New World, Africa, and Asia. Furthermore, it led to European imperialism in the New World. An “integrated system of trade and exchange” formed, ultimately resulting in the emergence of capitalism. As a result, private ownership of wealth emerged. Additionally, this form of exchange was relatively considered a free marketplace and set aside from governmental or religious restrictions that were noted within Pomeranz’s description of China at the time. 3 Chinese expeditions unlike those of Europe were (for the most part) not government sponsored. We can see this lack of support in the Ming Dynasty’s regression overseas. 4 This regression could potentially be attributed to doctrines affiliated with Confucianism or disinterest in foreign goods. Pomeranz distinguishes two distinct mindsets of Eastern and Western attitudes, suggesting that the attitude
