< < <
Date Index > > > |
No Subject by Immanuel Wallerstein 06 March 2002 14:08 UTC |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |
paragraph five of the quoted book says there was a sudden influx of cotton into Europe.....I ask WHY the "sudden influx" etc????fascinating. would appreciate your response.bw At 23:15 05/03/02, Louis Proyect wrote: >(The ongoing debates about the origins of capitalism have grappled >with the importance of New World silver and gold, with Brenner thesis >supporters minimizing its importance and scholars like A. Frank on >the opposite side. The last excerpt from Jack Weatherford's "Indian >Givers" I posted here, titled "New World Silver and the rise of >capitalism" weighed in on the world systems side of the debate. >Continuing with Weatherford's book, I found some information that I >never considered before, namely how New World cotton might have been >an even greater contributor to the social forces of production >associated with the industrial revolution than either silver or gold. >What follows is from chapter 3 of his book, "The American Indian Path >to Industrialization".) > >Around the time the potato arrived in Europe, a cornucopia of other >New World crops and products also poured in. The potato freed the >mills but gave them nothing new to process. Into this vacuum poured >one of the inedible American products-cotton. Some Old World types of >cotton had been grown in India and the Near East for centuries, but >only very small quantities of it ever reached Europe. This cotton was >not only expensive, but weak and difficult to weave because of its >short strands. Asiatic cottons, Gossypium herbaceum and G. arboreum, >had a strand length of only about half an inch, but American upland >cotton, G. hirsutum, usually grew to a full inch or more. Meanwhile, >G. barbodense, the tropical American cotton that became best known as >Sea Island cotton (from the plantations that grew it on the coast of >South Carolina and Georgia), could grow to two and a half inches. In >Europe the short strands of the Old World cotton served primarily for >padding jerkins under the coats of mail worn in battle. In time the >uses of cotton expanded to the making of fustian, which was a coarse >material built on a warp of stronger flax and a woof of Old World >cotton. Not until American cotton arrived in England, however, did >the phrase "cotton cloth" appear in English; the Oxford English >Dictionary's earliest date for it is 1552. > >The long-strand cotton of the American Indians so surpassed in >quality the puny cotton of the Old World that the Spaniards mistook >American Indian cloth for silk and interpreted its abundance as yet >further proof that these new lands lay close to China. For thousands >of years before the European conquest of America the Indians had been >using this carefully developed cotton to weave some of the finest >textiles in the world. Many remnants of these early cloths survive to >the present day, their colors and designs intact, after several >thousand years in the desert burials of Peru, Bolivia, and Chile. > >Traditionally, Europeans wore wools supplemented by leather. They >wove everything, from their underwear to their hats, from wool. Only >the very rich could afford luxury fabrics such as silk or linen. But >the quantity of wool was determined by the number of sheep, and this >was determined by the amount of grazing space. Using only sheep to >produce cloth ensures a slow and inefficient system that consumes a >large parcel of land to clothe each person and limits the amount of >clothing available. > >As long as Europe depended primarily on wool for clothing, peasants >could spin it and weave it with simple home technology. The >bottleneck in cloth manufacture was the amount of wool that the land >was capable of producing, not the ability of the weavers to make >cloth. Since the number of sheep determined the amount of wool for >weaving, peasants lacked incentives to develop machines or more >efficient ways to make clothing. > >This situation changed with the massive influx of cotton from >America. Suddenly, the peasants and the weavers had more fiber than >they could weave. They lacked the labor to process so much fiber. >Europe desperately needed more energy than it had in human and animal >power, and the most readily available source for creating new energy >lay in the waterwheels already in place throughout the continent. >Thus were born the first textile factories. > >Cotton production far surpassed the production of wool and other >fibers, but several steps in the manufacture of cloth slowed the >process. After the cotton bolls were picked from the plant, the seeds >had to be removed to free the cotton. This work proceeded at a slow >and laborious pace, requiring more time than the actual picking of >the cotton. Thus the slaves picking cotton spent more time picking >cotton seed out of the bolls than picking the cotton from the plant. >This problem was solved, however, when Eli Whitney (1765-1825) of >Westborough, Massachusetts, invented a mechanical gin to do this task >in 1793. The invention of this twenty-eight-year-old teacher allowed >one worker to separate up to fifty pounds of cotton per day. > >This one contraption did not produce the whole revolution in >production. The change depended on nearly simultaneous developments >that increased the rate at which thread could be spun from the cotton >and the rate at which the thread could be woven into cloth. Together, >the mechanization of ginning, spinning, and weaving the cotton >launched the industrial revolution. > >American cotton output increased from only three thousand bales in >1790, just before the invention of the cotton gin and the >mechanization of the spinning and weaving process, to 4.5 million >bales in 1860, on the eve of the American Civil War. In the decades >just before that war, cotton alone accounted for the major part of >exports from the United States, and it went primarily to the textile >mills of England. This demand for so much cotton greatly increased >the demand for appropriate land and thus pushed the southern planters >out of the Carolinas and Georgia and all the way across to Texas >within a few short years. In the process the United States >annihilated or scattered the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Cherokee >nations as well as most of the Seminole and some smaller nations. > >After the invention of the cotton gin, manufactured cotton cloth >became an item that even common people could afford. Until that time >it had been a luxury fabric for the rich; the common people continued >to wear homespun wool. Soon cotton textiles spread so widely and the >technology for making them became so refined that the Europeans were >selling them around the world in another escalation of the capitalist >enterprise. By 1800, cotton accounted for one-fourth of Britain's >annual exports. By 1850 this had risen to over half of all her annual >exports, and British factories produced cotton cloth in such >abundance that the price fell to only a quarter of what it had been >in 1800. > >-- >Louis Proyect, lnp3@panix.com on 03/05/2002 > >Marxism list: http://www.marxmail.org PLEASE REPLY to e-mail address below: Prof. Immanuel Wallerstein Netherlands Institute of Advanced Study Meijboomlaan 1 2242-PR Wassenaar Netherlands Tel: (31-70) 512.27.00 Fax: (31-70) 511.71.62 E: wallerstein@nias.knaw.nl (Jan.-March 2002)
< < <
Date Index > > > |
World Systems Network List Archives at CSF | Subscribe to World Systems Network |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |