British Cotton Industry

This is a debate come up worth exploring since an examination will reveal two outstanding economic facts germane to the British cotton plant industry. First, for over a century, Britain was the world leader in both cotton imports and cotton manufacturing (Mass & Lazonick, 1990, 14). In fact, its expertise in this bea led to the instruction of an economic history benchmark: The Industrial Revolution. Second, Britain's very victor and domination of the world marketplace led to a study shortsightedness on the part of the leaders of the textile industries who failed to cognize the historic inevitabilities of progress, and this shortsightedness led to the eventual collapse of the industrial power Britain had created (Kirby, 1974, 157). The Fatalist view of this situation, espoused by McCloskey (and others cited later) will be examined first.

Did History Play a "Trick?": The Fatalist View

The problem of analyzing historical moments as the result of a "trick" (or a random, unpredicted event) is first seen in determining which trick the authors are talking about? Which event along the long fourth dimension line that describes Britain's cotton industry was most important? Was the opening move of the first Indian cotton mill, "The Bombay Spinning Mill," in 1854 the landmark event? Or perhaps we can peg as "the trick" as the American Civil War that had such(prenominal) an incredible nitty-gritty on both Britain'

Bellamy, J.M. (1962) Cotton manufacture in Kingston upon Hull. origin History. 4 91(17)

Here we have six verified historical events, or moments. If we analyze each of them in isolation, and then point that that event was the "cause" of subsequent behavior, we are in dusky waters. For A-F above are statements of fact, and as fact they stand isolated, unconnected. For historians give care McCloskey to choose one of these "facts" (even though it is called a "trick") and implore that it caused a major event like the decline of the cotton industry is fallacious. For, in fact and in theory, the decline of the British cotton industry was non a single yield of one cause.

Instead, it was an example of manif oldish effects caused by multiple (and widely diverse) causes that were analyzable in hindsight, and in hindsight only.

Change is not easy for any society. It was particularly difficult for Britain who, as the fall in Kingdom boasted control of most of the world's surface area (remember the old maps when British Empire nations were printed in Pink?). To a dyed-in-the-wool Brit, variety show means failure, and failure is not a construct the British care to deal with. Judd (1996), in his excellent study of the British Empire puzzles over what motivated our nation to seek seduction:

Using this system, somewhat narrative, but cleanly cause and effect now gives the random events mentioned above shade and texture. Because Britain wanted and require India, it created a company called the East India Company to handle procural of cotton. The East India Company caused unrest in India so British military came into help defend the company. This had the effect of getting much cotton into England, but it was also the cause of English sheepherders developing nervous and demanding surety for their products. This caused Britain to begin trying to protect its markets. This protection in turn led to the decision to establish its induce cotton mills, thereby solving the problem of
Ordercustompaper.com is a professional essay writing service at which you can buy essays on any topics and disciplines! All custom essays are written by professional writers!