news

Settler colonialism in the New World was absolutely different than the migration of people's prior. Never before did a people come to a land and entirely exterminate a populace through mass slave labour and disease within a single generation (see the Taino genocide).

The population of the Taíno before the arrival of the Spanish Empire on the island of Hispaniola in 1492 (which Christopher Columbus baptized as Hispaniola), is estimated at between 10,000 and 1,000,000. The Spanish subjected them to slavery, massacres and other violent treatment after the last Taíno chief was deposed in 1504. By 1514, the population had reportedly been reduced to just 32,000 Taíno, by 1565 the number was reported at 200.

Half a century to entirely destroy a people. That's unprecedented. Usually there's intermarriage, intermingling, etc. Briton is a mix of all those peoples, the Anatolians didn't wipe out the original Britons but intermarried and stuff. Not so with New World settler colonialism.

EDIT: Agreed with your overall point about West Eurasian backwater though. A great book that covers this reality is The Great Divergence by Pomeranz. His conclusions aren't great, but demonstrates that the conditions of European industrialism were also present in (for example) Song dynasty China.

The usual sterotype of nineteenth-century economic history is that Asia stood still while the Industrial Revolution propelled the West forward. That's only true in a superficial sense for one asia lost it much later, around 1850s, and it was not because one region industrialized while the other didnt but that there was a deliberate attempt at deindustrialization of Asia through policy. The looms of India and China weren't defeated by 'the market' but they were forcibly and violently dismantled through wars, invasion, opium and one-way tariffs.

Bairoch

"It is very likely that, in the middle of the eighteenth century, the average standard of living in Europe was a little bit lower than that of the rest of the world. When the sans culottes strormed the Bastille, the largest manufacturing districts in the world were still the Yangzi Delta and Bengal, with Lingan (Modern Guandong and Guangxi) and coastal Madras not far behind. India along produced one-quarter of world manufactures and while its 'pre-capitalist agrarian labour' productivity' was probably less than the Japanese-Chinese level, its commercial capital surpassed that of the chinese."

Philip Huang

"The overall economic development of the Yangzi Delta in the Qing exceeded that of 'early modern' England"

Bin Wong

"Specific conditions associated with european proto-industrialization - expansion of seasonal crafts, shrinking farm size, and good marketing systems - may have been even more widespread in China [and India] than in Europe.

Pomeranz:

"The lower Yangui appear to have produced roughly as much cotton cloth per capita in 1750 as the UK did cotton, wool, linen and silk cloth combined in 1800 - plus an enourmous quantity of silk."

Maddison

"The Chinese GDP in absoulte terms grew faster than that of Europe throughout the eighteenth century, dramatically enlarging its share of world income by 1820 (32.4% vs 26.6% of europe)

Shit even Marx pointed out that the brits liked to hide their incredibly bloody business when it came to capitalism so I don't know how yours is like materialist. If you are going to correct someone try to be correct I guess?