3 ms·

No. Second: "Cotton Capital: a special investigation 2023 Cotton Capital how slavery made Manchester the world’s first industrial city" https://www.theguardia

No. Second: "Cotton Capital: a special investigation 2023 Cotton Capital how slavery made Manchester the world’s first industrial city" https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2023/apr/03/cotton-capital-how-slavery-made-manchester-the-worlds-first-industrial-city https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2023/apr/03/...

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
Again, plenty of civilisations across history had slaves, and many of Britain’s contemporaries did too.
- KingOfCoders 2y ago
  Not sure I can follow that argument. "We can be rich again!" "But the wealth was based on slavery, that is no longer" "Others had slaves too!" Or is it "We can be rich again!" "But the wealth was based on slavery, that is no longer" "Others had slaves(-trade) too, but we were the richest, so I doesn't depend on slaves?" Could you elaborate on your logic?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    I mean, I’m also not suggesting they try re-running a cotton economy. > so I doesn't depend on slaves?" One, don’t fake quote others. Two, nobody argued this. American wealth depends on agriculture and energy (and having taken that from our Indians); that doesn’t mean betting on corn and fracking is a good economic plan, or that Argentina is a surefire bet for sharing those same strengths. Regardless of how it was acquired, Britain sits of a massive pool of capital. That capital gives it opportunities others cannot access. The argument from its previous prowess is not one for returning to colonialism, but for the existence of the social and economic infrastructure for commanding production past what you’d expect from its population in the way America, China, Japan and Germany do. (Economies Nos. 1 through 4. And yes, we see the same common histories in the set.)
    - KingOfCoders 2y ago
      One, don't attack people but arguments. I'm not faking quotes, I want to understand your argument about slaves/other people had slaves too/we can be rich again, so I asked if you've meant that. I asked "Or is it:" - which makes it clear this is not a quote. Your "fake quotes" shows me we have different logic and a different understanding of rhetorical terms, and won't come to any agreement on that basis.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > your argument about slaves/other people had slaves too/we can be rich again The point is Britain had slaves. But so did other powers that it dominated economically (and occasionally militarily). Slaves didn’t make “North England’s economy as a whole…among the strongest in Europe and thus the world”; slaves merely made it rich. Britain is already rich. Its future prosperity doesn’t need to come from exploitation. Like, Britain also had trees. And mailboxes. And black pudding. But trees and mailboxes and blood sausages aren’t why it had one of the strongest economies in the world. Similarly, yes, Britain had slaves, but slaves weren’t why it had the strongest economy in Europe, a continent with several slavery enthusiasts.
tim333 2y ago
The cause and effect in that article seems kind of weak. > The construction of the Bridgewater canal provided regular, cheaper coal supplies to power the new machinery and improved transport links to Liverpool. The invention of the cotton gin in 1793 proved crucial in shaping Manchester’s future. And then because a lot of the raw cotton was supplied from slave plantations it implies the slavery caused the cotton gins, whereas I expect it was the other way around. If there had been no slavery they probably would still have got cotton from paid farmers overseas with much the same effect.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

Again, plenty of civilisations across history had slaves, and many of Britain’s contemporaries did too.

KingOfCoders 2y ago
Not sure I can follow that argument. "We can be rich again!" "But the wealth was based on slavery, that is no longer" "Others had slaves too!" Or is it "We can be rich again!" "But the wealth was based on slavery, that is no longer" "Others had slaves(-trade) too, but we were the richest, so I doesn't depend on slaves?" Could you elaborate on your logic?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  I mean, I’m also not suggesting they try re-running a cotton economy. > so I doesn't depend on slaves?" One, don’t fake quote others. Two, nobody argued this. American wealth depends on agriculture and energy (and having taken that from our Indians); that doesn’t mean betting on corn and fracking is a good economic plan, or that Argentina is a surefire bet for sharing those same strengths. Regardless of how it was acquired, Britain sits of a massive pool of capital. That capital gives it opportunities others cannot access. The argument from its previous prowess is not one for returning to colonialism, but for the existence of the social and economic infrastructure for commanding production past what you’d expect from its population in the way America, China, Japan and Germany do. (Economies Nos. 1 through 4. And yes, we see the same common histories in the set.)
  - KingOfCoders 2y ago
    One, don't attack people but arguments. I'm not faking quotes, I want to understand your argument about slaves/other people had slaves too/we can be rich again, so I asked if you've meant that. I asked "Or is it:" - which makes it clear this is not a quote. Your "fake quotes" shows me we have different logic and a different understanding of rhetorical terms, and won't come to any agreement on that basis.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > your argument about slaves/other people had slaves too/we can be rich again The point is Britain had slaves. But so did other powers that it dominated economically (and occasionally militarily). Slaves didn’t make “North England’s economy as a whole…among the strongest in Europe and thus the world”; slaves merely made it rich. Britain is already rich. Its future prosperity doesn’t need to come from exploitation. Like, Britain also had trees. And mailboxes. And black pudding. But trees and mailboxes and blood sausages aren’t why it had one of the strongest economies in the world. Similarly, yes, Britain had slaves, but slaves weren’t why it had the strongest economy in Europe, a continent with several slavery enthusiasts.

tim333 2y ago

The cause and effect in that article seems kind of weak. > The construction of the Bridgewater canal provided regular, cheaper coal supplies to power the new machinery and improved transport links to Liverpool. The invention of the cotton gin in 1793 proved crucial in shaping Manchester’s future. And then because a lot of the raw cotton was supplied from slave plantations it implies the slavery caused the cotton gins, whereas I expect it was the other way around. If there had been no slavery they probably would still have got cotton from paid farmers overseas with much the same effect.