The industrial revolution of the 18th century is one of the factors that empowered and sustained British hegemony till World War I. it is remembered as the period of Britain’s economic dominance and along with it was the largest empire in modern history, transcending all through the 7 continents of the world. However, contrary to popular belief, or Eurocentric learning of history, such development that can be perceived as “revolutionary” occurred centuries before the famed Industrial Revolution. When Europe was experiencing and suffering from the “Dark Ages”, non-European nations were experiencing a flowering of culture and science and at its centre is Tang China, sometimes referred to as China’s golden age (Daniels P., Hyslop, S., p.120).
…show more content…
The graph showed Chinese population declining between 12th and 15th century thus, if man-to-land ratio is a valid excuse for innovations, such advancement or “revolution” should’ve happened between the said period because population declined but approximately same land mass. For the more recent 20th century, Lin argues that widespread double-cropping always results to inadequate labour and therefore, labour-saving inventions has always been necessary in China (Lin, p.273-274). The second part of Elvin’s hypothesis pertaining to the lack of resource to allocate for development, Lin referred to the data which shows that there’s no dramatic difference between the surplus per capita of 12th century to 14th and 15th century (Lin, p.275). Furthermore, regarding the 20th century, China had 31.2% available for “nonessential” consumption. For the former, as the chart, didn’t show what types of crop were cultivated in the latter centuries, it’s difficult to compare the 2 sets of period. Questioning the validity of Lin’s, what if the reason for limited surplus Elvin was talking about, disregarding the issue of land was a by-product of the types of crops planted. In other words, maybe 12th century focused on grains while the latter, on different crops, that are less filling but offers variety for the upper classes. As for the latter, I would also add that we learned from class that during the Mao …show more content…
The talented and intellectual Chinese who would might have done something like the enlightened Europeans did were inclined to break their bones studying for the civil service examinations that would have provided the best opportunity for better life (Encyclopaedia Britannica). Position in the government is the light at the end of the Chinese tunnel. I agree that it makes sense because after the reintroduction of the imperial exam, the power was turned to scholars and eunuchs thus, sacrifice to learning the Confucian teaching and the Chinese characters. Logically speaking, it is safer to invest your time and efforts to a commodity that has high return. While many Chinese failed in this intensive and extremely selective exam that only chose the cream of the crop, it is better to at least try than forever remain in their poor social standing. Moreover, failing didn’t necessarily mean destitute, educating themselves in the knowledge of Confucius and acquiring literacy skills would widen their job prospective in the already limited post 12th century. Like instead of being a farmer, they also have the choice to be a merchant or an
The graph showed Chinese population declining between 12th and 15th century thus, if man-to-land ratio is a valid excuse for innovations, such advancement or “revolution” should’ve happened between the said period because population declined but approximately same land mass. For the more recent 20th century, Lin argues that widespread double-cropping always results to inadequate labour and therefore, labour-saving inventions has always been necessary in China (Lin, p.273-274). The second part of Elvin’s hypothesis pertaining to the lack of resource to allocate for development, Lin referred to the data which shows that there’s no dramatic difference between the surplus per capita of 12th century to 14th and 15th century (Lin, p.275). Furthermore, regarding the 20th century, China had 31.2% available for “nonessential” consumption. For the former, as the chart, didn’t show what types of crop were cultivated in the latter centuries, it’s difficult to compare the 2 sets of period. Questioning the validity of Lin’s, what if the reason for limited surplus Elvin was talking about, disregarding the issue of land was a by-product of the types of crops planted. In other words, maybe 12th century focused on grains while the latter, on different crops, that are less filling but offers variety for the upper classes. As for the latter, I would also add that we learned from class that during the Mao …show more content…
The talented and intellectual Chinese who would might have done something like the enlightened Europeans did were inclined to break their bones studying for the civil service examinations that would have provided the best opportunity for better life (Encyclopaedia Britannica). Position in the government is the light at the end of the Chinese tunnel. I agree that it makes sense because after the reintroduction of the imperial exam, the power was turned to scholars and eunuchs thus, sacrifice to learning the Confucian teaching and the Chinese characters. Logically speaking, it is safer to invest your time and efforts to a commodity that has high return. While many Chinese failed in this intensive and extremely selective exam that only chose the cream of the crop, it is better to at least try than forever remain in their poor social standing. Moreover, failing didn’t necessarily mean destitute, educating themselves in the knowledge of Confucius and acquiring literacy skills would widen their job prospective in the already limited post 12th century. Like instead of being a farmer, they also have the choice to be a merchant or an