Passage: The historiographical debate over the Great Divergence—the process by which the Western world became significantly wealthier than the East in the nineteenth century—often centers on why China failed to industrialize first. Some scholars argue that Britain’s success was due to internal factors, such as a culture of scientific inquiry and a unique coal-based energy economy. In contrast, revisionists suggest that China and Europe were on comparable economic paths until as late as 1750. They argue that Britain’s divergence was driven by external windfalls, specifically the exploitation of New World resources and the forced labor of the slave trade. These historians claim that the Americas provided a ghost acreage that relieved Britain of environmental constraints, allowing it to specialize in manufacturing while importing food and raw materials. Critics of the revisionist view, however, point out that other European nations with colonies and slave-trade involvement failed to industrialize at the same rate as Britain. They suggest that while external resources were helpful, they were not the primary catalyst for the technological shifts that defined the Industrial Revolution.