Nobody walks away from the slave trade with their dignity intact. If colonialism is the second-worst thing humans have ever done to one another, the Atlantic trade has a strong claim on first place — and the two are less sequential than entangled. Slavery wasn’t a prototype that colonialism updated after the Industrial Revolution; it was colonialism, in its original and most profitable form. From the moment Portuguese caravels rounded Cape Bojador in 1434, the European overseas project and the trade in captured Africans grew up as twins. Sugar in Pernambuco, tobacco in the Chesapeake, cotton in Mississippi — the entire colonial economy of the Americas, for three centuries, ran on enslaved labor. The Industrial Revolution didn’t supersede slavery; it overlapped with it, was partly financed by it, and outlived the trade only by virtue of new fossil energy. Eric Williams made the financing argument in “Capitalism and Slavery” (1944); economic historians have been quarreling about the magnitudes ever since, but the basic link survives the quarrel.
The human bill, as tallied by the Eltis–Richardson team at Slave Voyages, is roughly 12.5 million embarked and 10.7 million surviving the Middle Passage over four centuries. And here the popular memory needs adjustment. The largest Atlantic slaver wasn’t Britain. It was Portugal, which moved nearly 5.8 million Africans, the great majority of them to Brazil. Britain came second with roughly 3.3 million, then France, Spain, the Netherlands, and trailing them Denmark, Sweden, and the infant United States. The Belgians, contrary to popular shorthand, do not appear on the list — for the excellent reason that Belgium did not exist until 1830, two decades after Britain had already taken its ships out of the trade. Belgium’s contribution to the genre is real but later and elsewhere: King Leopold II’s privately owned Congo Free State (1885–1908), where forced extraction of wild rubber killed somewhere between five and 10 million Congolese. Adam Hochschild’s “King Leopold’s Ghost” (1998) is the obligatory reference. So when you walk past the Cinquantenaire arch in Brussels, you are looking at wealth built on Congolese rubber and severed hands — not on transatlantic slaving. Different crime, same defendant.
Liverpool, on the other hand, is the textbook case. By the close of the 1700s, Liverpool handled something like 80% of British slaving voyages and was the busiest slave port on Earth. The late-Victorian wealth you actually see in the city today is one generation downstream — built on cotton imported from the American South (produced, until 1865, by enslaved labor) and on Liverpool’s role as the second port of the British Empire. Slavery-direct in the 1700s; slavery-adjacent in the 1800s. The distinction matters only if you care about getting the chronology right.
The larger backdrop is the Rise of the West, as I call it. Kenneth Pomeranz’s “The Great Divergence” (Princeton, 2000) puts the inflection between Britain and the Yangzi Delta at roughly 1750–1820. Until then, the most advanced economies on the planet were not in Europe. Angus Maddison’s long-run GDP estimates in “Contours of the World Economy 1–2030 AD” (2007) make the same point with numbers: in 1700, China and India together generated something close to 50% of world output; by 1900, under 15%. Whatever else one says about it, the Industrial Revolution was the largest discontinuity in human economic history.
I’ve always said that the five incumbents were Turkey, Egypt, Iran/ Persia, India, and China.
However, there was no Turkey in 1750 — Mustafa Kemal didn’t proclaim the Republic until 1923. Before that, it was the Ottoman Empire, ruled from Istanbul, stretching at its height from Algiers to Basra.
There was no independent Egypt either; Egypt was an Ottoman province, made semi-autonomous in 1805 by Muhammad Ali Pasha and his Albanian-Mamluk military aristocracy, and then converted into a British protectorate after Tel el-Kebir in 1882.
A real fifth peer to set alongside the Ottomans, Safavid Persia, Mughal India, and Qing China, the canonical choice is Tokugawa Japan — and Japan, awkwardly for any tidy narrative, is precisely the polity that escaped the trap by industrializing under its own steam after 1868.
And, in terms of me updating my mental framing over the decades, the claim that “none of the five have become a center of the world again” was defensible in 1975 when I was born, debatable in 2005 when I got my MBA, but pretty difficult to maintain in 2026. Things change over half a century.
Mainland China today is the second-largest economy at market prices and is the largest by purchasing-power parity. India is somewhere in the global top six — exact ranking depends on which year, which currency conversion, and which IMF revision you cite. Turkey under Erdoğan is the principal regional power between the Balkans and Mesopotamia. Iran, sanctions and all, is the heaviest piece on the Gulf board. Only Egypt, of the original five, remains diminished. So, globally, the post-1820 Western monopoly is not gone, but it is no longer a monopoly — and the reversion to a more pluralistic distribution of economic weight is the single most important geopolitical fact of our lifetime.
The roll call of newcomers who joined the front rank during the West’s long century is real. The United States and Meiji Japan in the 1800s, Korea and Taiwan after 1945. But also Russia, which industrialized brutally enough under the Tsars and then the Soviets to fight two world wars and contest the United States for 40 years; Singapore, which made the same per-capita leap as Korea off a smaller base; Israel, the recent addition; and, uncomfortably, the white settler dominions of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The club is still small. The dues are still extortionate. The bouncer’s list is just slightly longer than the original draft allowed.
Caveats on what I’m asserting. The slave-trade figures are from Slave Voyages (slavevoyages.org), which is the consensus academic source — these numbers are well-established. The 5–10 million Congo death range is the standard estimate (Hochschild uses 10 million; some historians like Jean Stengers argue for lower numbers); it’s a contested figure, not a settled one. The 1750–1820 Great Divergence dating is Pomeranz’s; Joel Mokyr (The Enlightened Economy, 2010) and Niall Ferguson (Civilization, 2011) push the origins earlier. The 2026 India GDP ranking is genuinely in flux — verify against the latest IMF World Economic Outlook before quoting me or any specific number.
Categories: Uncategorized
Gregory's Writings 
Leave a comment