Loading...
Loading...
The Industrial Revolution that began in Great Britain had distant frontiers. Across the Atlantic, enslaved Africans and their descendants provided the raw materials. This “mass mobilization of slave labor” fed Britain’s sweatshop textile mills, but as historian Daniel Cunha details, that was hardly the end of the chain. After the spinning and weaving, textiles had to be cleaned and bleached. For decades, this “finishing” was done with chemicals derived from sulfur sourced in Sicily, whose mines were a hell on earth.
“Finishing encompassed a set of operations: washing, ‘soaping,’ bowking (i.e., immersing the cloth in alkali solution), ‘souring’ (immersing the cloth in acid solution), and bleaching (removing the color),” writes Cunha. Each of these steps was necessary—in sequence, sometimes repeated—with washings to remove impurities (greases, salts) left by previous steps.
Until the middle of the eighteenth century, all this was “done with natural alkali (potash, extracted from the ashes of timber), sour milk, and ‘crofting,’ the exposure of the cloth to the sun and air in bleachfields.” British manufacturers “sent a large fraction” of their cloth to be finished in the Netherlands, “with its abundance of dairy (sour milk was basically a by-product of abundance) and famous purity of water.”
But these traditional methods could not keep up with the amount of cloth produced by mechanical production. Chemical innovations were needed alongside mechanical ones. Cunha argues that the textile industry “generated a new branch of industry, the chemical industry.” Instead of sour milk, this spin-off industry used sulfuric acid (made from sulfur); instead of potash, it used synthetic soda ash (sulfuric acid, salt, coal, and limestone); and instead of crofting’s solar bleaching, it used chlorine (sulfuric acid and salt) to oxidize cloth white.
In 1792, Sicily’s main export commodity was wheat. Sulfur was eleventh in importance. Britain gained a virtual monopoly on Sicilian sulfur with an 1816 treaty. By 1834, sulfur had become Sicily’s number one export.
More to Explore
The Lemon Gang: Citrus and the Rise of the Mafia
In hundreds of grim mines, Sicilian children were exploited in slave-like conditions. As in many extraction economies in underdeveloped places, corruption and violence were rife—one of the roots of the Sicilian mafia was the private protection rackets that formed in the mining regions. Local communities, meanwhile, were poisoned by the sulfurous gas created by smelting: land around the mines lost its fertility and vegetation. Contemporary Italian commentators likened the British control of Sicilian sulfur to colonialism.
In 1840, Ferdinand II of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies (the other “Sicily” was Naples), cut a deal with a French company to limit sulfur production and thus control the price. Britain responded with a war-footing, blockading the Bay of Naples. The “Sulfur Crisis” or “Sulfur War” of 1840 wasn’t much of a war; but peace came at a high price, with the Kingdom forced to pay reparations to both French and British interests.
Weekly Newsletter
"*" indicates required fields
Get your fix of JSTOR Daily’s best stories in your inbox each Thursday.
Sicilian sulfur’s centrality to Britain’s textile industry was soon displaced by pyrites from Ireland, sulfur from Spain and Louisiana, and an early form of recycling, though sulfur would continue to be mined in Sicily. It was used “for vineyard pest control, gunpowder, and other uses, which was enough for exports to increase about sixfold between 1840 and 1900.” In the early part of the last century, a visiting Booker T. Washington, born in slavery in the US, went down into a Sicilian sulfur mine and wrote that the experience was “about the nearest thing to a hell that is conceivable.”
Pure white cloth, born in the murderous toil of slavery, formed in debilitating factory conditions, and finished through the agony of Sicilian children, was bleached in more ways than one. The full story of its production from seed to market and the full accounting of its human and environmental costs is still being told. Cunha argues that we must also “acknowledge the slave-like child labor in Sicilian mines as a requisite of the rise of the chemical industry.”
Resources
JSTOR is a digital library for scholars, researchers, and students. JSTOR Daily readers can access the original research behind our articles for free on JSTOR.
Get Our Newsletter
"*" indicates required fields
Get your fix of JSTOR Daily’s best stories in your inbox each Thursday.
点击"双栏对照"切换左右对照视图
始于英国的工业革命有着遥远的边界。在大西洋彼岸,被奴役的非洲人及其后代提供了原材料。这种“对奴隶劳动的大规模动员”供养了英国的血汗纺织工厂,但正如历史学家丹尼尔·库尼亚所详述的那样,这远非链条的终点。在纺纱和织布之后,纺织品还需要清洗和漂白。几十年来,这种“精加工”一直使用从西西里岛开采的硫磺中提取的化学物质来完成,而这些硫磺矿对人而言无异于人间地狱。
库尼亚写道:“精加工包括一系列操作:洗涤、‘皂洗’、浸碱(即将布料浸入碱溶液中)、‘酸洗’(将布料浸入酸溶液中)和漂白(去除颜色)。”这些步骤缺一不可——需按顺序进行,有时还要重复——每次都需要用水洗去上一步留下的杂质(油脂、盐分)。
直到18世纪中期,所有这些工序都是“用天然碱(从木材灰烬中提取的钾碱)、酸败牛奶以及‘露天漂白法’(将布料暴露在漂白场的阳光和空气中)来完成的”。英国制造商将“很大一部分”布料送往荷兰进行精加工,“因为那里有丰富的乳制品(酸败牛奶基本上就是这种丰富性的副产品)和著名的纯净水源。”
… 点击上方按钮查看完整翻译