We have to pause now, because we have to have a whole new tweet thread on #AdamSmith and “savage nations,” because he’s going to keep using this kind of phrase, so we need to talk about it. #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets

Please know that your friendly SmithTweeters give heavy side-eye to Smith’s use of phrases like “savage nations” and “naked savages” and so on. They are obviously shocking to the modern ear, and they should be. #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
“Well, it’s the 18th century, what do you expect?” just isn't a sufficient explanation. #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
The 21stC changed from talking about the First World/Third World to talking about developed/developing nations. That’s a good change and a respectful one. The terms we use for countries will continue to change. See: https://t.co/Qit53r8PoX
Probably the best way to think about Smith’s use of the term “savage nations” is to think of it as its own developmental stage on its way to a better set of terms for talking about the differences among nations. https://t.co/2wr7yACEv5 #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Because it would be a shame to let the phrasing get in the way of discussing his ideas, which are often much better than his contemporaries' (Hume, this shade's on you) on these issues. #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Remember he explicitly rejects the idea that climate/location predicts anything about industriousness, morality, etc. No matter how it sounds to us, Smith is not implying something about the character or capacity of the people in these nations. #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
It’s not about race, either. Smith was anti-slavery for moral and economic reasons, and seems to have no sense that race or nation of origin determined one’s ability to be a smart, diligent, dignified human. #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
So what DOES Smith mean when he talks about "savage nations?" He is referring to countries and people who are living in an earlier stage of economic development than those in "civilized" nations. (Ugh. We know.) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
So continue to give it heavy side-eye. We certainly will. It is a thing to be critical of in Smith. There will be more of those things, and we should criticize them! But we do not think any of them are a reason to dismiss him wholesale. #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets

More from @AdamSmithWorks

The great thing about #AdamSmith is that when he's about to go off on a 65 page tangent, he warns you. Humans, we bring you the DIGRESSIONS ON SILVER! #OhLawdHeComin #WealthOfTweets

Oh King Edward III, it’s adorable that you think you can just decree that servants and laborers become permanently content with wages fixed at the rate they were at five years ago.
https://t.co/NtOmttquJ3 (I.xi.e.2) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets


He’s already digressing, and he can’t take a minute to share the menu from that famously magnificent feast with us? (I.xi.e.4–5) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets

Super Important 18thC Vocab Geekery: When Smith says the price of the quarter of wheat wasn't “supposed to be < 4 oz silver” he doesn’t mean “shouldn't be.” He means “wasn't thought to be.” He’s not approving of fixed prices. (I.xi.e.7) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets

So. Many. Wheat. Prices. (But really, Smith is talking about how much wheat it takes to buy a quantity of silver, NOT how much silver it takes to buy a quantity of wheat.) (I.xi.e.1–14) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets

More from For later read

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?