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

More from For later read

There is some valuable analysis in this report, but on the defense front this report is deeply flawed. There are other sections of value in report but, candidly, I don't think it helps us think through critical question of Taiwan defense issues in clear & well-grounded way. 1/


Normally as it might seem churlish to be so critical, but @cfr is so high-profile & the co-authors so distinguished I think it’s key to be clear. If not, people - including in Beijing - could get the wrong idea & this report could do real harm if influential on defense issues. 2/

BLUF: The defense discussion in this report does not engage at the depth needed to add to this critical debate. Accordingly conclusions in report are ill-founded - & in key parts harmful/misleading, esp that US shldnt be prepared defend Taiwan directly (alongside own efforts). 3/

The root of the problem is that report doesn't engage w the real debate on TWN defense issues or, frankly, the facts as knowable in public. Perhaps the most direct proof of this: The citations. There is nothing in the citations to @DeptofDefense China Military Power Report...4/

Nor to vast majority of leading informed sources on this like Ochmanek, the @RANDCorporation Scorecard, @CNAS, etc. This is esp salient b/c co-authors by their own admission have v little insight into contemporary military issues. & both last served in govt in Bush 43. 5/

You May Also Like