Happy New Year! On Monday, we start tweeting about #AdamSmith 's whole #WealthOfNations at the rate of about a chapter a day! Don’t miss it! #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
More from @AdamSmithWorks
OK. Chapter 7 of Book 4 of #WealthOfNations is tough going. It's long. It's serious. It's all about colonies.
We can take comfort, though, in knowing that the chapter #AdamSmith says is about colonies is, in fact, about colonies. (IV.vii) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Colonies were a vexed subject when #AdamSmith was writing, and they’re even more complicated now. So, before we even get to the tweeting, here’s a link to that thread on Smith and “savage nations.” (IV.vii) #WealthOfTweets
The reason for the ancient Greeks and Romans to settle colonies was straightforward: they didn’t have enough space for their growing populations. Their colonies were treated as “emancipated children”—connected but independent. (IV.vii.a.2) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
(Both these things are in contrast to the European colonies, as we'll see.) (IV.vii.a.2) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Ancient Greeks and Romans needed more space because the land was owned by an increasingly small number of citizens and farming and nearly all trades and arts were performed by slaves. It was hard for a poor freeman to improve his life. (IV.vii.a.3) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
We can take comfort, though, in knowing that the chapter #AdamSmith says is about colonies is, in fact, about colonies. (IV.vii) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Colonies were a vexed subject when #AdamSmith was writing, and they’re even more complicated now. So, before we even get to the tweeting, here’s a link to that thread on Smith and “savage nations.” (IV.vii) #WealthOfTweets
We have to pause now, because we have to have a whole new tweet thread on #AdamSmith and \u201csavage nations,\u201d because he\u2019s going to keep using this kind of phrase, so we need to talk about it. #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
— @AdamSmithWorks (@adamsmithworks) January 4, 2021
The reason for the ancient Greeks and Romans to settle colonies was straightforward: they didn’t have enough space for their growing populations. Their colonies were treated as “emancipated children”—connected but independent. (IV.vii.a.2) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
(Both these things are in contrast to the European colonies, as we'll see.) (IV.vii.a.2) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
Ancient Greeks and Romans needed more space because the land was owned by an increasingly small number of citizens and farming and nearly all trades and arts were performed by slaves. It was hard for a poor freeman to improve his life. (IV.vii.a.3) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets
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:
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
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:
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
More from Society
You May Also Like
So it's now October 10, 2018 and....Rod Rosenstein is STILL not fired.
He's STILL in charge of the Mueller investigation.
He's STILL refusing to hand over the McCabe memos.
He's STILL holding up the declassification of the #SpyGate documents & their release to the public.
I love a good cover story.......
The guy had a face-to-face with El Grande Trumpo himself on Air Force One just 2 days ago. Inside just about the most secure SCIF in the world.
And Trump came out of AF1 and gave ol' Rod a big thumbs up!
And so we're right back to 'that dirty rat Rosenstein!' 2 days later.
At this point it's clear some members of Congress are either in on this and helping the cover story or they haven't got a clue and are out in the cold.
Note the conflicting stories about 'Rosenstein cancelled meeting with Congress on Oct 11!"
First, rumors surfaced of a scheduled meeting on Oct. 11 between Rosenstein & members of Congress, and Rosenstein just cancelled it.
He's STILL in charge of the Mueller investigation.
He's STILL refusing to hand over the McCabe memos.
He's STILL holding up the declassification of the #SpyGate documents & their release to the public.
I love a good cover story.......
The guy had a face-to-face with El Grande Trumpo himself on Air Force One just 2 days ago. Inside just about the most secure SCIF in the world.
And Trump came out of AF1 and gave ol' Rod a big thumbs up!
And so we're right back to 'that dirty rat Rosenstein!' 2 days later.
At this point it's clear some members of Congress are either in on this and helping the cover story or they haven't got a clue and are out in the cold.
Note the conflicting stories about 'Rosenstein cancelled meeting with Congress on Oct 11!"
First, rumors surfaced of a scheduled meeting on Oct. 11 between Rosenstein & members of Congress, and Rosenstein just cancelled it.
Rep. Andy Biggs and Rep. Matt Gaetz say DAG Rod Rosenstein cancelled an Oct. 11 appearance before the judiciary and oversight committees. They are now calling for a subpoena. pic.twitter.com/TknVHKjXtd
— Ivan Pentchoukov \U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8 (@IvanPentchoukov) October 10, 2018
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?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
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?
