Tuesday, 25 March 2014

Albuquerque and Drake in Indo-Malaysia - Bows and Arrows

It probably isn't surprising that historical references to bows and arrows in Indo-Malaysia from the age of exploration are relatively few.  The bow wasn't a particularly important weapon by the time Europeans arrived in the Indies, and in many cases European travellers and pirates were dealing with wealthy and established Rajadoms and Sultanates with the money to purchase European and Chinese firearms.  Sulawesi and Borneo were dominated by blowguns and muskets, and the bow in Java and Sumatera seems to have been influenced far more by Indian archery tradition than anything native to the islands (for instance, Javanese arrows tended to have flights, unlike eastern Indonesian, Taiwanese, and Philippine examples).  The reliefs on Javanese Hindu-Buddhist monuments probably don't represent much in the way of native Indonesian tradition.


A relief showing fletched arrows from Borobudur (ninth century).  Photo by I_clausewitz.
Still, there are a few things here and there, usually mentioning the bow in passing and often in the context of other weapons - blowpipes, muskets, and javelins.  Needless to say, these references are not very detailed and give almost no information about the form or use of the bow.  Here, I'll post a couple of short bits from the Commentaries of Afonso Dalboquerque, an account of Afonso de Albuquerque's conquests written in the middle of the sixteenth century by Albuquerque's son (also named Afonso de Albuquerque), and a longer segment from a description of the voyages of Francis Drake.  The Commentaries were translated into English by Walter de Grey Birch for the Hakluyt Society in 1853 and ought to be freely available, although I have a print edition.

Albuquerque and Drake are two of the most famous names from sixteenth century Europe; there may well be better accounts by lesser-known people, but these are some of the only mentions I've found so far (Tome Pires seems like a good place to look, and there must be others).

Albuquerque was a short-lived Portuguese admiral who conquered several cities in the Indian Ocean in the wake of Francisco de Almeida's naval victory against a peculiar coalition of Asian and European powers at the battle of Diu in 1509.  Riding Almeida's wave, Albuquerque conquered Hormuz (Iran), Goa (India), and Melaka (Malaysia) in the space of only a few years, securing these important trading centres for Portugal.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Afonso_de_Albuquerque_(with_Santiago_cloak).jpg
Albuquerque as Viceroy of India.
Drake circumnavigated the globe for the second time in human history and while this sounds like a noble achievement, he was motivated primarily by money (as, seemingly, were nearly all of these other famous Elizabethan explorers - dip into Hakluyt and you'll see how pervasive this motivation was).  He dropped into Maluku on his way between the Pacific and Indian Oceans in 1579.

So, Albuquerque in Malaysia: In volume 3, chapter 27 of The Commentaries, poisoned arrows are mentioned in the battle for Melaka:
...when Antonio Dabreu in the junk had now arrived within a crossbow-shot from the bridge, the Moors [Muslim Melakans] began to open fire upon him from one side and the other with large matchlocks, blowing tubes, and poisoned arrows [...].
Poisoned arrows are frequently mentioned in ethnohistorical texts on Indo-Malaysia - Emily Richings, who published her account of travels in the Malay archipelago in 1909, even mentions them in Sulawesi, which is rather odd, given that the bow is otherwise unknown there.  Either way, a very common trope.

After the capture of Melaka, Antonio de Abreu was dispatched by Albuquerque to explore Maluku in search of the sources of nutmeg and cloves.  He was probably one of the first Europeans to visit the Banda Islands, the world's sole original source of nutmeg.

Later (chapter 28), recounting arms taken by the Portuguese from Melaka, The Commentaries say:
Large matchlocks, poisoned blowing tubes, bows, arrows, armour-plated dresses, Javanese lances, and other sorts of weapons, it was marvellous what was taken, besides much merchandise of every kind.
Albuquerque the younger gives much greater prominence to the blowpipe and guns of the Melakans, which perhaps isn't surprising, as these were doubtless more important arms in the Malay world.  There's no mention of what the bows were like, but it's useful to know that such weapons were still in use and hadn't been superseded by crossbows as in much of mainland Southeast Asia.

What kind of bows were they?  Did they resemble the long self bows seen in reliefs on Borobudur?  I suspect they did, but there's no way to know.


A similar reference may be found in Hakluyt about Francis Drake's voyages.  The account says that his ships 'fell in with the islands of Molucca' on the 14th of November, 1579, and the next morning Drake had a velvet cloak sent to the local king by boat.  He doesn't say exactly where this was, but a later passage provides a clue:
This island is the chiefest of all the islands of Molucca.  The King with this people are Moors in religion, observing certain new moons with fasting: during which fasts they neither eat nor drink in the day, but in the night.
This is assumed to refer to Ternate, a tiny island slightly west of Halmahera that dominated the early spice trade.  It is claimed to be the oldest Islamic Sultanate in Indonesia, having been founded in 1257, although this is disputed (there is no independent evidence for this, if I remember correctly).  The King met by Drake was probably Babullah Datu Shah, who ruled Ternate until 1583.  Ternate's airport, which I intend to fly into this summer, is named after Babullah.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Ternate.JPG
Ternate, 1720.  Unknown Dutch artist.  The small sail-less boats are orembai, a class of Moluccan vessel.  The volcano in the middle is the still-active Gamalama which forms the bulk of the island.
On having established peaceful relations with the king, Drake was visited by an official delegation:
The king sent before 4 great and large canoes, in every one whereof were certain of his greatest, attired in white lawn of cloth of Calicut, having over their heads from one end of the canoe to the other, a covering of thin perfumed mats, borne up with a frame made of reeds for the same use, under which every one did sit in his order according to his dignity, to keep him from the heat of the sun, divers of whom being of good age and gravity, did make an ancient and fatherly show.  There were also divers young and comely men in white attire, as were the others: the rest were soldiers.
 This is a good description of what was probably a kora-kora, a canoe with outriggers and a large platform of reeds and mat.  I had assumed that the kora-kora was a typically Bandanese vessel (the Banda Islands being the world's only source of mace and nutmeg in Drake's time), but that's not true.  The scholarly consensus appears to be that Drake landed in Ternate, not Banda, although he never makes clear exactly where.

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/3197/kapalmelayukurakuracora.jpg
A stylised depiction of a kora-kora, by J. Corneliszoon van Neck, published 1601.  I tried in vain to find a better quality image online - you might like to try Robin Donkin's Between East and West for a clearer view (Figure 20, p.151).
 The description continues:
These canoes were furnished with war-like munition, every man for the most part having his sword and target, with his dagger, besides other weapons, as lances, calivers, darts, bows and arrows.

They rowed about us, one after another, and passing by, did their homage with great solemnity.

The king was a man of tall stature and seemed to be much delighted with the sound of our music, to whom as also to his nobility, our general gave presents.
A caliver is a firearm like an arquebus, and 'darts' in early modern English tends to refer to throwing spears.  Again, what were these bows like?  The fact that the Ternateans had guns indicates trade in arms with the west, but bows and arrows from Halmahera and other eastern Indonesian islands like Seram and Yamdena are traditionally very different to western Indonesian specimens and shoot long unfletched arrows.  It would have been nice if the writer had been a bit more detailed in his description.

There then follows a description of sago, which Drake's ships received from the Sultan.  This isn't the earliest European description of the food; Marco Polo mentions it.

After waiting a day some of Drake's men were invited to visit Babullah's court.

He was attired after the manner of his country, but more sumptuously than the rest.  From his waist down to the ground, was all cloth of gold, and the same very rich: his legs were bare, but on his feet were a pair of shoes made of Cordovan skin.  In the attire of his head were finely wreathed hooped rings of gold, and about his neck he had a chain of perfect gold, the links whereof were great, and one fold double.  On his fingers he had six very fair jewels, and sitting in his chair of estate, at his right hand stood a page with a fan in his hand, breathing and gathering the air to the king.  The fan was in length two foot, and in breadth one food, set with eight sapphires, richly embroidered, and knit to a staff 3 foot in length, by which the page did hold, and move it.
 That's the end of the account of Ternate.  Drake then went to Bacan (known as 'Barateve' in the account) and some other islands south of Sulawesi's northern arm before making his way to Java.

The Ternate language, by the way, is non-Austronesian, of the Halmahera family.  Most Ternateans today speak Ternate Malay, a kind of Moluccan Malay influenced by the Ternate language.

70 comments:

  1. Very good post!

    I only take issue with "Drake circumnavigated the globe for the second time in human history and while this sounds like a noble achievement, he was motivated primarily by money"

    Would it be nobler if he did it as a hobby? People actually do these kind of things for nothing? They do it for glory, status (nobility?) , thrills, lulz, fame and to become rich, too (of course) . Even today, when it is a lot less riskier so less glorious, they don't do dangerous things "for free"; see http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/02/everest_and_the.html

    Southern pedant

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It would be nobler if it were motivated by the desire for knowledge - compare Cook's voyage to document the transit of Venus and the resulting scientific knowledge from that and from Banks' journals.

      Delete
    2. There is nothing inherently ignoble about doing something for money. Nor is there anything inherently ennobling about knowledge. Knowledge, like money, is only as good or as evil as the uses it is put to.

      Delete
    3. You may be right that money isn't inherently ignoble. But consider that Drake sailed around the world, stole lots of things that didn't belong to him, and killed a lot of people, and did it all so as to enrich himself - and then consider that Cook and Bligh went on expeditions almost entirely for scientific and exploratory purposes. Rather different, I think.

      Delete
    4. Snap! But he was a man of his time. I don't like to judge them. That was a brutal, rough, malthusian age. I'm not a relativist: I really think we're better than them. What I doubt is : WOULD we be, then?

      -Anônimo

      Delete
  2. pseudoerasmus5 April 2014 19:33

    I think Anônimo and I taxed the limits of this site's Javascript and the 32 comment posts beyond 200 are no longer visible in the previous blogpost.

    So just one last comment to Anônimo the Brazilian Neoliberal Fanatic.

    The idea that a "bourgeois revaluation" had already taken in England by the time of James Watt's death is preposterous. Please remember, as of 1832, the year of the Great Reform Act, cities such as Manchester and Birmingham, the birthplaces of the Industrial Revolution, did not yet have representation in the House of Commons !!! Throughout the 1820s and early 1830s, it was proposed that electoral districts which amounted to a few green hills and thousands of sheep but barely any people, be abolished and their seats transferred to places like Manchester. But the Tories, the representatives at the time of the landed interest, opposed those measures because the rotten boroughs were controlled by Tory landowners.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh! What a shame!

      :-(

      I loved that discussion! Should have saved the discussion before the bug. Anyway, I thought it was great to discuss with you, even though at the end you were like -- calling me names, hehe.

      The idea of a full bourgeois revaluation by that time in England is not “preposterous”. The puritans/dissenters/nonconformists were heavy on free trade (they had a peculiar biblical interpretation, and contraband was not only not a crime in their eyes: it was God’s will) and an equalitarian ideology (“When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?”).

      The Whigs achieved supremacy after 1721, and they were related to Nonconformists interests and later bourgeois ones (puritans were very very self aware literally holier than thou bourgeois types). Anyway, nothing that I’m saying here is that controversial. Being a little generous to you, I would say it is “debatable”. But “preposterous”? Seriously? It is not preposterous to OBSERVE that England was unusually bourgeois by the 19th century. Gosh, it wasn't, like, a state secret or such. Even the early 19th century England nemesis, Napoleon, knew that: “L'Angleterre est une nation de boutiquiers.”).

      Chill on, man!

      --Anônimo

      Delete
    2. pseudoerasmus6 April 2014 01:52

      You are confusing the Whigs of the 18th century with those of the mid to late 19th c. In the 18th century, both the Whigs and the Tories had approximately the same economic basis of support -- the landed gentry. There was no other possibility because the qualification for the franchise was based on land ownership. If you were a "bourgeois", you had to hold a certain amount of land to vote.

      Non-Conformists could not hold any public office until 1828 and there were no universities who would accept them before UCL was founded.

      The Non-Conformists did support the Whigs, because the latter supported reforms liberalising restrictions on the former.

      The fact of the matter is, the most "bourgeois" elements of English society -- Non-Conformists -- had substantial restrictions on their liberty until the first third of the 19th century ; and cities where they predominantly lived had no representation in the Commons until 1832.

      It's preposterous to claim, in the 18th century England was a society which believed in "bourgeois dignity". It was called a nation of shopkeepers by Napoleon because England was more of that than any other country. But, unlike the Netherlands of the 17th century or the Italian city-states of 15th and 16th centuries, the "shopkeepers" had little to no political power.

      Delete
    3. pseudoerasmus6 April 2014 01:59

      Also, during the 18th century, the Whigs were the protectionists and the Tories were the free traders. They only switched positions in the 19th century, but because the Tories themselves split on trade, between the Peelites and the anti-Peelites.

      I think you don't understand that the Whig-Tory division in the 18th century was largely about the monarchy. The Whigs were strongly constitutionalist, Protestant and pro-Hanoverian, and the Tories were more "continental" in their monarchism, very ambivalent about the Hanoverian succession, still with strong Jacobite sympathies.

      Delete
    4. @pseudoerasmus: "In the 18th century, both the Whigs and the Tories had approximately the same economic basis of support -- the landed gentry."

      This is simply false. I'm sorry. Your ignorance about this period SHOWS and it is little embarrassing – mind you, not the ignorance per se –, because you compounds it with suck a cocksure attitude! If Neal Stephenson’s “Quicksilver” is too middle-brow to you, go read some Bernard Bailyn, please:
      http://books.google.com.br/books?id=Gg6Ke8zSYoUC&lpg=PA190&ots=w_d0TedtDH&dq=%22Whig-Puritan%22%20party&pg=PA191#v=onepage&q&f=false

      Or just Wikipedia, if you just want a quick check of the “wrongness” of your ways:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whigs_(British_political_party)#Liberal_ideals
      Chapin (1990) argues that Samuel Johnson (1709–1784), a leading London intellectual, repeatedly denigrated the Whigs and praised the Tories. In his great Dictionary (1755) Johnson defined a Tory as "one who adheres to the ancient Constitution of the state and the apostolical hierarchy of the Church of England, opposed to a Whig." He linked 18th-century Whiggism with 17th-century revolutionary Puritanism, arguing that the Whigs of his day were similarly inimical to the established order of church and state. Johnson recommended that strict uniformity in religious externals was the best antidote to the negative religious traits that he linked to Whiggism

      @Pseudoerasmus: "The Whigs were strongly constitutionalist, Protestant**** and pro-Hanoverian,"

      **** That's the point. Bourgeois dignity was greatly influenced by the puritans/nonconformists and protestant religious movement in general. I’ll not defend this point here, because – as those sexy Dothraki maidens from ASOIF like to say – “It is known!” – so go do your homework.

      --Anônimo

      Delete
    5. Let me help you by typing the relevant excerpt from page 190 of the Pulitzer winning New England Merchants in the Seventeenth Century, by Bernard Bailyn -- who won the Pulitzer Prize for History not once, but twice – with the references omitted:


      “Most of the politically informed colonists in New England of whatever occupation identified their own welfare with that of the Whig-Puritan party in England. They considered each blow struck at dissenters to be an attack on themselves and rejoiced at every victory of Whiggism. To them the acquittal of Shaftesbury was a glorious event and the revocation of the city of London’s charter a threat to their own liberties.”

      “To some of the merchants the same simple alignment was possible. Many of their business connections in England were with the dissenting Whig merchants whose predecessors had sent the first shiploads of manufacturers to Puritan New England. For Samuel Sewall ideology and interest merged in his sympathy for one of his chief London correspondents, Thomas Papillon, whose leadership of the London Whig merchants ended in forced exile. (…)”


      Will you finally eat crow or not?

      --Anônimo

      Delete
  3. pseudoerasmus6 April 2014 04:09

    But I already said the "bourgeois" elements supported the Whigs. I did not dispute that at all. Nor did I dispute the association between non-Conformist Protestantism and mercantile activity. Most of the Puritans who overthrew and executed the King in the 17th century came from the counties of East Anglia, which had also been the centre of English commercial life before the 18th century and strong links with the Netherlands. See the "Eastern Association", the stronghold of the parliamentary forces in the civil war, on this map.

    So all of your arguments are non sequiturs.

    But you don't understand the mechanics of British electoral history prior to 1832.

    Before 1832, very very few people in England, Wales and Scotland decided who would be members of the House of Commons. Very very very few. The landed aristocracy, gentry and squierarchy controlled the House.

    You had two types of constituencies -- counties and boroughs. The former were rural and the latter were more "urban" but most of them were extremely small towns usually connected with the great estates of the landed aristocracy. There was no industrial activity in any of them. Here is a list of the counties and boroughs of the Unreformed House of Commons. Look how many seats the little towns of Cornwall -- which in 1800 was just a big farmland -- sent to the House. The biggest city of Cornwall, which even today is not very big -- Truro -- had 25 voters and held 2 seats in the Commons. The constituency of Grampound is notorious in the electoral history of Britain because in the 1820s Lord John Russell (the Whig grandfather of Bertrand) tried to abolish that constituency and transfer its seats to the very commerical city of Leeds (which was unrepresented!).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Citando você na outra thread, meu problema não é com o fato geral de que "demônios lusitanos" colonizaram meu país (amo Fado, bacalhoada e a "última flor do Lácio", hehe), mas com o fato de que esses colonizadores eram católicos contra-reformistas, ao invés de "Dissenters trouble raisers and firebrands" like the ones that came to your country through the Mayflower. Your colonists were imbued with a new spirit of bourgeois dignity and freedom (and of witch hunting and religious fanaticism - nobody's; mine weren't. Got it?

    -Anônimo que ama o Fado Tropical do Chico Buarque

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. pseudoerasmus6 April 2014 04:25

      não sou norte-americano

      Delete
    2. pseudoerasmus6 April 2014 04:27

      I agree more that the Puritans brought with themselves a sense of "bourgeois dignity" to the New World, than there had been a "bourgeois revaluation" in England in the 18th century.

      Delete
  5. pseudoerasmus6 April 2014 04:36

    The social background of the 18th century English industrialists has been well studied. A comically disproportionate number were non-Conformists of various types -- Covenanters, Methodists, Congregationalists, Quakers, Unitarians and the like. The point I've been making is that northern industrialists in the 18th century didn't have much political power because the places where they lived were unrepresented in Parliament until 1832.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Pseudoerasmus: "So all of your arguments are non sequiturs. [B]ut you don't understand the mechanics of British electoral history prior to 1832."

    I call bullshit. A great, smoldering pile of it.

    Let me recapitulate what you commited to bits:

    @Pseudoerasmus: "You are confusing the Whigs of the 18th century with those of the mid to late 19th c. In the 18th century, both the Whigs and the Tories had approximately the same economic basis of support -- the landed gentry"

    Well, there is wrong, infamous wrongness and... This quote. Any impartial reader can see the horns of the bull. I think you should just inhale a deep breath, and eat the big plate of crow meat right in front of you. That would be the honest attitude. Come on! You can do it! You are better than this, my dear @Pseudoerasmus

    ;-)

    -Anônimo que enxerga táticas diversionistas (aka hand waving) when he sees it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. pseudoerasmus6 April 2014 04:46

    There is no diversionary tactic, nor is there any bullshit.

    The simple fact : before 1832, not one Whig government was ever elected thanks to the support of the industrial cities. Those could not vote ! Before 1832, Whigs and Tories alternated in government through a balance of power of the non-industrial, landed elite. End of story.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Pseudoerasmus: "The social background of the 18th century English industrialists has been well studied. A comically disproportionate number were non-Conformists of various types -- Covenanters, Methodists, Congregationalists, Quakers, Unitarians and the like."

    I can see somebody having an insight in 5, 4, 3...

    --Anônimo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. pseudoerasmus6 April 2014 04:53

      And none of those people could hold public office, or attend the universities, before the 1830s. And you say England had experienced a "bourgeois revaluation" in the 18th century ???

      Delete
    2. @Pseudoerasmus: "And none of those people could hold public office, or attend the universities, before the 1830s"

      You need to be a politician or to attend University to revolutionize society?

      Really?

      If you didn't say it already, I would have guessed it by now: you must be... Let me guess.. French? Continental Europe?

      Have you learned nothing from these two previous centuries of serious and consistent Anglo PWNation?

      Delete
  9. pseudoerasmus6 April 2014 06:35

    "You need to be a politician or to attend University to revolutionize society?"

    More non sequitur. You really cannot follow an argument, can you ?

    I'm using the social and political status of a certain group of people in society, to argue that they were not yet honoured in that society. In other words, there had not yet been a "bourgeois revaluation" in the 18th century.

    In fact, you cannot even follow your own argument. You have been pushing "bourgeois revaluation" as the cause of every abrupt economic change, and when I showed how laughable it was to suggest Meiji Japan, Communist China and Congress India suddenly developed a new admiration for "bourgeois dignity", you replied their motivations didn't matter…. But what then is this "bourgeois dignity" business, other than a change of the spirit in society ?

    Do you even have a coherent argument ?

    ReplyDelete
  10. @Pseudoerasmus: . In other words, there had not yet been a "bourgeois revaluation" in the 18th century.

    You had a Whig-Puritan Alliance (can you follow me?)

    You had bourgeois non-Conformists becoming elite and proudly so.

    You had Public Intellectuals successfully defending free trade and bourgeois innovation (think Scottish Enlightenment, or if it is too hard, David Ricardo).

    You had big marble statues of heroes of "new plebean arts" erected face to face to those of stupid inbred aristocrats.

    I think the one who is not following the thread so far is you. I understand your argument (ideology is mostly afflatus, unless when - like in Shanghai or colonial America, or English industrialists - it isn't.

    Can you really understand mine?

    --Anônimo que não gosta de pessoas cheias de si

    ReplyDelete
  11. @Pseudoerasmus: "Do you even have a coherent argument ?"

    I REALLY HAVE one. You CLEARLY do not. You like "phlogistize" causes and make ad hoc appeals to "social competency" or to topography or to... whatever.

    You've been a fox, I've been the hedgehog.

    Ours is a mature debate, we can make the closing statements if you want.

    -Anônimo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Pseudoerasmus: "In 1832 ! (for James Watt)"

      You know... This is a self-defeating argument, because of... biology.

      James Watt was born on 19 January 1736.

      I think the bourgeois revaluation had to happen before his death to impact his life because of... physics.

      You foxs are are a naughty kind!

      ;-)

      --Anônimo (as hedgehogy as they come).

      Delete
    2. pseudoerasmus6 April 2014 16:06

      "I think the bourgeois revaluation had to happen before his death to impact his life "

      You are arguing tautologically again.

      If James Watt had had his accomplishments in the 1870s, he would have been knighted at the very least. However, during his life time, he received the honours that were considered appropriate to his social station in life -- scientific & engineering & academic honours.

      It's only in the 19th century that Watts became retroactively honoured beyond those narrow realms of science, engineering and academia.

      That's another index of social prestigiação in British society -- the knighthood.

      In the 18th century, there was "bourgeois liberty" (your words) and scientific liberty in England and Scotland, but there was not yet "bourgeois dignity" (your words). James Watt could do his thing, but his accomplishments were not socially prestigious in the most general sense until after his death.

      Delete
  12. pseudoerasmus6 April 2014 07:42

    Yes, you have been very much a hedgehog. Sorry to say it, but as soon as you said, the motivations did not matter in the case of Japan, China and India, your "bourgeois dignity" simply collapsed into a morass of sputtering incoherence.

    You had a Whig-Puritan Alliance (can you follow me?)

    In the 18th century, the alliance between Whigs and Dissenters was about religious liberty, not about economics.

    You had bourgeois non-Conformists becoming elite and proudly so.

    Economic elites, yes, but not yet political.

    This is why you were incorrect to cite Braudel. His argument was, capitalism is only truly liberated from kings and princes, once the merchants come to power. That had not yet happened in England in the 18th century.

    You had Public Intellectuals successfully defending free trade and bourgeois innovation (think Scottish Enlightenment, or if it is too hard, David Ricardo).

    In the 18th century, the Whigs were the protectionists.

You had big marble statues of heroes of "new plebean arts" erected face to face to those of stupid inbred aristocrats.

    In 1832 ! (for James Watt)

    Face it, industrialisation begins in England before "bourgeois revaluation". "Bourgeois revaluation" happened BECAUSE of the success of the industrialists.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Pseudoerasmus : "This is why you were incorrect to cite Braudel. His argument was, capitalism is only truly liberated from kings and princes, once the merchants come to power. That had not yet happened in England in the 18th century."

      I think you couldn't read the answer I posted to this before that Java fiasco.

      I basically said: Braudel's theory about the origins of capitalism are bunk (research this). I'm only interested on that great man immense erudition (we've not yet seen a historian with the balls and - of course - brains to do a 21th updated version of the Mediterranean).

      So, Braudel DID register that capable entrepreneurs could enrich themselves with Mediterranean trade on the 16th century. But the successful ones were VERY VERY easily co-opted into landed nobility. He called it - obviously joking with "Le Traison de Clerks" by Julien Brenda (IQ 200 or not, he was leftist French after all) - "Le traison de Bourgeoisie".

      Got it? The Bourgeoisie from the Renaissance weren't really dignified. They were like the poor intelligent gentleman from Cicero 's time, who could got rich "on the port" (never haggling on the street) but really wanted too become a non bourgeois nobleman, after all. There was not dignity. These people weren't really Edison, Jobs, Watt, Wyatt, Gates, Siemens, Rothschild, Edison, Engels' father, Zuckerberg, Franklin, Faraday, the guybwho opened the cool cheap studen'st bar next to my house-kind of guys - i. e. bourgeois and mostly happy to be so types. They didn't think it was dignified to be bourgeois. They were gauche, manqué: Braudel saw it, Cicero did it so. Abandon the port, go buy some land, buy some election, turn Venice on an hereditary closed aristocracy. Where is the bourgeois dignity? Braudel, the leftist saw the treason, why can't you see it too?

      -Anônimo

      Delete
    2. pseudoerasmus6 April 2014 14:34

      You will find that, as soon as they had the opportunity, the English manufacturing and mercantile classes sought aristocratic titles or squierarchical prestige (the hereditary "Sir" or baronetcy). This usually means after they become politically powerful, after the 1870s or 1880s. You can look through all the peerages created in the 19th century, and those were disproportionately of the "bourgeoisie". A soap manufacturer, for example, because the Baron Manton. A Newcastle industrialist whose company eventually included Vickers (planes) and Siddely (cars) ended his life as Baron Armstrong. The founder of the auto company Morris turned into Viscount Nuffield. Of course the British representatives of the big European Jewish banking dynasties all becames marquesses, earls, viscounts, and whatever. Moses Montefiore, who was born in the late 18th century, bought a country estate and became a Baronet. Then you also have all those American industrialists of the late 19th century who married their daughters to European nobility, like the mother of Winston Churchill, or the Vanderbilt girl who became the mother of Churchill's cousin. And to this day there are Romanovs or Talleyrands or Bourbons or Medicis who have ancestors from Philadelphia Quakers and New York Episcopalians.

      I would say that's another index of "bourgeois revaluation", when the the most elite members of the class created by the industrial revolution became "gentrified" via the peerage.

      By the way, a better word than "revaluation" is prestigição. English does not have an equivalent word.

      Delete
    3. pseudoerasmus6 April 2014 14:54

      And Gladstone, the quintessence of Victorian liberalism !

      Gladstone's father was a Glaswegian merchant turned baronet and lord of Fasque House as well as the very mediaeval Lord_Lieutenant of Kincardineshire (now a meaningless title, but back then something reserved for the landed gentry).

      William Gladstone himself was ineligible to inherit the title and estate because he had an older brother, but his wife's family -- a long line of baronets -- owned a very nice lordly estate and that's where he lived.

      But this is not a new process. Since the time of the Tudors the English nobility had always been replenished by new members from the bourgeoisie. The last British prime minister to sit in the House of Lords, Lord Salisbury, was a direct descendant of William Cecil, Lord Burghley, a minister to the first Queen Elizabeth, and a proto-Puritan.

      Delete
    4. pseudoerasmus6 April 2014 15:09

      The Bourgeoisie from the Renaissance weren't really dignified. They were like the poor intelligent gentleman from Cicero 's time, who could got rich "on the port" (never haggling on the street) but really wanted too become a non bourgeois nobleman, after all. There was not dignity... They didn't think it was dignified to be bourgeois. They were gauche, manqué: Braudel saw it, Cicero did it so. Abandon the port, go buy some land, buy some election, turn Venice on an hereditary closed aristocracy. Where is the bourgeois dignity? Braudel, the leftist saw the treason, why can't you see it too?
      You fail to realise that Braudel, a materialist par excellence, argued this process of la trahison de la bourgeoisie was caused by economic events. The nobility in the 16th century became increasingly impoverished and the bourgeoisie increasingly rich -- these events were related to "price revolution" of the 16th & 17th centuries. But when returns to land increased again and returns to merchant activity in the Mediterranean fell (those Portuguese went around the horn of Africa!), those bourgeois "diversified" their wealth in land.

      Delete
    5. pseudoerasmus6 April 2014 15:16

      ( Actually the Mediterranean trade declined after the 17th century not because of the Portuguese, whose impact on Italy was 200 years earlier, but because of the rise of British and French maritime trade.)

      Delete
    6. pseudoerasmus6 April 2014 15:46

      Even Napoleon did this after the revolution.  He created a brand new nobility from the haute bourgeoisie.  The restored Bourbon kings who followed him continued in the same tradition, as did Napoleon III.

      Anônimo would cite the number of bourgeois characters in Shakespeare, or the sales volume of the works of Sartre, or other half-baked pseudo-data, as as evidences for the level of social prestigiação of the bourgeoisie.

      But he has difficulty accepting that the political rights and representation of the bourgeoisie, as well as their acceptance by the older elite, is a much better evidence of their social prestigiação.

      Delete
    7. @Pseudoerasmus: "But he has difficulty accepting that the political rights and representation of the bourgeoisie, as well as their acceptance by the older elite, is a much better evidence of their social prestigiação."

      No, I have no problem with that. My problem is with that being your only measure of bourgeois dignity. Before their formal entrance as members of the political elite (your proposed Only measure of "prestigiação"*) You had proud, dignified, self-reliant, successful and self aware non-Conformists, which even achieved brief political preeminence in the 17th century (see Cromwell) and we're later allied with the Whigs. All this happened way before the XIX century. I think your love for searching things near lampposts is blinding for very relevant data. A peerage and a statue in Saint Paul Chapel is THE END OF a process: the final touch: now we only need a wedding and the final credits. When you have Jewish bourgeois magnates chatting with the creme de la creme QUA bourgeois banker, then you already had the bourgeois revaluation, for God's sake (I'm offended that YOU called me Próximo on that other thread).

      *Prestigiação have the wrong connotation. You need a word that conveys an "ethical" connotation, in an aristotélica "virtue ethics" sense: a trait, an "ethos", a modus vivendi that is valued in a (sub)culture, that is teached, cultivated and praised. Dignity is better, because it conveys both aspects: a Prestigiação e o Orgulho: The self reliance, backed on role models and on a community that shares them.

      Delete
    8. pseudoerasmus6 April 2014 19:05

      "You had proud, dignified, self-reliant, successful and self aware non-Conformists, which even achieved brief political preeminence in the 17th century (see Cromwell) and we're later allied with the Whigs. All this happened way before the XIX century".

      I cannot tell the difference between the "proud, dignified, self-reliant, successful and self-aware" bourgeoisie of England that you describe and the "proud, dignified, self-reliant, successful and self-aware" bourgeoisie of the Netherlands or west-central and west-north Germany -- except that the latter do not serve the conveniences of Anônimo in his ex post facto rationalisation of the English industrial revolution by "bourgeois dignity".

      There were free cities in Germany -- Frankfurt, Bremen, Cologne, Lübeck, Hamburg -- full of Protetant bourgeois, governed by themselves.

      Delete
    9. pseudoerasmus6 April 2014 19:41

      "You had proud, dignified, self-reliant, successful and self aware non-Conformists, which even achieved brief political preeminence in the 17th century (see Cromwell) and we're later allied with the Whigs. All this happened way before the XIX century. I think your love for searching things near lampposts is blinding for very relevant data."

      Your arguments are completely ahistorical and anachronistic. As I keep saying the sympathy of the Non-Conformists toward the Whigs during most of the 18th century was about religious liberty. Even more so in the 17th century the Puritans were motivated by religion in overthrowing the King.

      Also, there was nothing "bourgeois" or mercantile about Cromwell. His family were big landowners.

      Have you ever read Albion's Seed ? It contains a very detailed social background of the Puritans that left for America. Those were truly bourgeois. Cromwell and most of the Puritan leaders of the 1640s who fought in the civil war weren't like them, socioeconomically speaking.

      And you can check other names in Cromwell's faction (the Grandees) of the New Model Army. For example, Sir John Fairfax -- his family was in the peerage of Scotland.

      Have you ever heard of the Putney Debates ? This is the debate between the "moderates" (Cromwell's faction, the Grandees) and the radicals (the Levellers). Except on religion, Cromwell was very much a conservative and a traditionalist. The Levellers wanted universal male suffrage and a regular Parliament. Cromwell and the Grandees wanted to restrict the franchise to... landowners ! Grain merchants weren't going to get the vote, unless they, like their Italian counterparts, bought an estate and acted like a gentleman.

      The problem is, your understanding of the relevant history is too much influenced by vulgar pop historiography with a teleological bent. Instead of people in the past having motivations that are particular to them and their time, this kind of historiography simply sees them as constructs causing the present. Thus Cromwell and the Puritans and the later non-Conformists are regarded as mere instruments of economic ideology that has created the present.

      Delete
    10. @Pseudoerasmus: “bourgeoisie of the Netherlands (…)
      The two richest societies in the world by 1800 were exactly England and the Netherlands, which were unquestionably the more bourgeois. Of course, only in England a full revaluation went all the way to the end. What is exactly your point?

      @Pseudoeramus: “the sympathy of the Non-Conformists toward the Whigs during most of the 18th century was about religious liberty. Even more so in the 17th century the Puritans were motivated by religion in overthrowing the King.”
      “Religious protestant fanatics fight to overthrow a catholic King largely motivated by religion.” This is trivially true, so what?

      @Pseudoeramus: “there was nothing "bourgeois" or mercantile about Cromwell.”
      Compared to whom? To the Stuarts?

      @Pseudoeramus: “Cromwell and the Grandees wanted to restrict the franchise to... landowners!”
      So? USA restricted vote to white, male, property holders back in 18th century, too.

      @Pseudoerasmus: “vulgar pop historiography with a teleological bent.”
      No teleological bent. Why would you say such an horrible thing?

      Delete
    11. pseudoerasmus6 April 2014 23:18

      “Religious protestant fanatics fight to overthrow a catholic King largely motivated by religion.” This is trivially true, so what?"

      So, this was not "bourgeois dignity", it was "religious dignity".

      Your thinking is extremely teleological. The fact that industrialists in the 18th century were disproportionately Non-Conformist Protestants, does not make the Puritans of the 17th century retroactively bourgeois in the modern sense !

      @Pseudoeramus: “there was nothing "bourgeois" or mercantile about Cromwell.” Compared to whom? To the Stuarts?

      Compared with merchants.

      It is meaningless to talk about people who derive their income from agricultural land as "bourgeoisie". That is exactly what those Italians did who, you say, lacked "bourgeois dignity" even though they were real merchants !

      Oliver Cromwell is a product of two families -- the Williams and the Cromwells. The Williams family came with the Tudors as court retainers. The Cromwell family starts with Thomas Cromwell one of the most famous ministers of Henry VIII, the one who engineered the annulment of Catherine of Aragon. This Cromwell became started the line of the Earls of Essex. Both families became rich on church land confiscated by Henry VIII. There was nothing "bourgeois" about them in any sense of the word. They were landed gentry.

      So? USA restricted vote to white, male, property holders back in 18th century, too.


      But in colonial America almost every free adult male was a landowner. The population was low and land was abundant.
      "The two richest societies in the world by 1800 were exactly England and the Netherlands, which were unquestionably the more bourgeois. Of course, only in England a full revaluation went all the way to the end. What is exactly your point?"

      My point is that this "bourgeois revaluation" is a tautological exercise. You proclaim, where ever there was an industrial revolution, there was a "bourgeois revaluation". It is true by definition, inside the head of Anônimo, and non-falsifiable.



      Delete
    12. pseudoeramus6 April 2014 23:37

      and Charles I wasn't a Catholic !

      Delete
    13. @Pseudoerasmus: and Charles I wasn't a Catholic!

      Fair point. He only married one, and was seen as a crypto papist (like his son would be).

      Delete
    14. @pseudoerasmus: "So, this was not "bourgeois dignity", it was "religious dignity".
      It was both. Nonconformists were unusually bourgeois AND hated catholics (or crypto, or imagined ones). Don't let the conjunction ("AND") blow your mind.

      @Pseudoerasmus: "Your thinking is extremely teleological."
      It is not.

      @Pseudoerasmus: "does not make the Puritans of the 17th century retroactively bourgeois in the modern sense !"
      It make them precursors.

      @Pseudoerasmus: "It is meaningless to talk about people who derive their income from agricultural land as "bourgeoisie"."
      Yes, it is.

      @Pseudoerasmus: "There was nothing "bourgeois" about them in any sense of the word. They were landed gentry."
      And? What is your point?

      @Pseudoerasmus: "My point is that this "bourgeois revaluation" is a tautological exercise."
      It is not.

      Delete
  13. pseudoerasmus6 April 2014 16:10

    "I think the bourgeois revaluation had to happen before his death to impact his life "

    You are arguing tautologically again.

    If James Watt had had his accomplishments in the 1870s, he would have been knighted at the very least. However, during his life time, he received the honours that were considered appropriate to his social station in life -- scientific & engineering & academic honours.

    It's only in the 19th century -- after his death -- that Watts became retroactively honored generally, beyond those narrow realms of science, engineering and academia.

    That's another index of social prestigiação in British society -- the knighthood.

    In the 18th century, there was "bourgeois liberty" (your words) and scientific liberty in England and Scotland, but there was not yet "bourgeois dignity" (your words). James Watt could do his thing, but his accomplishments were not socially prestigious in the most general sense until after his death.

    ReplyDelete
  14. pseudoerasmus7 April 2014 12:44

    The Puritans in the 16th & 17th centuries were proud, aggressive, self-aware and disputatious people -- but on behalf of their religion. They were not pressing their economic interests, if it is even possible to characterise them as having a coherent, unitary economic interest. To the extent there was an economic conflict under the Puritan Commonwealth it was between the Grandees like Cromwell, who were landed gentry, and the radical-democratic Levellers, who were true bourgeois concentrated in the City of London. Of course the latter favoured full democracy, because they were not landowners and they wanted the franchise unconnected with land.

    But the Levellers lost the struggle for power. Moreover, as we know, the Industrial Revolution of the 18th century took place in the North and Midlands of England, not in London, nor in the southeastern counties which had been the Puritan stronghold. The "bourgeoisie" of London and the Southeast had been participants in the older "commercial revolution" of the 15th-17th centuries, very much connected with the trade network of northern Europe.

    So the only real connexion between the very heterogenous Puritans of the 17th century and the Dissenters or Non-Conformists of the 18th century was in radical religious ideology. It's possible to argue that this religious ideology made the Dissenters obsessed with Bible-reading and Biblical interpretation, and made them into a highly intellectual religious minority, like the Jews.

    But this radical religious ideology was found all over northern Europe. Anônimo keeps repeating the English had "bourgeois dignity" but the others, as of 1800, either had not yet realised the "full bourgeois revaluation", or were simply "undignified". Anônimo must explain how to tell objectively that a "full bourgeois revaluation" occurred in England but not in the Netherlands or western/northern Germany at the end of the 18th century.

    You cannot cite wealth and economic activity as evidences of this "bourgeois dignity". Those are the effects that require explanation.

    "The two richest societies in the world by 1800 were exactly England and the Netherlands "

    Actually, the Netherlands on the eve of the Napoleonic Wars were richer and more urban than England in 1800. The difference is that England, specifically in the north, became technologically more creative.

    ReplyDelete
  15. pseudoerasmus7 April 2014 13:15

    I also don't understand how anyone can say the Netherlands had not achieved "full bourgeois revaluation" in the 17th century. In the 17th century it was the bourgeois state par excellence ! In 1688 the Netherlands even supplied England with a constitutional and Protestant king ! Amsterdam was also filled with skilled Protestant immigrants from all over Europe -- English Puritans after the Great Ejection (some left for America, others left for the Netherlands), the French Huguenots, Protestants from Catholic parts of Germany, etc. And Jewish immigrants too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @pseudoerasmus: "I also don't understand how anyone can say the Netherlands had not achieved "full bourgeois revaluation" in the 17th century."

      Maybe they could have done it. I think it wasn’t really their “fault”, but the simple fact that they were too far from God and too near the Sun King. It sucks to have agrarian retrograde populous hegemons right on your border, right?

      Remember Antwerp after 1576 in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Antwerp

      It was really impressive that they did manage to maintain their independence against a country several times greater and more populous. But maybe it did cost dearly, at the end?

      --Anônimo

      Delete
    2. @Actually, the Netherlands on the eve of the Napoleonic Wars were richer and more urban than England in 1800.

      No, this is false. They were richer on the Dutch Golden Age, until the end of the 17th century, but they stagnated in the 18th century ("Sun King factor?" -- I really don't know the reason!). Even so, they were richer than anybody else except England until way deep in the 19th century (see De Vries, 1997). The Dutch didn’t amount to fully successful launch, like England. I think any mostly ideational/ideological theory about modern growth will have to take the bull by the horns on this one, and explain why this wasn’t the case. I’m just a Southern Dilettante, though – I’ll wait more research on this area by my betters.

      --Anônimo

      Delete
    3. pseudoerasmus7 April 2014 17:28

      You are the one who likes to use Maddison data. According to those, the Netherlands GDP per capita was match by the UK only after 1800 -- probably only because of the Napoleonic Wars. The real catchup of the UK with the Netherlands happened in the late 1820s and early 1830s.

      Delete
    4. pseudoerasmus7 April 2014 17:30

      "Remember Antwerp after 1576 in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Antwerp "

      I mentioned the sack of Antwerp earlier, and it was something positive for the Netherlands, if not for the future Belgium.

      But where was the first industrial area of continental Europe outside the English North and Midlands ? The Sillon industriel of Belgium -- in the French-speaking Catholic Wallonia.

      I haven't believed in the adolescent Catholic/Protestant stuff since my 20s.

      Delete
    5. @Pseudoerasmus: "I mentioned the sack of Antwerp earlier, and it was something positive for the Netherlands, if not for the future Belgium."

      Maybe, but the point was: agrarian retrograde populous hegemons are perfectly capable of changing the economic trajectory of promising tiny bourgeois enclaves. In the case of the Netherlands, war was complemented by economic protectionism from the neighboring countries.

      --Anônimo

      Delete
    6. pseudoerasmus7 April 2014 17:58

      So you use ad hoc contingent explanations when they suit your bourgeois indignity.

      Delete
  16. @Pseudoerasmus: "So you use ad hoc contingent explanations when they suit your bourgeois indignity."

    I think MOST can be explainable by it. Not everything. If Philip II or Louis XIV decides he doesn't like you, it is bad news, don't you think? Japanese do worse than mixed amerindians in Chile, but do better than italian or german descendents in Fuvest. We Brazilians are less bourgeois, but we have way better food and more beautiful beaches and women than England (snap!). And so on.

    -Anônimo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. **** Brazilians of mostly Japanese descent

      Delete
    2. pseudoeasmus7 April 2014 18:17

      "Japanese do worse than mixed amerindians in Chile"

      ??? Japan still has almost double the GDP per capita of Chile, and Chile even at its best has never had growth rates as high as Japan in the 1960s.

      Delete
    3. pseudoerasmus7 April 2014 18:20

      Are there published data on the average incomes of Japanese-Brazilians ?

      Delete
    4. @Pseudoerasmus: "Are there published data on the average incomes of Japanese-Brazilians?"

      We have data from the last census (2010).

      ftp://ftp.ibge.gov.br/Censos/Censo_Demografico_2010/Resultados_do_Universo/Resultados_preliminares_sobre_Rendimentos/tabelas_pdf/tab1_3_7.pdf

      There were 1,824,789 Brazilians who indentified as belonging to “raça amarela” (yellow race, that is to say, people of East Asian descent) and who were 10 years or older, numbered 1,153,429 souls. The median income was R$ 700,00 for those who worked and the average was R$ 1572,08 (Brazil has really high income inequality). These values are comparable to those of "Whites" (both median and average), and the average is almost twice that of afro-descendents.

      I also found a paper based on previous Census data:

      http://www.abep.nepo.unicamp.br/encontro2006/docspdf/ABEP2006_871.pdf

      A little old, but this passage is interesting:

      "As populações nikkeys apresentam consistentemente mais escolaridade do que a população brasileira como um todo. [They have consistently more schooling]"

      "Em cada um dos anos considerados [i.e.: 1980, 1991, 2000], observa-se que todos os grupos nikkeys [sons of Japanese immigrants] e os japoneses [the japanese themselves], apresentam situação melhor do que a da população como um todo [they fare better than the population as a whole], a população urbana e a população rural, com exceção do grupo dos nikkeys rurais não migrantes [the japanese in the rural areas don't fare as well].

      --Anônimo.

      Delete
    5. @Pseudoerasmus: "??? Japan still has almost double the GDP per capita of Chile, and Chile even at its best has never had growth rates as high as Japan in the 1960s."

      Also, McArthur was better than Pinochet, hehe. But I was talking about Brazilians of Japanese descent… See the correction right bellow the “???” deserving post and that followed it literally by 30 seconds.

      http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/keep-calm-and-keep-it-cool.png

      Delete
  17. pseudoerasmus7 April 2014 18:36

    If Philip II or Louis XIV decides he doesn't like you, it is bad news, don't you think?"

    In the 17th century the Dutch fought the English a lot more than the French. A lot more. Four wars in total. The Dutch and the French went to war once in the 1670s and another time in the 1740s. By the second time the Dutch economy was already in decline.

    Competition eroded the Dutch advantage of the 17th century in both production and trade intermediation. But why did Dutch manufacturers in the 18th century not maintain competitiveness by modernising production methods with English-style machinery and methods ? No one knows why exactly, but maybe the very "dignified" Dutch suddenly became un-dignified ?

    What the Dutch bourgeoisie actually did was shift from production and trade to finance and trade. The Dutch economy was increasingly financialised. Why not ? Returns and interest rates were much higher outside the country than inside -- this itself is probably because Dutch TFP was now lower. It's to easier to export capital than to improve TFP.

    ReplyDelete
  18. @Pseudoerasmus: The Dutch and the French went to war once in the 1670s

    That was the WORSE of them all. THE WORSEST. EVER. Read about the Rampjaar.

    @Pseudoerasmus: "It's to easier to export capital than to improve TFP."

    They greatly contributed to the Industrial Revolution in England by financing it. I don't know why it was so. Have you any good bibliographical references about this topic?

    --Anônimo

    ReplyDelete
  19. pseudoerasmus7 April 2014 19:17

    "[The Dutch] greatly contributed to the Industrial Revolution in England by financing it"

    Where do you get this idea ? The standard view is, neither banks nor capital markets played much role in the financing of the industrial revolution in the 18th century. The financial sector played a role in facilitating trade -- both internal and external. A bill of exchage for a domestic transaction, today, would be credit against accounts receivable, and a bill of exchange for international transactions would be a letter of credit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that the "greatly" should be dropped.

      Delete
  20. @Pseudoerasmus: "Where do you get this idea?"

    BRAUDEL, Fernand. Civilization and Capitalism – 15th – 18th Century – The Perspective of the World. Translation from the French by Siân Reynolds. v. 3, pages 245 and the following (references omitted).

    The loans mania or the perversion of capital

    Holland's prosperity led to surpluses which were, paradoxically, an embarrassment, surpluses so great that the credit she supplied to the traders of Europe was not enough to absorb them; the Dutch therefore offered loans to modern states who were particularly adept at consuming capital, (…)

    Nevertheless these foreign loans were quite worthwhile investments. Holland had been granting them since the seventeenth century. In the eighteenth century, when the English loan market opened in Amsterdam, from 1710 or so onwards, the 'lending branch' was considerably expanded. (…)

    It was to England then that the surplus capital of Dutch businessmen now began to flow. Throughout the eighteenth century, they were major subscribers to English state loans, and also speculated in other English investments shares in the East India Company, the South Sea Company or the Bank of England. The Dutch colony in London was richer and more numerous than ever. [T]his influx of Dutch money gave English credit a boost. Less rich than France, but having more 'brilliant' credit as Pinto called it, England was always able to obtain the money she needed in sufficient quantities and at the right time a great advantage. (…)

    In the seventeenth century, Holland had in fact allowed herself to be seduced by the English national market, by the social milieu of London where her businessmen found themselves more at ease, made more money, and even found distractions not available in strait-laced Amsterdam. In the complicated game played by the Dutch, the English card was a joker – a winning card which suddenly lost the game.

    ReplyDelete
  21. pseudoerasmus7 April 2014 20:05

    Dutch capital did invest in British gilts (state bonds) -- which is only fitting since modern British finance dates from the Glorious Revolution, when a Dutch prince became the King of England and his advisers reformed state finances. All the same, if the Dutch had an impact on English manufacturing in the 18th century, then it was very indirect -- via lowering interest rates and preventing crowding-out by the government sector borrowing. Detailed studies of the industrial revolution do not show English manufacturers borrowed much from banks or the capital markets in the 18th century.

    ReplyDelete
  22. @Pseudoerasmus: “Dutch capital did invest in British gilts (state bonds) -- which is only fitting since modern British finance dates from the Glorious Revolution, when a Dutch prince became the King of England and his advisers reformed state finances.”

    That is only part of the story because Amsterdameans would be Amsterdameans with Oranges, Apples and even Coconuts on the English throne. But even in this part of the story the Rampjjaar is very, very important. Maybe Dutch elites would never endorse William III’s adventure had not the God Emperor of Gaule used so much “Ultima Ratio Regum” against them… See (references omitted):

    ISRAEL, Jonathan I. The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness and Fall – 1477-1806. Oxford University Press, 1995, pp. 845-6.

    Memories of 1672 [i.e.: the “Disaster Year”], and previous Anglo-Dutch antagonism, rendered the regents [that is, the closed oligarchy of rich merchant families that monopolized de facto Dutch government offices] all too ready to exaggerate the least sign of Anglo-French collusion, and to regard it as being directed against themselves. Whether or not William III seriously believed there was a risk of a new joint Anglo-French attack on the Republic––James II later publicly denied any such conspiracy––he undoubtedly exploited apprehension on this score among the regents.

    ReplyDelete
  23. pseudoerasmus9 April 2014 00:08

    That Table 1.3.7 from IBGE is very strange.

    "valor do rendimento nominal médio e mediano mensal das pessoas de 10 anos ou mais de idade, total e com rendimento"

    I understand average income per person and average income per working person.

    But I don't understand median income ("total") and median income ("com rendimento"). What the hell is that ?

    In normal income data compilation, you would have median (individual) income, median (household) income, or median "equalised household" income (per member of household or per common number of members).

    I assume "rendimento nominal mediano (com redimento)" = median (individual) income.

    ¿¿¿ But what is "redimento nominal mediano (total)" ??? The median income of all persons aged 10 or over, with and without income ? What the hell does that mean ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know why they exclude persons aged 10 years or lower. This seems idiotic to me too. I think it is "path dependency".
      ´
      But use the data, men! It is better than nothing, and (way, way, way) better than most other Third World Countries.

      You should look, also, at PNAD ("Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicílios") which have more detailed information about each one of the families that they randomly query. It is even better than the "Census" data:

      http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/pesquisas/pesquisa_resultados.php?id_pesquisa=40

      Brazil is THE. SINGLE. ONE. BEST. LABORATORY. FOR. HBD-LIKE. THEORIES. THAT. YOU'LL. EVER. FIND. this side of the Orion Arm: it is big, diverse, with lots of cities of varied ethnic composition, with german colonies, italian colonies, cities of mostly ameridian ancestry, black, white, the greatest concentration of people of japanese ancestry outside Japan... And a lot of data about all of it that you can research for free in the internet (see the IBGE links that I've already provided).

      You, my dear @Pseudoerasmus are a very intelligent, but a very grumpy and bad-mannered man. Please, stop whining so much and go study this trove of data! Truth is there for us to find!

      :-)

      --Anônimo.

      Delete
  24. pseudoerasmus9 April 2014 00:27

    I looked up household income information from the CEDLAS-World Bank data. Household average income per decile is given in local currency units for the major countries of Latin America. You can convert these into Gheary-Khamis international dollars using the PPP conversion factors from the PWT. In 2009, Chilean households earned more income than Argentinian households only at the top and bottom deciles. In between the top and the bottom, average earnings were about the same.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Pseudoerasmus: "(2) On India, [Anônimo] just doesn’t understand that you need to look at growth RATES, not levels of per capita income over time, to notice changes in growth trend. Growth rates in Indian GDP per capita : http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=71n4fs&s=8#.U0nLsaa9LCQ. was there really such an abrupt change in trend, or a combination of volatility reduction and trend increases after 1980 ?"

      I don’t know what kind of economist you are – if you indeed are one – but growth economists don’t look JUST at growth rates, they also look at changes in growth trends, and by this measure, India clearly had a break with is previous trend. It is quantifiable, actually: it wasn’t just a “volatility reduction”; it was mostly AN ABRUPT CHANGE IN TREND. If you've actually done the math, instead of simply plotting growth rates in Indian GDP per capita you've already seen it by now.

      As you clearly are too bored to do the math yourself, I've already indicated -- many times! -- to you that Brad DeLong (2001) actually did it for us, in a very good paper (DeLong is a world-renowned growth theorist from University of California at Berkeley). You should have took the advice and read the paper; as you didn't get PWNed:

      http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/econ_articles/India/India_Rodrik_DeLong.html

      Using Growth Theory to Assess India’s Growth Acceleration
      “The lens of growth theory provides a natural interpretation of the sustained three percentage point per year acceleration in economic growth under the Rajiv Gandhi government. The first starts with the equation for the speed of an economy’s convergence to its steady-state growth path. As Mankiw, Romer, and Weil (1991) showed, an economy closes approximately l percent of the gap to its steady state growth path each year, where l is given by:
      (7)
      with a being the capital share in the production function, n being the population growth rate, g the long-run trend growth rate of the efficiency of labor, and d being the capital depreciation rate. The latter three variables sum up in the case of India to approximately 8%. (…) Thus estimates of l lie in the range between 0.016 and 0.056. (…)
      If we model the effect of economic reform as a one-time once-and-for-all upward jump in the economy’s steady-state growth path, than the 3% per year acceleration of growth that followed the beginnings of economic reform is the result of convergence–at the rate l above–to the new, higher steady-state growth path. For a value of l equal to 1.6%, this means that the Rajiv Gandhi government’s change in policies boosted the economy’s long-run steady-state growth path by 186%. For a value of l equal to 5.6%, this means that the Rajiv Gandhi government’s changes in policies boosted the economy’s long-run steady-state growth path by 54%. In either case, this is an extremely large long-run effect for what seemed at the time to be relatively small changes in economic policy.
      (…)
      Standard simple growth theory would predict that over time after reform the speed of growth would slow as the economy closed in on its new, higher steady-state growth path. After a decade the "convergence" component of economic growth should be between .85 and .60 of its initial, immediate post-reform value. This would suggest a slowing of growth by the late 1990s of between 0.6 and 1.4 percentage points relative to the second half of the 1980s, if Rajiv Gandhi’s reforms were the only powerful change in the economy’s long-run growth prospects.
      However growth did not slow in the 1990s. Further, larger waves of reform washed over the economy in the 1990s. Economic growth accelerated by at least one further percentage point per year in the 1990s.”

      --Anônimo.

      Delete
  25. Geronimo, I've answered you at pseudoerasmus.wordpress.com

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thank you very much @Pseudoerasmus.

    :-)

    I'm sorry if (ha!) we derailed the thread a little bit, dear West. It'll not happen ever again, I promise you.

    ;-)

    -Anônimo

    ReplyDelete
  27. Do you need a Loan?
    Are you looking for Finance?
    Are you looking for a Loan to enlarge your business?
    I think you have come to the right place.
    We offer Loans atlow interest rate.
    Interested people should please contact us on
    For immediate response to your application, Kindly
    reply to this emails below only:
    mohamendloanservice@gmail.com

    Please, do provide us with the Following information if interested.
    1) Full Name:.........
    2) Gender:.........
    3) Loan Amount Needed:.........
    4) Loan Duration:.........
    5) Country:.........
    6) Home Address:.........
    7) Mobile Number:.........
    8)Monthly Income:.....................
    9)Occupation:...........................
    )Which site did you here about us.....................
    Thanks and Best Regards.
    mohamendloanservice@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete

You can post anonymously if you really want to, but I'd appreciate it if you could provide some means of identifying who you are, if only for the purpose of knowing who has written what.