Sugar the epitome of power.

Sweetness has power over us. Sugar no longer has a place of rarity in our world, nor has the demand leveled off. Since sugar is a product of a plant, it is possible, depending upon the earth’s longevity that sugar will be here as long as we demand it, or we are able to grow the plant. A four hundred year demand of this commodity makes it a powerful entity in our world, and especially in more developed societies.

In the discussion last week, the thread of anthropology vs economics vs economics seems to be nullified by Mintz’s work. The last sentence of his book encapsulates his view of how commodities should be perceived. Though anthropological and historical prevues are necessary to write about commodities, so is a good helping of economic structure and analysis.

The social phenomena of sugar, as Mintz states “penetrates social behavior”. With this preface, capitalism and the histories of various hegemonies connect the process of commodity study. Especially, for the ‘democracy’ nations, and modern societies, the links “understanding freedom and individualism” constitute a foundation the economic and anthropological pins since the necessities of certain commodities become necessities.

Although the two comments by Carol and Eric are primarily a summary of Mintz’s rendition of slavery, he is wrong. in 1967, David Brion Davis made it clear in his Pulitzer Prize winner, _The Problem with Slavery in Western Culture_, that “The salve, trade, however, was becoming a prodigious enterprise which could not easily be regulated or shut off at will.” As Davis, then goes on, the Portuguese reaped commercial profit “from the merchants and speculators of Europe who had acquired the privilege of supplying the Spanish Empire with slaves”. (p.129). I quote this particular passage for its vernacular of economics. As early as 1518, with Charves V, licenses were furnished to colonies for the provision of the sale of ’Negro slaves’. 

Sugar was not the only commodity that was part of what Mintz explains as two triangular trades, slaves were a complex entity, not entirely a commodity, but certainly with value and multiple utility. After three hundred years, the slave commodity would die however, it was an enormous part of the history of trade in the world. 

Mintz’s work is an enormous benefit to historians. As he says in his last line of the book, “In understanding the relationship between commodity and person, we unearth anew the history of ourselves”.

In order to better understand Mintz, and our discussions, the definition of commodity is still a concern for me. Also, as historians, paradigm shifts into other fields allow us to develop wider and deeper historical analysis. In order to understand the expansion of various societies and nations, discovery of commercial ventures is one avenue to study Mintz’s hint that “social phenomena are by their nature historical”. 

We simply study what we have become from what we were, and in Mintz’s case, what we eat and the economics of how it gets to our mouths.