In the 1600s, the Dutch and the British were kind of shadowing each other all over the globe, explains Cornell historian Eric Tagliacozzo. They were competing for territory and control of the spice trade. In 1667, after years of battling, they sat down to hash out a treaty. Both had something that the other wanted. The British wanted to hold onto Manhattan, which theyd managed to gain control of a few years earlier. And the Dutch wanted the last nutmeg-producing island that the British controlled, as well as territory in South America that produced sugar. So they [the Dutch] traded Manhattan, which wasnt so important in those days, to get nutmeg and sugar. This is little more than an ort leftover from the feast of history, but its fascinating. (Sorry. Its from NPRs food blogs, and the metaphor was irresistible.) The notion of a dynamic landscape of interest (in 1667 it was nutmeg, today its petroleum) is an interesting one. Is it necessary or possible to plan for future shifts in strategic resources or for transformations in geopolitical interest? Is this an intrinsic consideration in the calculation of continuing advantage? An odd though spurred by an aromatic nut.
Posted on: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 20:46:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015