The axiom that trade leads to peace seems logical. Trade is always profitable (for at least one partner), and it would be counter-productive to do anything that would disrupt the relationship through violence. However, people are seldom logical and trade is often anything but peaceful.
History offers us ample evidence of trading practices that definitely did not lead to peace. For example, trade was achieved through a coerced partnership. Great powers forced lesser regions in to trade relationships or prevented them from participating at all. In the words of Janet Lippman Abu-Lughod, the 15th century Ming Dynasty, a formidable trading entity, “had the world’s largest and most seaworthy fleet, capable of withstanding any attack and able to terrorize opponents into submission with flame-throwing weapons and gunpowder-driven missiles” (Lippman 84).
Non-peaceful trading was especially common between empires and their colonies. The great empires of Europe were land-poor and relied heavily on colonial trade to support themselves (Mancke 227). Empires obtained territories in Africa, the Americas and Asia through violent means, and then forced the indigenous inhabitants into exploitive relationships that resulted in bloodshed …show more content…
Every part of the process was undeniably violent. In Africa, salves were captured “in wars and raids conducted by African polities” (Empires 157). The voyage was notoriously deadly, as was the fated that awaited the salves on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. The renowned Dutch East India trading company (VOC) used slaves to grow spices into the eighteenth century (Empires 160). The Universal Dictionary of Trade and Commerce, published in 1751, reported that the VOC “makes peace and war at pleasure” (Empires 161). If foremost trading company, perhaps in the history of the world, was indubitably violent, how could anyone argue that trade leads to
History offers us ample evidence of trading practices that definitely did not lead to peace. For example, trade was achieved through a coerced partnership. Great powers forced lesser regions in to trade relationships or prevented them from participating at all. In the words of Janet Lippman Abu-Lughod, the 15th century Ming Dynasty, a formidable trading entity, “had the world’s largest and most seaworthy fleet, capable of withstanding any attack and able to terrorize opponents into submission with flame-throwing weapons and gunpowder-driven missiles” (Lippman 84).
Non-peaceful trading was especially common between empires and their colonies. The great empires of Europe were land-poor and relied heavily on colonial trade to support themselves (Mancke 227). Empires obtained territories in Africa, the Americas and Asia through violent means, and then forced the indigenous inhabitants into exploitive relationships that resulted in bloodshed …show more content…
Every part of the process was undeniably violent. In Africa, salves were captured “in wars and raids conducted by African polities” (Empires 157). The voyage was notoriously deadly, as was the fated that awaited the salves on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. The renowned Dutch East India trading company (VOC) used slaves to grow spices into the eighteenth century (Empires 160). The Universal Dictionary of Trade and Commerce, published in 1751, reported that the VOC “makes peace and war at pleasure” (Empires 161). If foremost trading company, perhaps in the history of the world, was indubitably violent, how could anyone argue that trade leads to