A recent history of guns and empire argues that early modern Europe marked the origins of a uniquely murderous era. But the world it describes is not so different from our own and making sense of its horrors requires judgment, not just arithmetic. A new global history of guns and murder claims the early modern world was uniquely violent. But while modern history was clearly violent, it is less clear that its enormity marked more than an intensification of enduring forms of human domination. Review of The Killing Age: How Violence Made the Modern World by Clifton Crais (University of Chicago, 2025). One of the first Europeans to try out slave trading failed dismally at it. In 1510, the Portuguese freebooter Dom Francisco de Almeida landed at the Cape of Good Hope and tried to capture some of the Khoekhoe people. He was wrong to put faith in his firepower. The arquebuses lugged around by his men were so cumbersome that they required a prop to aim, and cooperative victims who posed to be shot at. Heavy rain extinguished the smoldering wicks required to fire them. When Khoekhoe fighters bombarded De Almeida’s forces with poisoned arrows, they beat a swift...
The author raises an interesting discussion about the violence of early modern Europe and its implications for our understanding of our own era. It's clear from the referenced book, The Killing Age: How Violence Made the Modern World, that there is room for a nuanced conversation about violence as a historical and ongoing human phenomenon.
However, the comparison of that era to our own requires more careful thinking. It is indeed true that violence has been an enduring aspect of human societies, but it is essential to differentiate between the nature, extent, and implications of violence across different periods.
The author seems to suggest that the violence of early modern Europe was merely an "intensification of enduring forms of human domination." While this is partially true, such a view downplays the significant shifts that characterized this period. The development of new technologies, the emergence of nation-states, and the expansion of global trade networks during this time brought about new forms of violence and power dynamics, which had lasting impacts on the world.
The anecdote about Dom Francisco de Almeida's failed slave trading endeavor in 1510 serves as a poignant reminder of the inhumanity and violence of the era. However, it also underscores the limitations of early firearms and the challenges faced by early European colonizers. The evolution of warfare and weaponry from such primitive methods to the advanced military technologies we see today is a reflection of the progression of human ingenuity – albeit a grim one.
While the modern world is far from free of violence and oppression, it is crucial to recognize the significant strides we have made. Democratic governance, human rights norms, and international law, albeit imperfect, have come a long way in curbing the unchecked abuses of power that were common in early modern Europe. Moreover, the increased efficiency of modern weaponry is, unfortunately, a double-edged sword. While it has the potential for greater destruction, it also necessitates greater responsibility and restraint from those who wield it.
In sum, while we should certainly strive to learn from the violent past of early modern Europe, it is equally important to recognize the unique challenges and responsibilities of our own era.
1. Perception of Violence: The original opinion suggests that modern violence is just an intensification of historical forms of human domination, while the counter-response argues that the nature, extent, and implications of violence have significantly changed over time.
2. Role of Technological Development: The original opinion seems to downplay the role of technological advancements, focusing more on the human element of violence. In contrast, the counter-response emphasizes the impact of technological evolution on the forms and extent of violence.
3. Interpretation of Historical Events: The original opinion uses the story of Dom Francisco de Almeida to underline the limitations of early firearms and the brutality of the era. The counter-response, however, views this event as a reflection of human ingenuity's progression, albeit in a grim context.
4. View on Modern Society: The original opinion implies that the modern world is not so different from early modern Europe in terms of violence. The counter-response, however, points out the strides made in democratic governance, human rights norms, and international law that have helped curb unchecked abuses of power.
5. Perspective on Weapons: The original opinion does not delve into the implications of modern weaponry. The counter-response, however, acknowledges the double-edged nature of advanced military technologies, emphasizing the increased responsibility they demand.
6. Emphasis on Learning from History: Both perspectives agree on the importance of learning from history, but the counter-response stresses the need to recognize the unique challenges and responsibilities of our era.
Criminal JusticeImmigration
Even the Top Prosecutor in Minneapolis Doesn’t Know the Identity of the Agents Who Killed Alex Pretti
Original Opinion:
Mary Moriarty on steps local officials are taking to collect and preserve evidence despite federal obstruction, and Jill Garvey on how to document ICE safely. The post Even the Top Prosecutor in Minneapolis Doesn’t Know the Identity of the Agents Who Killed Alex Pretti appeared first on The Intercept.
The situation surrounding the death of Alex Pretti is indeed disconcerting, and I acknowledge the importance of maintaining transparency and accountability in all branches of law enforcement. The call for evidence preservation and the documentation of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activities is a valid one, as it would contribute to the transparency that is vital to maintaining public trust in these institutions.
However, I believe it is important to approach this situation with a balanced perspective. It's crucial to remember that law enforcement agencies like ICE operate in a context of national security, which sometimes necessitates a degree of confidentiality. This is not to say that actions of law enforcement should be shrouded in secrecy, but there are instances where disclosing the identities of agents can compromise ongoing investigations and the safety of the officers involved.
Nevertheless, the lack of information about the incident does raise significant questions about oversight and accountability. If the top prosecutor in Minneapolis is unaware of the identities of the agents involved, it indicates a communication gap that should be addressed. Effective law enforcement requires collaboration between federal and local authorities.
Moreover, it's important to consider the broader implications of this incident. It's essential to maintain a legal and immigration system that is fair, just, and respects human rights, while also upholding our national security. This is a delicate balance to strike, and it can be challenging to reconcile these goals.
Therefore, while it's crucial to preserve evidence and document the activities of ICE, it's equally essential to ensure that these actions do not compromise the agency's ability to perform its duties effectively. A thoughtful, measured approach that respects both the need for transparency and the operational realities of law enforcement is necessary.
In the end, the primary focus should be on fostering an environment where law enforcement is held accountable for its actions, while also being empowered to protect our nation's security effectively. This incident presents an opportunity for dialogue about how we can achieve these goals in a manner that respects individual rights, maintains public trust, and upholds our national security.
1. Transparency vs Confidentiality: The original opinion emphasizes the need for transparency, particularly in the identification of the agents involved in the incident. The counter-response, while acknowledging the importance of transparency, also highlights the need for certain levels of confidentiality in law enforcement, particularly when it pertains to national security.
2. Evidence Preservation: The original opinion stresses the urgency of preserving evidence and documenting ICE activities. The counter-response agrees but also warns against potential compromises to the agency's operational effectiveness.
3. Communication and Collaboration: The counter-response highlights a perceived communication gap between federal and local authorities, suggesting that improved collaboration could enhance law enforcement effectiveness. This point is not directly addressed in the original opinion.
4. Broader Implications: The counter-response discusses the broader implications of the incident, emphasizing the need to balance a fair and just legal and immigration system with national security. The original opinion focuses more on the specific incident and the need for accountability.
5. Public Trust: Both perspectives agree on the importance of public trust, but they differ in their proposed solutions. The original opinion suggests that transparency and accountability will enhance public trust, while the counter-response proposes a balanced approach that respects both transparency and operational realities of law enforcement.
6. Accountability vs Empowerment: The original opinion strongly calls for accountability in law enforcement. The counter-response agrees but also stresses the need to empower law enforcement to protect national security effectively.
Conservative Perspectives
EconomySocial Issues
Mamdani Has Learned Nothing from Rent-Control History
Original Opinion:
By embracing rent control, New York City’s mayor is recycling a policy that feels compassionate but fails everyone it touches.
The author of this opinion piece raises a valid concern about the potential weaknesses of rent control. Indeed, policies should be critically evaluated and refined over time to ensure they are effectively addressing the issues they are designed to confront. However, I believe the dismissal of rent control as a policy that "fails everyone it touches" overlooks the nuanced socio-economic realities many city dwellers face and the role rent control can play in protecting vulnerable populations.
The assertion that rent control "feels compassionate but fails everyone it touches" simplifies a complex issue. Rent control has been a crucial tool for maintaining affordability in cities with high cost of living, such as New York City. It provides a buffer for low- and middle-income families against the rampant gentrification and displacement that often accompanies economic growth in urban areas.
Critics often argue that rent control creates a disincentive for landlords to maintain and improve properties. While this can happen, we must also consider the power dynamics at play. Without rent control, landlords can exploit tenants in a market with high demand and limited supply. Furthermore, the assertion that rent control discourages new construction is not a foregone conclusion. Cities like San Francisco and New York have implemented rent control alongside policies to incentivize new construction.
Moreover, rent control is not proposed as a standalone solution but as part of a broader package of housing policies. These may include zoning reforms, affordable housing initiatives, and public housing investments. These multidimensional approaches can address the concerns about maintenance and supply while still protecting tenants from skyrocketing costs.
Finally, it's important to remember that housing is a human right, and the government has a responsibility to ensure its affordability. As economic inequality widens, policies like rent control can help ensure that families are not priced out of their neighborhoods.
In conclusion, while rent control is not without its challenges, it has a critical role to play in fostering socio-economic stability in fast-growing urban environments. By dismissing it outright, we risk overlooking its potential benefits and the broader context in which it operates. Instead, we should focus on refining and complementing it with other policies to ensure it serves its intended purpose effectively and equitably.
1. Perception of Rent Control: The original opinion sees rent control as a failed policy that harms everyone it touches, while the counter-response views it as a crucial tool for maintaining affordability in cities with high costs of living.
2. Impact on Landlords and Construction: The original opinion may assume that rent control discourages landlords from maintaining properties and hinders new construction. The counter-response argues that rent control can protect tenants from exploitation and that its impact on new construction is not a foregone conclusion.
3. Role of Complementary Policies: The counter-response emphasizes the importance of implementing rent control as part of a broader package of housing policies, suggesting that it should not stand alone. The original opinion does not mention this aspect.
4. Government Responsibility: The counter-response asserts that housing is a human right, and the government has a responsibility to ensure its affordability. This idea is not explicitly addressed in the original opinion.
5. Perception of Economic Inequality: The counter-response suggests that rent control can help address widening economic inequality by protecting families from being priced out of their neighborhoods. This perspective is not reflected in the original opinion.
6. Approach to Policy Evaluation: The original opinion seems to dismiss rent control outright, while the counter-response advocates for critical evaluation, refinement, and combination with other policies to ensure effectiveness and equity.
EconomyGovernment & Democracy
Kevin Warsh: Hawk or Dove?
Original Opinion:
The pick to be Federal Reserve chairman has a history of concern about inflation but more recently has been in harmony with President Trump’s push for lower interest rates.
The analysis of Kevin Warsh as a candidate for Federal Reserve chairman is a nuanced one, and I appreciate the balanced observation of his policy evolution. The potential for Warsh to balance concerns about inflation with the current administration's push for lower interest rates is indeed noteworthy.
However, as a political economist, I would like to emphasize the importance of considering additional factors in our evaluation. Monetary policy cannot, and should not, be reduced to a binary between inflation control and interest rate manipulation. We must also consider the impact of these decisions on income inequality, job security, and environmental sustainability.
Historically, the Federal Reserve's primary role has been to manage inflation and unemployment. However, in an era of increased economic inequality and escalating climate crisis, we need to expand the mandate of the central bank to consider these pressing issues. Warsh's track record does not suggest a strong emphasis on these aspects.
For instance, during the 2008 financial crisis, Warsh was part of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors who orchestrated the bank bailouts. While this was essential for financial stability, it also exacerbated wealth inequality by disproportionately benefiting the wealthy. The approach didn't sufficiently consider the long-term implications for working-class Americans.
In terms of environmental sustainability, the Federal Reserve has a significant role to play in steering the economy towards a greener future. Central banks worldwide are beginning to incorporate climate risk into their frameworks. Unfortunately, there isn't much evidence to suggest that Warsh would prioritize this in his role.
It is important to remember, monetary policy decisions have far-reaching consequences that touch every segment of society. The need to consider broader social implications alongside traditional economic indicators is vital. While Warsh's experience is commendable, his potential nomination should invite a wider discussion about the role and responsibilities of the Federal Reserve in today's complex economic landscape.
In the same way that we've seen a shift in Warsh's stance, it's crucial for our economic institutions to evolve and adapt to the changing realities of our world. This includes a more inclusive and sustainable approach to monetary policy, which takes into account economic equality and environmental priorities alongside inflation and unemployment.
- The original opinion focuses primarily on Kevin Warsh's stance on inflation and interest rates, while the counter-response emphasizes the need to consider broader social implications of monetary policy, such as income inequality and environmental sustainability. - The original opinion views Warsh's history of concern about inflation and recent alignment with lower interest rates as a positive, whereas the counter-response criticizes his role in the 2008 bank bailouts, which the author believes exacerbated wealth inequality. - The original opinion implies that the main role of the Federal Reserve is to manage inflation and unemployment. In contrast, the counter-response argues for an expanded mandate, incorporating concerns about economic inequality and the climate crisis. - The original opinion does not discuss Warsh's stance on environmental issues, whereas the counter-response criticizes his lack of emphasis on this aspect, arguing that the Federal Reserve should play a significant role in steering the economy towards a greener future. - The counter-response suggests that Warsh's potential nomination should invite a wider discussion about the role and responsibilities of the Federal Reserve, indicating a belief in the importance of public discourse and democratic engagement in monetary policy decisions. This is not a point raised in the original opinion. - The counter-response encourages economic institutions to evolve and adapt to changing realities, including a more inclusive and sustainable approach to monetary policy. In contrast, the original opinion does not address this need for evolution and adaptation in economic institutions.