Jose!
        I had thought our exchange over but something in the following
sentence has bothered me over the weekend: "Its roles were many and
varied, although that in trade remained primordial."  This morning, I
suddenly realized the source of my discomfort.
 
        If we look at rum as a staple of trade in the triangle, I would
have to agree with you that, as one item in a diverse trading complex, it
was primordial.  After all, compared to sugar, for example, the quantity
of rum is insignificant.
 
        If we redirect our thoughts, however, by not treating rum as just
an item of trade and by accepting that it was not regarded as an abusive
substance in all of the societies we have touched on, we begin to realize
its historical significance.  It is here that I find the literature on
alcohol, during the past twenty years, so important.  That literature has
demonstrated that alcohol, not just rum, can be used as a powerful
analytical tool.  By employing some of the methodologies in this
literature, we can begin to analyze behaviours of individuals of different
classes, races, ethnicities and religions in a way that the cold numbers
associated with trade has never been able to do.  This new approach allows
us to discern aspects of control, hierarchy and social formation while, at
the same time, it gives us insight into agency, articulating the adaptive
responses of the different groups who were involved in the trading system.
 
        Surely, that is a way of doing history which could prove far more
fruitful than one based on morality and blame?