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?