The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Virginia Postrel Guest-Blogging About the History of Textiles
I've always much enjoyed the work of Virginia Postrel (who, among many other things, was once the editor-in-chief of Reason), and I'm delighted to report that she'll be guest-blogging this week about her new book, The Fabric of Civilization: How Textiles Made the World. From the publisher's description:
The story of humanity is the story of textiles—as old as civilization itself. Since the first thread was spun, the need for textiles has driven technology, business, politics, and culture.
In The Fabric of Civilization, Virginia Postrel synthesizes groundbreaking research from archaeology, economics, and science to reveal a surprising history. From Minoans exporting wool colored with precious purple dye to Egypt, to Romans arrayed in costly Chinese silk, the cloth trade paved the crossroads of the ancient world. Textiles funded the Renaissance and the Mughal Empire; they gave us banks and bookkeeping, Michelangelo's David and the Taj Mahal. The cloth business spread the alphabet and arithmetic, propelled chemical research, and taught people to think in binary code.
Assiduously researched and deftly narrated, The Fabric of Civilization tells the story of the world's most influential commodity.
And just part of the suitably electic collection of blurbs:
"We are taken on a journey as epic, and varying, as the Silk Road itself… [The Fabric of Civilization is] like a swatch of a Florentine Renaissance brocade: carefully woven, the technique precise, the colors a mix of shade and shine and an accurate representation of the whole cloth."
―New York Times"From the Stone Age to Silicon Valley, textiles have played a central role in the history of the world. Virginia Postrel has an encyclopedic knowledge of the subject but she imparts it with a touch as light as Penelope's at the loom. Ambitious, erudite, and absorbing, The Fabric of Civilization is both an education and a pleasure to read."―Barry Strauss, author of Ten Caesars: Roman Emperors from Augustus to Constantine
"Virginia Postrel has created a fascinating history of textiles from their Palaeolithic beginnings to the present and future -- from the earliest plant fibers plucked from weeds to synthetic fabrics with computer chips in the threads. And why, you say, should we examine mere cloth? Precisely because it fills more and more roles in our lives, yet we take it for granted…. Well researched and highly readable, the book is a veritable treat."
―Elizabeth Wayland Barber, author of Women's Work: The First 20,000 Years Women, Cloth, and Society in Early Times and Prehistoric Textiles"A fascinating, surprising and beautifully written history of technology, economics, and culture, told through the thread of textiles, humanity's most indispensable artefacts. I loved it."
―Matt Ridley, author of How Innovation Works"The story of technology is a story of human ingenuity, and nowhere is this more clear than in the story of textiles: the original technology, going beyond what we commonly think of as 'tech.' As with many technologies, we suffer an amnesia about them when we enjoy them in abundance, as Postrel observes; her book gives us back our memories about this technology that we use every day without even knowing it."
―Marc Andreessen, co-founder, Netscape and Andreessen Horowitz"Cleanly written and completely accessible, this book opens up an entirely new world of textiles, explaining the most ancient archeological fabrics and the latest polymer blends that cool the body -- not warm it as textiles have done for thousands of years—with equal verve."
―Valerie Hansen, author of The Year 1000: When Explorers Connected the World—and Globalization Began"Postrel's brilliant, learned, addictive book tells a story of human ingenuity…. Her deep story is of the liberty that permitted progress. Presently the descendants of slaves and serfs and textile workers got closets full of beauty, and fabric for the cold, a Great Enrichment since 1800 of three thousand percent."
―Deirdre Nansen McCloskey, author of the Bourgeois Era trilogy"Fascinating and wide-ranging… This is an engrossing and illuminating portrait of the essential role fabric has played in human history."
―Publishers Weekly
I very much look forward to Virginia's visit!
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
See the informative discussion started by Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf at:
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/11/28/today-in-supreme-court-history-november-28-1872-2/
Thanks for the shout out 🙂 I've had her book for a while, but only accelerated its reading to this evening, otherwise it would have been at least several weeks behind in the queue.
Just barely started. She mentions the history of the cotton plant, how it took 10-15,000 years of selective breeding (my estimate only, have just got to that section and am possibly jumping the gun here a bit) to turn the native 1M year old plant into what we have today, which will be an interesting factoid the next time someone says they like only "natural" fibers:
Snob: I only like natural fibers like cotton, not synthetics like nylon.
Me: In that case, you should not like either, but if you had to choose, you should choose nylon. Nylon is made from oil, and it took less than 100 years to make the first nylon after oil was first harvested in 1859. Whereas it took humans 10-15,000 years to breed the first usable cotton plants.
Snob: Cries a lot. Their tears are delicious.
This book is far more fascinating than I had expected. For instance, Islam encouraged cotton cultivation by allowing the wearing of silk to only those in heaven and restricting mere Earthlings to cotton.
I bought this book because other books by the author have been good, and this one exceeds expectations. I think my usual practice of reading several books at once will go by the wayside for a while. I wonder if I can keep ahead of her daily posts 🙂
Final comment for tonight: this fine work is spoiled by use of "enslaved", a really annoying fabrication made out of whole cloth. "Enslave" means to turn someone into a slave. The only "enslavers" were those who kidnapped people, then usually sold their slaves to others, but those buyers were not themselves "enslavers", they were slave buyers. You cannot enslave a slave.
"Enslaved persons" is political correctness run amok. "Slave" is a perfectly cromulent word, denoting all the evils that go with the practice. Pretending it is not evil enough and must be replaced with "enslaved person" or "enslaved worker" is pathetic; what part of "slave" implies anything less than the evil that is slavery? Is there some hidden gentleness unbeknownst to the general public and only apparent to the woke among us? Are there literate people who have been mislead all these years?
Fuck that noise.
THANK YOU. I first noticed this nonsense in 2009, but it was rare then. Lately it's become ubiquitous.
With perhaps some very few exceptions, white people did not enslave Africans. Ever. They simply went where slaves were on sale, and bought what was at that time and place a legal commodity. The people they bought had already been enslaved by other Africans.
This is incredibly stupid vice signaling. For one thing, it's not even based on a correct lexicological premise:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/enslave
verb (used with object), en·slaved, en·slav·ing.
to make a slave of; hold (someone) in slavery or bondage:
Nor is it even a valid historical claim. At the time they were bought, they were captives, but not yet slaves. They were put to work — i.e., enslaved — after they were bought.
And anyway, enslavement is an ongoing process, not a one-time thing.
But more importantly, it's incredibly pointless as an argument. So what if your linguistic nitpick were actually accurate? "I just bought him and kept him in bondage, but I wasn't the first person to do that. So, yay, me."
"Your Honor, I know I'm charged with kidnapping him, but did I? Really? That guy over there actually grabbed him. Isn't that more important than the fact that I continued to hold him captive?"
No. "En"slavement is a single step. There is no effective difference between kidnapping and enslaving. I suppose if you kidnap someone and tie them up, that is not slavery until you make them work for you.
There is only one "en"slaver. Everyone eho buys a slave is just a slave owner, a slave buyer, a slave master. But not an "en"slaver.
And since you seem to think complaining of it is pointless nitpicking, then your complaining of my being a pointless nitpicker is even more pointless nitpicking.
Fuck off, nitpicker.
Á àß äẞç
Doesn't the included dictionary definition, earlier, mean that your point is not correct? I mean, if there are legit alternate definitions that cover subsequent acts of holding someone in bondage (and there are such definitions!), then it's linguistically perfectly fine for people to use it in the way that you decry.
[For what it's worth; several dictionaries disagree with your limited and limiting definition, including Cambridge.
"to force someone to remain in a bad situation :
'Women in this region were enslaved by poverty.' "
Some dictionaries seem to agree with you. But it would be charitable of you to acknowledge that, however, other dictionaries do not agree with you.]
David, you know very well all PC is case in furtherance of lawyer rent seeking. Zero tolerance for PC, a lawyer criminal enterprise. Crush all PC. Open a campaign of lawfare.
Perhaps it wasn't *Virginia* who used the "enslaved" term. There are still editors in the world, although proofreaders seem to have gone extinct.
My 1960s era dictionary only says "enslave: to reduce to or as if to slavery; Subjugate". Nowadays, "slave" is a dirty word.
" “Enslaved persons” is political correctness run amok. . . . Fuck that noise. "
You're a bigot. And therefore a reprehensible loser in America's culture war. So fuck you.
Clothing allowed humans to move to cold climates. There, the presentism of the tropics risked not surviving the coming winter. I recognize the achievements of sub-tropical civilizations. But, Teutonic productivity and efficiency became essential.
Human evolution is pretty fast. Walk around a mall, you will see a lot of very pretty faces. Look at the portraits of great beauties of 100 years ago, and they are really hard to look at. The good looking, the chesty have more sex and thus more children. In just decades, the world has become much better looking.
CRISPR and dial a baby are almost here. People like me will be dialed out.
re: "Human evolution is pretty fast." You are conflating two different effects. Yes, "beautiful people" preferentially breed with other to make more "beautiful people" but not as much as you think. More important for your analysis of portraits, the standards of beauty have changed radically over the centuries. Heck, even over mere decades. The people in those portraits were the beauties of their day. People that met today's standards of beauty (that is, thin and tanned) still existed - but those were signs of being poor. Those folks just weren't recognized as beautiful and thus were not chosen for portraits.
Analysis by looking at old portraits is also subject to various other sources of bias. For example, most portraits are of the political leaders with the means to patronize a painter. It would be a mistake to consider Trump or Obama "beautiful" merely because there were lots of pictures of them still around in 500 years.
Rossami, thank you for the excellent peer review. Still black people from Africa moving to Scandinavia will become blondes in 2000 years, or the obverse, a short time for evolution.
Also look at Playboy centerfolds from the 1950's. The first was Marilyn Monroe. I would call her face, cute, but not breathtaking. I would call her body OK for a young woman, but not great. The same is true for most of them.
You prove my point. You call Marilyn Monroe "cute but not breathtaking" and many modern readers would agree even though they were already alive at the time that picture was taken. Evolution can not operate in that timeline. Standards of beauty, however, do change on that timescale.
re: black people moving to Scandinavia - Intermarriage might cause them to average to blond(-ish) within 2000 years but that's not the same as evolution. If you moved a black population to Scandinavia and kept them isolated, evolution would (probably) recreate the melanin loss in order to increase UVB absorption but it would almost certainly take a lot longer than 2000 years.
One effect to cause evolution is that unfit beings do not reach reproductive age. That effect has ended for humans. Most humans reach reproductive age. That effect requires only 2000 years.
Another is that the fitter have more offspring. I think there are more good looking offspring from that mechanism. ,That effect seems to require 50 years.
The CRISPR dial a baby is coming. That will require looking through a catalog for 5 minutes, one click selections.