Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 6 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
In God We Don't Trust  /  Chapter 14: Navigation Restraints and Expensive Molasses  /  Discussion Questions
All Questions
Question 6
Bercot quotes Walton and Rokoff arguing the requirements were “less onerous” because of shared “ties of blood and language,” established credit contacts, and duties being remitted; what assumptions about human relationships, profit, and “shared identity” are operating in that argument, and where do you see similar assumptions shaping modern Christian thinking about economics and justice?
Another way to ask: What beliefs about relationships, money, and “shared identity” are behind the claim that the rules were easier because of shared language, family ties, and business connections? Where do you see Christians today thinking the same way about economics and fairness?

Direct Answer Walton and Rokoff’s argument assumes shared identity (blood, language) naturally makes business easier and that economic relationships follow familiarity and trust, especially through credit networks, which softens the burden of regulation. The transcript doesn’t apply this directly to modern Christian thinking, but it clearly highlights how “shared identity” can be treated as an economic advantage.

Support from Transcript:

  • Quoted conclusion: requirements were “less onerous than we might initially suppose.”
  • Reason 1: Americans and English shared “ties of blood and language,” implying relational closeness affects commerce.
  • Reason 1 continued: “their credit contacts were more easily established,” assuming financial trust flows along cultural/relational lines.
  • Therefore, “the colonists would have dealt primarily with English merchants anyway,” suggesting profit-seeking often follows familiar networks.
  • Reason 2: duties on re-exported commodities (example: “tobacco”) “were remitted entirely or in large part to the colonies,” assuming the system included offsets and negotiated relief.
Discussion Follow-ups How can “shared identity” become a blind spot—making people ignore how outsiders experience the same system? Do Christians today assume that cultural closeness makes economic arrangements automatically fair?

Jumpstarter 6 of 10
Back Questions Next