The Golden Triangle begins with molasses, becomes rum in New England, then becomes slaves in Africa, then becomes molasses again; what does this circular system reveal about how sin can be stabilized into a normal economy, and where do you see modern “triangles” where comfort requires someone else’s suffering?
Another way to ask: What does the molasses–rum–slaves–molasses trade loop show about how sin can become a normal business? Where do you see similar systems today where your comfort depends on someone else’s pain?
Direct Answer
Bercot’s “Golden Triangle” shows how sin can become self-reinforcing: an entire economic loop can normalize evil because each step funds the next, making wickedness feel like ordinary commerce.
Support from Transcript:
Bercot explains the triangle: molasses from the Caribbean to New England, distilled into rum; rum shipped to Africa; rum traded “for slaves”; slaves shipped to the West Indies; then ships return with “barrels of molasses” to restart the cycle.
He calls it the “Golden Triangle,” then says “The Triangle of Evil would be a better name,” stressing how ordinary business language can mask moral horror.
Rum production scaled massively: by 1774, “63 distilleries” in Massachusetts producing “2.7 million gallons” yearly—showing institutional stability.
Profit margins drove the loop: a slave bought for “five to ten pounds” could sell for “30 to 80” pounds.
The wealth “spread… throughout every tier of New England society,” making the system socially protected.
Discussion Follow-ups
The transcript doesn’t name modern examples, but it invites asking: what repeating supply chains today quietly depend on exploitation so our lives stay comfortable?
