chocolate, which should be out of reach for most, good once in a while drink a cup of chocolate. so there's evidence -- and by the 18th century, the per capita consumption of chocolate in spain is really quite expensive. and so, there's also evidence that maybe not, you know, certainly not the poorest of the poor bipartisan classes and so forth might have access to some chocolate. >> was the earliest, was there any health warnings utah with the use of tobacco? >> absolutely. so, once it really has a presence in spain, you know, i see to take a ferry between 1590-1620. starting in the 16 tens, there's the proliferation of publications on both goods. and what you see people scratching their heads and trying to make sense of what it means we're consuming it. these publications are written

both by medical authorities and theological authorities. so sort of on both morally and healthwise what does it mean. and they are utterly unaware of what we would today call the addictive nature of tobacco, and talk about how people sort of, the use the metaphor of slavery often to talk about it. and they also talk about it at health consequences. they don't know about cancer but they talk about peoples insides being burned out and blackened, losing their sense of smell. though the actual mainstream view is not as we know today to third had a kind of note. there's no such thing as a sort of okay amount of tobacco. a medical line didn't is moderation. it's so entrenched. chocolate is seen, just as

chocolate, we're kind of catching up to what people were in the 17th century now every day, their new health reports about the beneficial aspects, particularly of drinking, well today, it is eating dark chocolate. and they are very aware of it having, having good effects as well, helping blood circulation. something i didn't do as much as i would have liked to follow up on its tracking how many of the things that people are finding out today were already proceed by commentators back them. but this deadly, also an awareness that too much chocolate isn't a good thing, but that in moderation is beneficial. >> marcy norton, the modern tobacco plant, the modern, is it cacao -- >> yes, that is the name of the tree that produced it cacao. >> how similar are today's contemporary plants to the ones that you were studying?

>> so, there's a lot of interest actually in the kind of connoisseur world of chocolate today. you might be aware of this sort of come if you buy fine chocolate, the providence is given and a kind of awareness around cacao around wine and the providence and so forth. and so what you see is that the most, i mean, the short answer is actually quite similar. at least for some of the varieties. the most desired cacao among the europeans was this friday none as free oyo which is still being consumed today. and then they start hybridizing cacao and make one that is more robust and disease resistance, can grow in more areas. once europeans start importing cacao in significant quantities they extended the cultivation from traditional regions in mesoamerica to south america,

venezuela, today becomes a very important area. and some of those varieties are the ones come and then a much greater. they could spread to africa where most of our cacao today is produced. and so the more robust, the less fine variety is what is in most privately produced today. but most of it has some relationship to the varieties that were being consumed back at the moment, the encounter with native americans. the case of tobacco is quite interesting. europeans first encounter it in the caribbean, and the variety that they encountered there is -- when they get to north america there is about seven different varieties being used, or species of tobacco that are being used among native americans at the time of the europeans a rival in the americas. but the most preferred one is,

they in fact bring that to north america and, in fact, a native americans there a preference for that as well. so it supplants for the most part been end of, today what is the eastern seaboard. it is grown what is most of today and that could spread from the caribbean out beyond. >> and we've been talking with marcy norton who is a history professor here at george washington university and the author of this book, "sacred gifts, profane pleasures: a history of tobacco and chocolate in the atlantic world." thank you, professor. >> thank you. >> you're watching 48 hours of nonfiction authors and books on c-span2's booktv. >> professor benjamin hopkins, what is the east india company?

>> the british east india company was a semi-commercial company founded in the year 1600 by royal charter, by queen elizabeth, which gave it the exclusive right to trade with the indies. the english merchants. over time it transform into a kind of parasail juggernaut and behemoth that is extremely complex and difficult to understand. but the key thing about the east india company was that after the mid-18th century the east india company came to rule over much of the south asian subcontinent which included most of the modern-day bangladesh, india and pakistan. the east india company was rolled up in 1858, following a great new the of 1857 and 1858, and control of the south east asian subcontinent. >> how did it gives its charter? >> its charter was granted to merchants are petitioned the

elizabethan court for the exclusive right to trade. and it was actually one of a number of european trading companies, including the hudson-based company that was also charter by the english crown. but its main competitors were a french east india company which comes in the late 17th century, and more powerfully and importantly the dutch east india company which largely followed the same course of conquest and rule over the indian asian archipelago. >> now, when you say it ruled, what was its geographical area that ruled and how did it ruled? >> that's a very complex question. because the east india company being a kind of parasail organization didn't exercise the same kind of rights and privileges that we think of as a state. what do i mean by that? well for instance, over the area of the south asia which it ruled, it didn't go exactly as a

sovereign. it controlled in that area both as a babble of the mogul emperor who had rights to collect taxes, but also as a subject of the british crown. and so the east india company had this kind of dual nature where it recognize both the sovereignty of the british crown and also the emperor. and so it actually was charged with ruling over great swaths of south asia in the name of both these monarchs at the same time. now, its area of remakes would have formal control actually rather than kind of as it were telling all the map red, plus bunches of concentration. so for instance, john qaeda were its main trading port was. as a strong and stylish present but when you got and to the countryside, up until the 20th century there were a number of

indians that it never seen a white man. and so its control over the countryside was spotty at best which in part explains its downfall with the ending in 1857. >> in your book, "the making of modern afghanistan," what is its role in afghanistan? what was its rolled? >> the east india company had a number of different strategic interests in the area be on the river which would include much modern-day pakistan and we think of as modern day afghanistan. the east india company's main concern was that of security. not have extra security so much, as there's a large swath of historical literature in which talks about the so-called great game in afghanistan which is this issue of anglo russian rivalry between competing and expanding british empire in south asia and the russian empire in central asia.

yet rather than being concerned about an external enemy, the russians necessary, at the early part of a 19th century the east india company was much more concerned with its own internal security. and what it sought to do with stabilize its role within south asia. by stabilizing its frontier. and so the east india company initially gets drawn into afghanistan. as a matter of a matter of fact in or to stabilize its own rule in south asia. >> when did the great king begin? >> the great again, if one subscribes to it really begins, there some literature that says it begins in the early 18th, 19th century, excuse me, other literature really sees the heyday in the late 19th century. once the russians established their own rule over the central asian in 1860s and once they built the central asian railroad

in the 1870s and 1880s. but it's important to note that even the most hawkish british strategic thinker, when writing about the impending russian threat to british india, marching through afghanistan, virtually all of them acknowledge that this was a far way, if not impossible, thing that would happen. and the main concern was not actually hordes of russian caustics as it were invading reach india as it was the rumor of a russian army on the doorstep of british india which would spread around the bizarre and destabilize the security of the british indian state internally. >> so, professor hopkins, is the east india company responsible for british involvement in afghanistan? or how did that work? >> yeah. well, it was really driven by personalities in large part. there are a number of players in

the 1830s as the east india company is recovering from part of a global depression and reassessing its role in south asia. some of the other echelons of the company start to look for new opportunities. and one of the new opportunities they see is to drive british trait into central asia and into afghanistan. and so it's kind of a story of the flag following trade in which free traders are looking for opportunities to expand a british footprint and british influence in the area by driving british goods into the area. that's how the east india company's involvement starts in afghanistan. they see this as a potential area of commercial development. but as i said, free trade at this point i'm is also political and not simply an economic

ideology. so the flag follows trade in terms of one's british goods are in the market and the bazaars are circulating, there's a feeling that the british flag or the flag of the east india company needs to be there to both protected and influence that. and overtime that snowballs and increasingly draws the east india company into an increasing penetration and involvement with afghanistan. but the other part that i think is very important, and my own book touches upon is the east india company's role in south asia itself. because the story i just told you about trade, about russian influences, one that is often told. what is less often told is how the east india company seas, participation in afghanistan as a way of undercutting local rivals within south asia. for example, in the punjab which is where modern-day pakistan in

india split, there was an extraordinarily strong indigenous kingdom, that seek kingdom. he was a main competitive to the east india company in 1820s and 1830s. he had a european trained army. officer by ex-napoleonic officers. many of whom fled connection with officers in the czarist army because once napoleon's forces break apart many of these officers are known as global mercenary so they get hired by indigenous kingdom's. and the east india company was fearful of his power. after all, he had a standing professional european trained army of over 80,000 troops directly a bunning east india company's territories. so in part their interest in afghanistan was driven by a strategy to encircle rajiv and cut them off by making a buffer

state between and expanding russian empire and english empire. but also and i'm circling state which would cut off the potential for them to flex his muscle. >> so professor hopkins, how much responsibility does the british and violent that you're discussing have in making what is today afghanistan? >> it would be correct to say that afghanistan is a colonial creation. one of my colleagues refer to as a fiscal policy -- colony of british indie. it doesn't mean it's in some way not real. after all, the united states of america was a colonial creation. over 13 colonies that broke away.

it is to say that they involvement that starts in early 19th century under the auspices of east india company and carries up to the 19th century under the auspices of the british crown is centrally affirmative of what becomes known today as afghanistan. the british are actually the ones who draw the boundary. it is agreed to in 1893 and is unilaterally drawn by the british over the following four years. the russians in 1885, excluding the afghans, delineate the northern border. and border with iran is done under british auspices and arbitration between afghan and iranian sovereign. so the british involvement in this area is fundamentally shapes what we now know as modern-day afghanistan. that's not to say there wasn't a

previous heritage of a political society and entity, or that in any way it's somehow illegitimate because it external boundaries imposed upon it. but it is to recognize the importance of the british in forming what we now think of as afghanistan today. >> in the time of the east india company and the british military being involved in afghanistan, what was the reaction of the afghanistan tribes to this mix of people? >> well, the british invaded for the first afghan war in 1839, over a can of botched series of negotiations that lead to an insult, which leads to the invasion. we need to remember that first of all when british east india company troops invade the majority of those troops are actually india hindus, as most of the troopers at the east

india company and subsequently the british indian army were. so most of the troops that fight in the first, second and, indeed, third afghan war and subsequent border wars are indian troops. so that carries a different dynamic to it. secondly, upon their initial arrival, what the british did in their previous in versions into afghanistan, is largely what the americans did in 2001 which was basically buying off those who might make the entry more and more difficult. however, what happens over time is that british troops became overextended, their occupation increasingly became a source of tension with local political leaders, and those political leaders were able to mobilize i kind of see the phobic angst

among the populace of afghanistan and try them out. so the first afghan war, most famously leads to the defeat of the british garrison in kabul who were forced to retreat in 1841 and 18842 -- 1841 and 1842. having been the only survivor of that retreat. he was not that but there's this mythology of empire being maintained that he was what's forgotten however, in that members of defeat is the fact that the british return next spring with an army of retribution that when head and destroyed the bizarre in kabul which was the largest in central asia. so what we see is, with the british incursions into the region, that over time as it

were, it becomes a focal point of resentment which becomes a point energy and unification for afghans to drive out the british indian troopers. >> benjamin hopkins, your book is called "the making of modern afghanistan." we been talking 150, 200 years of history. what can we learn from what you have been talking about, about modern afghanistan? >> well, before i engage with that i think it's important to remember that history is built on recognizing contexts. and that the course of events that happened in the early 19th century evolve out of the specific circumstances. so while there might be generalities that would draw forward in history, we need to be aware of context. of the challenges that face the

afghan body politic in the early 19th century were in fundamentally similar but also fundamentally different from that, which made the afghan politics today. so having said that caveat, i think what we can see, that begins early in the early 19th century, are some important things that continue to shape the afghan body politic today. one is the marginalization of afghanistan, or the lands they constitute afghanistan, from an increasingly integrated globalized economy. before the east india company arrived in the south asia, afghanistan had been a hub of economic activity, which had supplied regional markets ranging from east, west and south asia. centrally important was its role as a supplier to south asia on three specific items which were core items for the emperors of

the indian subcontinent. first of all the afghans supplied mercenaries. they supplied extra men who could fight in the wars of the court. secondly, they supplied the horses for those mercenary. because central asian and afghan forces were very famous for their ability to withstand the pressures of warfare. and thirdly, they supported -- provided through, but it was a luxury item because kind of the maserati of the 19th century. in fact, the first founding emperor writes in his journal, about the fruits of the kabul tally and how he misses those. food was a status symbol. a status similar which becomes replaced as the british takeover british indie. instead of melons, he shows off his wealth with english flocks.

instead using mercenaries, the east india company uses a professional trained horse that no longer uses cavalry, horses, but rather instead uses a trained infantry. so the three pillars upon which the afghan political economy rested and integrated into a vibrant regional economy are undercut by the entry of the east india company into the region. which means that afghanistan is effectively peripheral allies from the global economy. and i think we see that again today where afghanistan has been a core door of trained and intercourse for that region, which has effectively been cut off as it's become impoverished being excluded from global bands of trade. so that the only way it can participate often in that trade is either through migration, which is a huge outpouring that

continues today in afghanistan, or illicitly to the drug trade. the second topic that i think we can bring forward is that of politics. and what we see in the early 19th century is that the kind of social contract upon which the afghan body politic had been founded begins to crumble along with its political economy. there have historically been three bases of political power in afghanistan. islam, tribe, or what i call it a listen, or the legitimacy of a specific branch of the pashtun. what happens in the early 19th century with the east india company is that those sources of legitimacy, which have really been into related. they were three prongs of the stool as it were. enter into a very unstable relationship. what happens over the next 200 years then is that for the most

part the afghan body politic is able to reconstruct that social contract using the basis of legitimacy, a famous ruler for instance, uses a little bit more of the royal listen and a little bit less of the islam, versus some of his successors who rely upon islam a little bit more. what we've seen today with afghanistan is again a breakdown of that social contract. and the interesting thing to watch is how, if at all, the afghan body politic will reconstruct that social contract, especially as american and international forces begin to withdraw. >> what's on the cover of your book? >> that's actually a picture i took. it was the central government fort where many of the characters i talk about in my book rules from. it was the afghan royal palace

up until the ruler from 1933 up until his overthrow in 1973 build a new palace. today it's off limits because it is mined heavily all over the place and there's a cemetery out in front with the martyrs are buried. so you can see green flags in front of that picture. >> is this in kabul? >> it is in central kabul, yes, and it is very close to the isaf. >> when we over there? >> i was last there in kabul in december of 2006. >> what was your experience? >> twofold. iacono because i was invited to give a lecture with a colleague of mine to isaf on the history of our -- >> isapi? >> the international stabilization assistance force, the new command. so i have been asked to deliver

a lecture to the nato commander and for part of the time i was there i was kind of under their auspices. which was very constructive in terms of where you could go and what you could do. i was there with a colleague of mine who is an anthropologist and has many connections. suffer have the time we went the nato forces and have the time we went local as it were, and followed around a contact we had. that's the closing. kind of a taliban cat. i had my beard grown out and surprising as it were, i was often mistaken for being afghan, and from being from a particular section. so we traveled around essentially incognito, especially the north of the country for a time, beating afghans, discussing afghan, kind of getting a much were on the ground field and since her how things were going.

and the difference in distance between the two images that we received were extraordinarily stark. in that this was 2006 and we talk to large with people from the north of the country, especially banshee resort from a certain valley that followed on the famous hero of the afghan jihad. and the leader of the northern alliance was killed on september 9, 2 days before september 11. so these would be the people most apt to support nato and the continued american and international presence. and in the winter of 2006 they were saying we give them a year. if no progress, there will be war. and at that point on their been no violence in the north. announced today we see that violence has indeed taken off on a large-scale in the north. so are since deadly back in 2006 was an increasing sense of a

lack of patience, and lack of clarity of why are these people here and what are they bringing us as a benefit? so that was definitely our sensibility at that point in time. >> when did the u.s. start its involvement with afghanistan? >> american involvement with afghanistan really begins in the post-second world war moment. what happens is in 1947, the british withdrew from south asia what was called the transfer of power. leaving two successor states, india and pakistan. pakistan of course being split between east and west pakistan at that point in time. east pakistan would break off with bangladesh in 1971. the important point is that in 1947 what happened was the assumption of older material responsibility that the british held was increasingly taken over by the united states pixel in the 1950s the united states

becomes increasingly involved in afghanistan food aid, and through the 1960s that aid it becomes kind of competition with soviet aid which is coming in from the north. so through the '50s and '60s there's a kind of friendly cold war rivalry which afghanistan benefited from in many ways by skillfully playing these too often each other. now pc things changed in 1978 with the overthrow of the afghan monarchy and the assumption of power. at this point in time, afghanistan goes over to the wrong side so the u.s. takes a hostile posture which becomes even more hostile with the soviet invasion in 1979. during the soviet occupation, the united states supplied and

supported the anti-soviet mujahedin as they call themselves who waged a guerrilla war against the soviet army. in 1985 the united states launched something called operation cyclone which was a clandestine support program, which supplied the mumbai been with weapons and cash to the pakistani inter- services intelligence agencies. that united states really ramp up its participation at that point in time. once and so it's withdrew in 1989, they continued to support the afghan time is government under, the collapse of the soviet union in 1991. at that point in time, afghanistan really drops from the american radar, and

especially under the clinton presidency there's very little interest in afghanistan. there's some residual interest from the refugees caused by the soviet war. there's also some kind of speculative strategic interest out of what are called pipeline politics, because the soviet, ex-soviet republics have huge natural gas resources so there was talk about a pipeline running through afghanistan into pakistan in order to kind of escape the russians or the iranian pipelines. however, afghanistan really falls off the radar and tell post-september 11, 2001, when the united states invades october 7 and operation enduring freedom and has been spending this year $110 billion from $11 billion a month on operations in afghanistan. >> what was the purpose of president eisenhower's visit to

kabul? >> president eisenhower's visit, which happens in 58 i believe, the winter of 1958, well, first of all it was a to he put together in the end days of his administration. some as prices do, they go abroad to polish their international credentials. but it was really to kind of signal to the afghans the american commitment to supporting afghan development. and also an attempt to create some sort of strategic partnership with the afghans. that, of course, with no place military and it was never a very high on the military focal point. but it was a signal to the afghans as the importance in which washington held that relationship. and it should be noted that isolate of the eisenhower administration one of the largest aid projects was begun in 1950s.

almond valley authority. what this was was it was a series of dams which were constructed in the helmand valley based off the tennessee valley authority, it is kind of a good story of the law of unintended consequences. using the tennessee valley authority as their model, american engineers thought what a wiki is they within the rivers in the helmand valley in order to create dependable irrigation supply and also began to electrify the countryside, just as in the tennessee valley. however, what happened was that in building those dams, the unintended consequence was actually to raise the level of the water table. and in doing that it brought to the surface all the salts that it had a committed overtime in this whole. and this will have previously been a productive reason for dry grains especially. with the salinity rising in the