Prior to the nineteenth century, almost all countries were predominantly agrarian with fragile, low-productivity economies. Their elites owed their prosperity to the exploitation of workers, peasants and slaves, whose conditions of existence were uniformly awful.
This should be emphasised: in all societies prior to c. twentieth century capitalism, the masses lived on the edge with income just sufficient to perpetuate themselves. Their misery was compounded by brutal treatment from their 'betters' for whom they were simply potentially rebellious resources.
Most of those elites consumed their wealth 'unproductively' but a few were philanthropists. Some of those in the latter category later had statues put up to them by a grateful (elite) citizenry, for example Edward Colston (1636-1721) of Bristol.
It's an interesting social phenomenon that these statues are now being toppled in the name of an ahistoric moralism - but as we know, it's not really about that.
Nevertheless, I expect slightly conservative professors of history to be pointing out these salient truths in this weekend's papers... while right- and left-wing protesters fight in the streets.
The masses are in motion; history has resumed.
