From: hiscrp@nuscc.nus.sg (C R Pennell)
Subject: Re: Irish Books/U.S. Bookshops
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 01:57:49 GMT



Note. Editorial comments in caps. Other people on quotes, me in
plain. Might be easier to follow. I've had to edit it)

ON TUE, 19 JAN 1993   JOSEPH BRIAN DUNPHY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO, STARTED THIS OFF. 
     HE SAID THAT IN THE LIGHT OF HIS PERSONAL PRIORITIES -
AFFECTIONS, NEVER MIND - THAT

"Ireland, circa 1993, is a very minor power, economically,
politically, and militarily. If one is interested in
understanding today's world, German, Japanese, Russian, Chinese,
British, French, and Arabic history are all highly relevant,
among others, because the cultures involved are major players on
the world stage. As for Ireland - most of its' culture was lost,
starting with the bookburnings that occured during the Viking
raids, down through the active attempt by the British to
obliterate the native culture."

Personally I think this is nonsense, because it confuses Ireland
and its relatively minor role on the world stage today (which is
true enough) with its importance in "understanding today's world"
which seems to be the thrust of Dunphy's interest. But if you
want to understand today's world, then it makes sense to knwo
where we are coming from - and as Chris Dunlea pointed out,
Ireland bulks pretty large in the history of imperialism. It's
also hard to imagine Christian culture without its Irish input.
However, leave that aside for the moment. I think Dunphy is way
off beam, but we can argue about that.

MY OBJECTION WAS TO THE REPLY ON WED, 20 JAN 93 BY EAMONN
GORMLEY, OF MASSEY UNIVERSITY, NEW ZEALAND.

HIS RESPONSE TO DUNPHY'S ASSERTION THAT 

"If one is interested in understanding today's world, German,
Japanese, Russian, Chinese, British, French, and Arabic history
are all highly relevant, among others, because the cultures
involved are major players on the world stage."

WAS TO ACCUSE HIM OF HAVING A 

" very selective view on world history, i.e. you like the stories
that interest you and ignore the rest as irrelevant."

GORMLEY WENT ON
"please please, don't tell us that the greater part of Chinese,
Japanese, or Russian history is more  relevant to todays world
than anywhere else. It's only recently (in the last 100 years)
that these counries have played any role in 'world' affairs.
Before this, these cultures were so closed and isolated that even
parts of their own populations did not know what was going on or
who was running the show."

It was this passage that set me off. It is not true that China
or Russia or Japan have only played a role in 'world' affairs in
the last hundred years. Unless you define 'world affairs' as
being the same as European dominance. But a culture which built
the Great Wall - the largest man-made construction on earth -
which developed gupowder - which had trading links overland on
the Silk Road and at various points by sea with the Indian Ocean
is not a minor one. [As an aside, Gormley clearly decided that
British, French, and Arabic history are all RELEVANT to the
modern world as he chose not to take issue with these countries
that were mentioned in Dunphy's original post]


IN GORMLEY'S LATEST POST, (Thu, 21 Jan 93) HE SAYS: 

"If you had calmed down a little and read the postings, then you
might have noticed that it was not I who brought up the histories
of specific countries i.e China, Japan and Russia.  I was merely
pointing out, using the examples given, that it is unfair to pick
out countries and generally claim that their history is any more
relevant than others."

HOW DOES THIS FIT IN WITH GORMLEY'S FIRST ASSERTION THAT:

"It's only recently (in the last 100 years) that these counries
have played any role in 'world' affairs. Before this, these
cultures were so closed and isolated that even parts of their own
populations did not know what was going on or who was running the
show."?

IN OTHER WORDS YOUR TEST IS WHAT HAPPENS IN THE LAST 100 YEARS,
THE PERIOD OF EUROPEAN DOMINATION. THIS IS ETHNOCENTRISM OF A
PRETTY HIGH ORDER. 


AGAIN IN GORMLEY'S POSTING ON THU, 21 JAN 93 HE ASKS: 


"And sorry to bother you mister historian, but if you want to
resort to petty arguments, then, correct me if I'm wrong, did
Columbus stumble or even set foot on America at the end of the
first voyage?"

AND

"it just doesent make logical sense to try to reach east by going
west (try it for yourself and see). AND, mister historian, what
makes you so sure that he had no idea he would stumble on a new
continent by going west?? "      


LET'S MIX THE ORDER OF THESE THINGS.
1. The world is round, right? C C was pretty sure it was too,
though he didn't realise it was as big as it is. So he set off
westwards to get eastwards, which is not illogical at all. Tokyo
is east of London. Japan Airlines fly between the two direct
passing over Anchorage. Is that illogical too? Once you accept
the world is a globe, then you intuitively know you can get to
the same place either by going east OR west, or north OR south
etc. Columbus's mistake was to believe the world was smaller than
it was: since it was already clear that a. China was a long way
by land (and there were other places in the way), it was
reasonable to assume that he could get their quicker by sailing
west.

2. Columbus went to the grave imagining he had reached the East.
Since he was trying to get there he would have hardly done so had
he suspected there might be another continent in the way, now
would he?

3. It's absolutely true that at the end of first voyage CC still
hadn't reached the American mainland, just some outlying islands.
But to say he wasn't in America is like saying Ireland is not in
Europe (to give an example close to your heart).


A FINAL POINT, TO WHICH GORMLEY TAKES GREAT EXCEPTION:

 No I'm not, and I'm afraid now that there is no point in ever
again expressing an opinion on history, because it seems I'll
only get insulted by an 'expert'

Firstly, all the things I have said are within the knowledge of
anyone who reads the papers, after last year anyway. Nothing to
do with me giving my address at NUS. Which is all I was doing.
(Neither CHina not Ireland are my areas). My comments were/are
because your opinions dismiss a great world civilisation on the
grounds that it "It's only recently (in the last 100 years) that
these countries [viz China] have played any role in 'world'
affairs." It's not true, it's based on an assumption that only
what happens in Europe and its offshoots is important. It is
racist in implication. Since you seem to want to stand by it, I
suppose it must be racist in intent too.



Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,soc.culture.british