From: crdunlea@rodan.acs.syr.EDU (Christopher R. Dunlea)
Subject: Re: Irish Books/U.S. Bookshops
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 00:21:54 EST

In article <1993Jan21.065447.12663@nuscc.nus.sg> hiscrp@nuscc.nus.sg (C R Pennell) writes:
>crdunlea@rodan.acs.syr.EDU (Christopher R. Dunlea) writes in reply to my
>assertion that:
>
>I suppose it depends on how you define "world". If you define it solely in
>terms of what was relevant to the modern capitalist system as it now is,
>and its European precursors. Then OK, that's fair enough. The only one of
>the biggies mentioned that was in direct trading etc relationship was
>indeed China. I did try to broaden it out a little by including SE ASia,
>which most certainly WAS part of the European world Economy  - that's why
>the Portuguese captured it in 1511. Cf Tome Pires "Whoever is lord of
>Malacca has his hand on the throat of Venice. But Malacca was also part of
>a Chinese based world economic system - and I'm using the Wallerstein
> concept of a "world system" in the sense of one which is larger than any
>juridically defined political unit. In that sense, there were a number of
>world systems before the economic unification of the world by European
>capitalism: a Mediterranean one certainly, but also an Indian OCean one
>and a Chinese one. Certainly in the late medieval period north western
>Europe (an you cant get much more north western than the British
>archipelago) was pretty marginal. The Chinese world economy was, by
>contrast a very imporatnt one indeed, and in that system Japan was an
>important part. It's only if you take an entirely ethnocentric view that
>the way in which the European-originating capitalist world-system has won
>over-rules all other world systems at all other times in history take the
>view that these other histories are irrelvant or marginal. And that is
>the thrust of what was originally alleged.

Having read Braudel's _Structures of Everyday Life_ for a seminar I'm 
leading next month, and knowing (and approving of, though not entirely
swallowing) the Wallerstein thesis, I understand your point. I'm an
Early Modernist myself so I put more stock in the 16-18th centuries than
most.
>	
>You go on:
>: The true history of Ireland, IMHO, is as it served as a `testing ground'
>: for English imperial expansion during the Empire, 1580-1922. As such it
>: was of VAST importance, because all the tricks used in America, India, and
>: Africa were first PLAYED OUT IN Ireland. Now, if this isn't important,       
>: Pennell, then what is?! 
>
>Certainly it is important. You are quite right. I never said Irish history
>was not important. I objected to the idea that it was so important that
>the history of China, Japan, Russia and so on should be seen as marginal.
>I might take issue with you that ALL the tricks used elsewhere were tried
>out in Ireland first, but Ireland certainly plays a fundamental part in
>the creation of British power. Though it pre-dates capitalism a bit!

True, but one might argues that capitalism, while an integral componen
of the 19th century (Second English empire), was only a fuel, not an
entire conquering system. Canny notes that many of the strategies used
to colonize America and Asia were developed in the "pacification" or  
Ireland. Capitalism was simply the motivation. (?)


>
>: Ireland need not have been a great nation by itself to have affected the
>: course of the world. The Irish struggle for independence, beginning with       
>: Parnell and ending with de Valera, was closely watched by the colonial 
>: upper classes of British Asia and Africa. Ireland, as the first colony of      
>: Britain, was the first modern state to win its independence in the 20th century
>: and served as a role model for other colonies as well.
>: Check out Lawrence McCaffrey's "Ireland: From Colony to Nation-State".
>
>Again, undoubtedly true. But one could set an interesting final year essay
>on whether Ireland's role as a precursor has a great a direct role in
>colonial independence movements as India did for the British African
>Empire after 1948, and the extent to which what happened in the British
>Empire affeted the development of, say, Algerian nationalism in the French
>Empire. Are you being a little Anglophone-centric here ( sorry about
>Anglophone-centric - couldn't think of an alternative word)?

Well, I'm a English Early Mod-Mod historian, that's what I know best.
I originally was going to add that Gandhi and other leaders of the
Congress Party watched Ireland as a model before the developments you 
mentioned. I would certainly concede that Ireland was not the ONLY 
prototype for independence movements--those of Algeria and Nigeria
stand out. But it was the first successful one, and the world (especially
the colonized world) watched.
>
>  : > : >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. 
>: >
>: >How many twentieth century Irishmen/ Britons/ New Zealanders know who's
>: >running the show?
>: >
>: 
>: At least most of them have heard of the electoral process. 
>: Can you compare this to Russian serfs in the 19th century?
>
>Yes, well, this was a debating point. I'm still not sure how much
>"electoral process" indicates taht they know who's running the show
>though! But you are right, I wasn't comparing like with like. The
>original poster though had as his main thrust the idea that these
>benighted nations beyond the ethnic fringe are irrelevant to the main path
>of history because they are not involved in the European based part of it.
>I really am unconvinced that in the early 19th century - before European
>expansion had really set its claws in - many people in Europe knew much
>about the world beyond the borders of the state within which they lived. I
>don't suppose many Irish people were much different in that respect from
>the average Englishman or Sicilian.  The one thing that did give them an
>outlook beyond their immediate neighbourhood, of course, was religion.
>Most Catholics would have heard of Rome, but then most Muslims would have
>heard of Mecca (although only a few would have actually completed the hajj)

Eugene Weber, in _Peasants into Frenchmen_, would certainly agree with this
point. I'd take your point even further: in Ireland during the early 19th
century, most Irishmen did not even have religion in common with other
Catholic peasants, because of the devolved nature of 1800's Catholicism
before Paul Cardinal Cullen in the 1850's (Emmet Larkin).

>
>But I repeat, I do NOT think that Irish history is unimportant. Nor do I
>think that lack of cultural  "comfort" makes a great civilisation like the
>Chinese or the Egyptian, come to that, unimportant. I know fine well I'd
>hate to have to live in medieval (or modern) China. Which doesn't alter
>its importance.
>
>One final thought: isn't the importance of a culture, historically, to a
>large extent dependent on what you are interested in? If you are
>interested in the history of technology, look to Baghdad and Andalusia and
>China in the pre-modern period. If you are intersted in the history of the
>Christian church you ignore Ireland only if you are a fool.
>
>Richard
>
Point well made. Nice debating with you. I know you're at NUS, what is you
specialty just for curiosity?

Chris


Xref: sparky soc.culture.celtic:8862 soc.culture.british:19252