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: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 06:54:47 GMT

crdunlea@rodan.acs.syr.EDU (Christopher R. Dunlea) writes in reply to my
assertion that:
: >
: >Gunpowder, the compass, paper, the Silk road to THAT - and where do you think
: >Columbus was trying to get to when he stumbled on America? Mars? Yes, you
: >pratt, he was trying to get to the East by sailing West. Why do you
: >think he was doing this? Because China and Japan and South East Asia were 
: >irrelevant and played no role in "world affairs"?
: >
: 
: I cannot agree with this statement entirely, Dr.Pennell. Japan was utterly
: insignificant until the Meiji Restoration, and played a relatively minor
: part in anyone's affairs. Of all the countries mentioned before, China is
: the exception to the truism that these countries played minor bits in 
: world history. Russia? Not until Catherine the Great. Germany? Not until 
: Frederick the Great, perhaps not until Wilhelm II. 

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.
	
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!

: 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)?

  : > : >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)

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

: Chris
: 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic