From: crdunlea@rodan.acs.syr.EDU (Christopher R. Dunlea)
Subject: Re: Irish Books/U.S. Bookshops
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 17:38:02 EST

In article <28615@dog.ee.lbl.gov> mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) writes:
>
>>"Practically" isn't reality. Do you really think it irrelevant that
>Oh get off it

THIS is historical debate?! Maybe in fifth grade...
>
>>Walter Raleigh and Humphrey Gilbert were commissioned to oversee
>>the plantations of Munster, where the term "native" orginated in
>>English usage, and THEN were sent to build the same garrisons, the
>>same military outposts in Virginia and organize the new possessions
>>in the SAME way? The administrative procedures developed in the 1530's
>>laid the groundwork for the 1600's in America, in terms of 
>
>Nice of you to bring up Raleigh & Gilbert -- their period is the very
>one I mentioned, the late Tudor era.  NOT the 1530's.  The earlier
>Munster plantations were pretty much a failure, in terms of
>translating the English life to Ireland & pacifying the land, tho it
>is certainly true that settlers hung on during the various rebellions
>of that time.  But it wasn't until the Stuart period that it really
>took off (see Foster's "Modern Ireland").  I don't understand the
>earlier Tudor period in Ireland very well at all, but the English
>behavior then looks like it was similar in many respects to the
>earlier Norman settlement.  Despite all the carnage in Munster the
>actual number of settlers that were still there in 1622 was only
>about 12000 (Foster).

For someone who snorts at my citations yours are fairly weak, and if
you don't know much about Tudor Ireland, what are you doing posting
such uninformed opinions? What PAGE of Foster? It's a large book, sir.
Ireland was plantationed since the 1580's. And Gilbert and Raliegh were
commissioned as royal overseers of Munster--the plantation of Munster,
I might add.
>
>I reject the idea that Raleigh, in particular, adopted the same
>methods in VA & elsewhere that he used in Ireland -- tho I suppose the
>same basic ideas of imperialism & greed were at work.  I was under the
>impression his activities in Ireland were basically military, against
>the Desmond rebellion, & his colonial attempts in Virginia were
>basically exploratory & oriented toward settlement.  The interactions
>with the natives involved were pretty different, weren't they?

thank you for proving my case. Imperialism requires the use of military
force, and that is what happened in Ireland, as you just admitted.
The thesis of Ireland as a testing ground of British imperialism lies 
on the premise that Ireland was the first place where British divide-    
and conquer policies, in step with a military subjugation of the           
population, were practiced in a systematic way. If you cannot 
disprove this thesis with fact instead of "I was under the impression"
interjections, you cannot disprove the thesis, period.

>
>
>>building a bureaucracy faithful to the Crown's orders. 
>>Also, remember that Ireland is the FIRST colony to revolt along
>>constitutional lines (1640's) and a key player in settling the
>>civil war between the Stuarts and the Orangists. Ireland's history
>>illustrates rather clearly that it was a testing ground for America and    
>>Asia.
>
>While the examples you cite are interesting history (& represent
>Ireland's only moments in the sun until the famine), neither are
>relevant to the argument that Ireland was a testing ground for British
>colonial policy.  You could've at least cited Cromwell's policies

True. However, the omission does not invalidate the argument. And
these specifics were cited to show "firsts".


>I think it would probably be fairer to say that North America was
>the British colonialist testing ground.  It is interesting that
>some of the same people involved in the debacle in the 1780's
>in the American colonies went on to successful careers in other
>British colonies, for example Cornwallis, during a period much
>more difficult for Britain than the 1770's & 80's had been.
>
>The more I look at this the less likely this Ireland-as-a-testbed
>hypothesis looks.  There are just too many special cases & exceptions
>in Irish history that make its colonial history different than
>other British adventures.  The 450 yr old religious conflict is
>one (because it also occurred in English history).  The long contact
>between England & Ireland & Scotland involving trading settlers &
>ideas back & forth.  The partial Anglicization of Ireland -- does
>this ever take place in any other British colony?

Again, you overlook the argument. Testbed for WHAT? Imperialism, and
the systematic expropriation of land and labor. Nothing you 
mention above even relates to the core of the argument but skims
around the fringes.

>>See Nicholas Canny's article in "Strangers Within the Realm" to 
>>answer your question if you are interested. 
>
>I'm not asking Canny -- I'm asking you.  If he wants to post, great.
>I'm not 1 of your grad student slaves, if you're going to cite
>something at least do us the courtesy of explaining or summarizing the
>argument.

I didn't ask Foster, I asked you. Heck, I at least I gave the reader an
idea of where he might find citable information. Canny's argument is
that the English did indeed develop their imperialist strategies on
Irish soil. 

By the way, I am not a professor. I have no grad student slaves. I
am a student and do my own work. But I also have enough energy to
enter a debate with the intention of examining citations offered--
something that you, to judge by your blustery remarks, seem to lack.

Chris

Xref: sparky soc.culture.celtic:8895 soc.culture.british:19348