[lbo-talk] IRA & ETA?

Yoshie Furuhashi furuhashi.1 at osu.edu
Fri Mar 26 11:17:20 PST 2004



>[lbo-talk] IRA & ETA?
>Michael Pollak mpollak at panix.com, Fri Mar 26 11:00:58 PST 2004
<snip>
>>I think that it is safe to say that Ireland became the world's
>>first colony for thoroughgoing primitive accumulation (=
>>expropriation of the agricultural population from the land):
>
>No, I think several of the colonies of Athens came first. Invading
>and kicking people off the best farmland is not historically new.
>Nor is making money off agricultural export.

What did the Athenians do with the expropriated people and the land expropriated from them, however?

BTW, take a look at what M. I. Finley says about what a "colony" meant in the ancient Greek world:

***** The Greek word we conventionally translate as 'colony' is _apoikia_, which connotes 'emigration'. The point to be stressed is that each was, from the onset and by intention, an independent Greek community, not a colony as that word is customarily understood. And since the movement was an answer to demographic and agrarian difficulties, the new communities were themselves agricultural settlements, not trading posts. Hence, numerous as were the 'colonies' in southern Italy, there was none at the best harbour on the east coast, the site of Roman Brundisium (modern Brindisi). Hence, too, the aristocracy of the greatest of the new community, Syracuse, were called _Gamoroi_, which means 'those who shared the land'.

There were a few genuine trading-posts, it should be said, such as the recently discovered one at Al Mina at the mouth of the Orontes in northern Syria, established early in the eighth century, probably before even the first of the 'colonies'; or the later posts called Emporium (which means in Greek 'trading-station' or 'market-centre') in Spain and at the mouth of the Don on the Black Sea. Notably their number was very few, and normally they did not grow into genuine communities. This contrast with the 'colonies' helps place archaic Greek commercial development in its proper proportion.....

Above all, the relation between 'colony' and 'mother-city' was neither commercially based nor imperialistic in other ways. To be sure, when Corinth was the chief exporter of fine painted pottery, she sold them to her colonies, and through them to Etruscans and other non-Greek peoples who acquired a taste for them. But she sold them equally to other colonies, and when Athens took that trade away from her about the middle of the sixth century there was no visible change in 'colonial relations'. Nor was there a visible decline in Corinthian wealth or prosperity; nor did Athens' new commercial dominance (in this one field at least) required her to seek her own colonial outlets. Indeed, it has been well said that it was precisely because the colonies were independent from the start, both politically and economically, that on the whole they maintained close friendly relations with their respective mother-cities for many years -- based on tradition and cult, free from the irritations and conflicts often aroused elsewhere by commercial disputes and rivalries. (_The Ancient Greeks_, NY: Penguin Books, 1963, pp. 38-40). ***** -- Yoshie

* Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list