Re: What really is Andre Gunder Frank's position on worlds? (fwd)

yes there is even more evidence than what you say




    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

               ANDRE    GUNDER      FRANK

Senior Fellow                                      Residence
World History Center                    One Longfellow Place
Northeastern University                            Apt. 3411
270 Holmes Hall                         Boston, MA 02114 USA
Boston, MA 02115 USA                    Tel:    617-948 2315
Tel: 617 - 373 4060                     Fax:    617-948 2316
Web-page:csf.colorado.edu/agfrank/     e-mail:franka@fiu.edu
Web-page UPDATES are at   http://rrojasdatabank.info/agfrank 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:37:59 -0700
From: Duncan and Joan Craig <dunkers@pacbell.net>
To: Andre Gunder Frank <franka@fiu.edu>
Subject: Re: What really is Andre Gunder Frank's position on worlds?



Andre Gunder Frank wrote:
 > I have not stidied the pre'Columbian'Americas, except for
 > readint this and that, and writing in response to some of
 > that, in my commentaRY CHAPTER IN THE kARDULIAS EDITED
 > wORLD sYSTEM BOOK sorrry for caps, where you can look up
 > what i had=have- to say.
 >
 > The Afro-Eurasian sysem is ''global'' or '' world'' in
 > the sens that it expanded to incoorporate the ''new
 > world'' - IW also speaks so, but of course his ''world''
 > is European Atlantic and only starts to incoporate the
 > rest after 1750.
 >
 >
 > Answers to 1-4 1 no ,2 yes, 3 as you wish for the
 > opccasion,context of yours, 4.yes and no = also other
 > criteria, see bronze age article or Denemark edited book
 > cheers agf On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Elson Boles wrote:
 >
 >
 >> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:54:24 -0400 From: Elson Boles
 >> <boles@svsu.edu> To: franka@fiu.edu Cc:
 >> wsn@csf.colorado.edu Subject: What really is Andre
 >> Gunder Frank's position on worlds?
 >>
 >> Dear Gunder,
 >>
 >> I've been working on an article for Review since about
 >> the time we both presented at an ISA panel in Chicago,
 >> Feb 2001 (I presented on the Japan-US silknetwork and
 >> published my paper in JWSR.)   A heavy teaching load
 >> keeps me from finishing this article (and much else).
 >>
 >> When assessing your and Gills arguments, it is
 >> sometimes necessary to distinguish the literal word
 >> with the spirit of intention (or the content).  An
 >> recent example is found in WSN in which you audaciously
 >> claim:
 >>
 >> In reality, there are and have been NO civilizations,
 >> societies, cultures, ethnicities   and even states in
 >> and of themselves. There are NO such essentialist
 >> intrinsically self-contained entities. To claim,
 >> identify, and study any such makes NO sense whatsoever
 >> and only beclouds reality. There are only connections
 >> and relations within and among such alleged
 >> civilizations.
 >>
 >> However, the spirit of the words is later qualified: "I
 >> dont deny existence of culgture, of cousre not, but
 >> evidence suggests that it is not a much causative
 >> element of what happens. Structure is mucg mnore so."
 >>
 >> This particular subject of structure and agency isn't
 >> part of my essay.  However, what is concerns the
 >> temporal and spatial boundaries of your and Gills 5000
 >> year old system.
 >>
 >> Let me switch to the third-person.
 >>
 >> Frank very frequent uses  the term "global" in
 >> characterizing the difference of your and IW's views,
 >> but he doesn't literally mean the globe which implies
 >> the entire planet.  The spirit of the term, and
 >> sometimes alternative wording like "Eurasian world
 >> system," indicates that Gills and Frank's world system
 >> is smaller than the entire planet.  Another example is
 >> that in one essay Gills and Frank write:
 >>
 >> However, the 'New World' in the 'Americas' was of
 >> course home to some world-systems of its own before its
 >> incorporation into our (pre-existing) world system
 >> after 1492 (Frank and Gills 1996: 3).
 >>
 >> Clearly, their use the term "world-system" (with
 >> hyphen), must be an editorial error.  And Barry has
 >> confirmed this in correspondence with me.  But this
 >> issue has led to confusion for many, including
 >> Wallerstein, who incorrectly contended that, "They use
 >> the singular because, for them, there is and has been
 >> only one world system through all of historical time
 >> and space" and "They cannot conceive of multiple
 >> 'world-systems' coexisting on the planet" (1996 [1991]:
 >> 294, 295).   There is evidence in Gills and Frank's
 >> writings to the contrary, including the statement about
 >> the "belated incorporated Americas after 1492 and of
 >> Oceania after 1760."
 >>
 >> The question then is what was in the Americas prior to
 >> that?  So, I put these more general questions to AGF:
 >>
 >> 1.  Do you see other "world systems" existing
 >> coterminous with the Eurasian world system of ReOrient?
 >>
 >>
 >> 2.  At some point in time in human history, do you not
 >> acknowledge the existence of systems (and more of them)
 >> smaller than your large world systems?
 >>
 >> 3.  If so, what do you call them if not bands, tribes,
 >> chiefdoms, or networks, or "mini-systems"?  If not,
 >> then what?
 >>
 >> 4.  Is it not the case that you use the same criteria
 >> as Wallerstein (a division of labor) to measure the
 >> boundaries of your systems in time and space?
 >>
 >> Elson E. Boles Assistant Professor Sociology Saginaw
 >> Valley State University
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
 > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 >
 > ANDRE    GUNDER      FRANK
 >
 > Senior Fellow
 > Residence World History Center                    One
 > Longfellow Place Northeastern University
 > Apt. 3411 270 Holmes Hall                         Boston,
 > MA 02114 USA Boston, MA 02115 USA                    Tel:
 > 617-948 2315 Tel: 617 - 373 4060                     Fax:
 > 617-948 2316 Web-page:csf.colorado.edu/agfrank/
 > e-mail:franka@fiu.edu Web-page UPDATES are at
 > http://rrojasdatabank.info/agfrank
 > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
 > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 >
 >
 > With all due respect, the verdict is not in as to the
 > total isolation of the 'New World' before 1492. The
 > four-hundred year old paradigm of the 'Land Bridge Theory'
 > is being challenged by new forensics, and is now a 
coastal migration theory. There is new evidence from DNA, 
antigens,
anthropology, archaeo-astronomy,...all pointing to the 
'possibility' that North and South America were outlier 
areas of the core at Teotihuacan, which in turn was an 
outlier area of the core, Hangzhou.

Duncan Craig