1. When i wrote my "response" of march 4, i had notyet read all new ones
of march 3.
2. unlike so manby hyphenators, I dunno how to pick stuff out of their
msgs here and there and send it back with "comments" so i have to do it
all serially, sorry.
3. on Elson's "basic questions of units of analysis...division of
labor...interdependence of livelihoods" a simple quotation from the
Portuguese Tome Pires about 1615 [?] - and note that the Portuguese
also used Genoan capital and both were in competition with the Venitians!
"Whoever controls Malacca has his hands on the throat [not to mention
the LIVELIHOOD!] of Venice"
The Portuguese TRIED to control Malacca and through it South East Asia,
but as Barendse et al have pointed out, they never succedded in "controling"
anything, and certainly not the DIVISION OF LABOR in Southeast Asia, much
less between it and China, NOT TO MENTION in the WORLD economy
So yes indeed it IS the old question of THE UNIT OF ANALYSIS.
And THAT is what the hyphenetors got and still get WRONG - and so still
does Arrighi in the Lond 20th century, who was cited in
their support by Elsen and i read only after i disputed Arrighi's
"innovations".
THAT is the point - and PROVES the point - Salvatore is asking about.
so there!
gunder