Indeed, the diYculties of applying post-colonial theory to its case has been
recently highlighted by Horning (2006) and some of the scholars who dis-
cussed her paper, in particular O’KeeVe (2006). For the discussion in this
section it is argued here that the concept of internal colonialism should not be
used for the Irish case. The political situation in Ireland was of a very diVerent
nature to the European treatment to hunter-gatherer societies living in their
own frontiers. The case of Ireland seems to be closer to that of other parts of
Europe with the emergence of an increasingly powerful nationalism contrary
to that promoted by the central government. Similar cases, although later in
date, are those of Catalonia and the Basque country in Spain, where the
manifestation of nationalist feelings started to be stronger in the last three
decades of the century. In Europe both internal colonialism and opposition
against non-state nationalisms could be seen as part of a trend to culturally
homogenize all the subjects within the state. This ideology was partly behind
the standardization proposed by political nationalism. Within its framework,
the collective sovereignty of the people—a key concept of the nation as
deWned in the French Revolution (Chapter 3)—assumed that the individuals
forming the nation were part of a uniform group with consistent symbols and
traditions. As Hobsbawm and Ranger clearly demonstrated in 1983, an
examination of daily practice showed how wrong this idea was. As a result
it led to the intellectuals’ attempts—in many cases successfully—to invent (or
recreate) traditions through the establishment of a whole set of festivals, civil
rituals, and customs in the nineteenth century both in Europe and elsewhere
(Hobsbawm & Ranger 1983). Yet, an important diVerence is that colonizers
did not attempt fully to integrate the colonized into their nation.
The expansion of frontiers and occupation of neighbouring territories also
led to internal colonialism in independent countries such as Russia and the
United States. Russia had started to expand in the sixteenth century and
continued doing so throughout the nineteenth century (map 4). As one of
the members of the recently created Russian Geographical Society, Alexander
Balasoglo, said:
The East belongs to Russia unchangeably, naturally, historically, voluntarily...Itwas
bought with the blood of Russia already in the prehistoric quarrels of the Slavs with
the Finns and the Turks, it has been suVered for in Asia through the Mongol yoke, it
was welded to Russia by the Cossacks and has been earned from Europe by protecting
it from the Mongols.
(Balasoglo in Bassin 1994: 121).The European character of Russia gave it a role in the civilizing mission that
Balasoglo saw being fulWlled in East Asia. The abolition of serfdom after the
Crimean War in 1861 meant the disruption of the social, political, and
282 Colonial Archaeology