在“东方主义”的语境中，澳大利亚和爱尔兰有着重要的差异。遵循历史地理学的规律，正如人类创造了自己的文化和民族身份，我们也创造了自己的历史。记忆往往与历史相匹配，但正如科林伍德(Collingwood, 1970年，麦卡锡[McCarthy]， no date: 13)所言:“记忆不是历史，因为历史是某种有组织的或推理的知识，而记忆是没有组织的，根本不是推理的。”毫无疑问，“记忆”对爱尔兰历史的影响与其他任何历史一样，但爱尔兰历史至少似乎有某种共识。另一方面，澳大利亚的历史有两种截然不同的版本:一种开始于1788年英国人登陆植物湾(Botany Bay)的时候，另一种开始于至少4万年(或许12万年)之前。直到今天，澳大利亚的传统历史仍然是以英国人的到来为开端的——正如一句古老的非洲谚语所说:只有当狮子有了历史学家，猎人们才不再是英雄。澳大利亚和爱尔兰在这方面差异的关键是“统治”和“种族”问题。这里的基本论点是，尽管爱尔兰人无疑受到英国统治的压迫，但这与澳大利亚土著面临的压迫有着根本的不同。英国殖民统治时期对爱尔兰人的统治和镇压是在接触的背景下进行的。“本土的”爱尔兰人肯定被英国人置于不利地位，这是殖民主义的一个典型特征——Meinig在他对帝国扩张的地理分析中，长期以来一直关注入侵者对被入侵者使用最高政治权威(Meinig, 1989)。英国人和爱尔兰人的关系非常符合米尼格的亡国理论。他的论点之一是，帝国扩张的目标是攫取财富，并以此建立新的经济关系，以达到这些目的。英国人(入侵者)对爱尔兰人(被入侵者)的政治权威可以通过对种族和宗教身份的操纵来说明，这种操纵是“为了防止主体人口团结起来反对占领国”(维基百科，2006a)。英国统治下的经济剥削具有“种族(和潜在的民族主义)方面，因为它是通过宗教歧视来表达的”(Komito, 1985: 3)。这种“分而治之”战略(以及宗教和民族主义之间的联系)的遗产今天仍然存在于爱尔兰。
There is an important discrepancy within the context of ‘Orientalism’ between Australia and Ireland. Abiding by the rules of historical geography, just as humans make their cultures and ethnic identities we also make our own histories. More often than not, memory is matched to history but as Collingwood (1970 in McCarthy, no date: 13) states “memory is not history, because history is a certain kind of organized or inferential knowledge, and memory is not organized, not inferential at all”. Though undoubtedly ‘memory’ impinges on Irish history the same as any other, Irish history at least seems to have some type of consensus. On the other hand, there are two distinct versions of Australian history: one that begins when the British landed in Botany Bay in 1788, and one that begins at least 40,000 (and possibly 120,000) years before that. Conventional Australian history to this day remains the version that begins with the arrival of the British – as the old African proverb goes: only when lions have historians will the hunters cease to be heroes. Key to the differences between Australia and Ireland in this context are issues of ‘domination’ and ‘race’. The underlying argument here is that whilst the Irish were undoubtedly oppressed by British rule, it was a fundamentally different kind of oppression than that faced by Australia’s Aboriginals.The domination and repression of the Irish during British colonial rule was done in the context of engagement. The ‘native’ Irish were certainly disadvantaged by the British, and this was a typical feature of colonialism – Meinig has long drawn attention, within his geographical analysis of imperial expansion, to the employment of supreme political authority by the invaders over the invaded (Meinig, 1989). The relationship between the British and the Irish fits very neatly into Meinig’s theories of subjugation. One of his arguments is that the goal of imperial expansion was to extract wealth and in doing so to forge new economic relationships to reach these ends. The political authority of the British (invaders) over the Irish (invaded) is illustrated by the manipulation of ethnic and religious identities that occurred “in order to keep the subject population from uniting against the occupying power” (Wikipedia, 2006a). Economic exploitation under British rule had an “ethnic (and latently nationalist) dimension because it was expressed through religious discrimination” (Komito, 1985: 3). The legacy of this ‘divide and rule’ strategy (as well as the link between religion and nationalism) remains in Ireland today.