Talk:New Imperialism/Archive 13

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The temp page and vote are irrelevant now that the main page is a series/executive summary under the 32 K limit. Lir/PP's version has received no support and belongs on the VFD page, not the main article. 172 21:03, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

According to the Village pump, PP has now left, or at least changed his name, so I'm assuming no-one will be working on that temp page anymore. Therefore, there seems little point in keeping the link. I withdraw my vote for a link. Angela 01:51, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Due to these developments, Lir/PP's temp page was moved to User talk:Pizza Puzzle/New Imperialism (temp)172 07:05, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Imperialism in Asia

Glad to see the renaming of the tautological "New Imperialism and the Scramble for Africa". There's a big problem with the Asia daughter too, though, in that much of it replicates the subject and chronological coverage of the article "Imperialism in Asia" - indeed, the latter paradoxically says more about the post-1858 period in India then does "New Imperialism in Asia", which I realise is still in progress (all the more reason to rectify the anomaly now rather than after further work). The two should be combined in a single "Imperialism in Asia" covering the colonial impact as a whole, without a chronological division which was more real among colonisers than colonised. If this is in danger of being too large (as I suspect will be the case), it should be split between South and East Asia, which begins to better represent the reality of a supercontinent comprising most of the world's population. Graculus 13:54, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

== Series box == (from archive 11)

The "series box" is too big. Something the size of History of Germany's one would be more appropriate. You don't need details on what's in each sub-article: it should be obvious from the title and the summary. Martin 12:50, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Seconded: it also makes subsequent amendment all the harder: it should be kept basic for the time being, with the possibility of later expansion when it's more final. Graculus 13:19, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I implemented this earlier suggestion. 172 reverted me, saying "there's no need to do this". I suggest that doing this would be a good idea, for the reasons I gave above. I would like 172 to explain why it would not be a good idea, rather than just reverting me out of hand. Thanks. Martin 15:23, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

For the record, I did post an explanation on his talk page. 172 15:33, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

(Yup: I posted the above at the very same minute 172 posted the below to my talk page Martin)

I appreciate that you've been cleaning up the New Imperialism mess, especially the edits involving Scramble for Africa and Colonization of Africa. However, I reverted your work on the series box. Unlike the German history series, consisting of articles about each successive regime in chronological order, the arrangement of this series is less clean cut. So specifying what is included under each daughter articles only makes the series more navigable and less confusing. Although the structure and arrangement of the series will be altered over time by Graculus and I, the subtopics in the series box should stay. There's only a superficial reason to remove the subtopics box anyway 172 15:23, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

To 172: It isn't superficial; to me it's quite fundamental, since according to our very constructive discussions in recent days the structure of the daughters is subject to review. I'm giving lots of things a lot of thought, hence my present absence from the World of Edit. I'm with Martin: let's worry about subtopic[k?]ing the series box when it's final - that way we keep subsidiary issues to a minimum while we're elaborating a satisfactory overall result. I'm not so concerned about the series box going into whatever detail it wants, as that itemisation of its detailed content remains premature at this point (clearly, since you're still developing proposed daughters, and I'd like this to develop further). As I've said repeatedly and you've concurred, the series structure is still up for revision (see my Asia point above): if we keep to essentials now, we'll get there all the faster. Graculus 17:00, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

As I've already articulated, the presence of subtopics has a function. Yes, the structures ang arrangement of the daughter articles will be revised. But we can easily change the contents of the boxes when that happens. If you don't want to be troubled with it, I'll be the one to revise the boxes when needed. But right now, the changes haven't been made. I promise to promptly change the boxes when necessary. 172 17:14, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thank you, 172, that's most agreeable, but on grounds of maximum improvement for least unnnecessary effort (on your part for the time being) I'd rather keep the boxes compact for now, which in no way prejudices their future expansion. Any comments on the "Imperialism in Asia" matter are welcomed (recognising fully that you're still working on it).Graculus 17:25, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'll expend the effort to maintain them. After all, it has to be a somewhat navigable series for now, despite the articles all being works in progress. BTW, I'm not sure what you're asking about Imperialism in Asia. 172 17:34, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

See above (feel free to delete heading). Graculus 17:51, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

First, regarding the division of Asia's regions, what would be best? Three daughter articles on Southeast Asia, East Asia, and South Asia? Or two, lumping Southeast Asia with either East Asia or South Asia?

The shift from Company rule to viceroy in 1858 is, by and large, the focus of the South Asia section currently in New Imperialism in Asia. I understand the problem that this poses. 1858 predates the article's periodization of "New Imperialism" (1871-1914), but the shift entailed is important in a New Imperialism series. Currently, the New Imperialism in Asia article lacks anything on Southeast Asia. A new section on French Indochina is a must.

The dividing line between the two articles (Imperialism in Asia and New Imperialism in Asia) is very unclear, posing another major problem. Perhaps we can redirect the Imperialism in Asia to a renamed article that stops its focus after New Imperialism. Right now, China's in both articles. In New Imperialism's article, the focus of the China section, to state it very simply, should be why China retained sovereignty, despite the era's drive toward new crown colonies, protectorates, annexations, etc. If we do this, the pre-New Imperialism article we can deal with the opening of China while the New Imperialism in Asia article can retain its existing content, which explains why China bucked the trend of New Imperialism. 172 18:16, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The creation of the Viceroyalty isn't NI proper: it's a rectification of an older anomaly occasioned by the Mutiny as well as being in some respects a precursor to subsequent approaches, which is why I think it belongs in a continuous article. The China issue similarly merits treatment as a whole, since British action raised issues whose attempted resolution would subsequently highlight crucial limitations in the New imperialist agenda. South-east should go with South Asia, with which historically, culturally and economically it has more in common - it can be hived off if there's more substance later. Graculus 18:47, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The events of 1857-8 in India are more of a precursor of New Imperialism, and the text presented it as that. I just thought that it had a place as backgrounding. But you're right; it should be moved to Imperialism in Asia in place of a sentence or two of backrounding with a link to an article dealing with the end of Company rule. In its place could be content relevant to the post-1870s era.

In addition, China should be treated as a whole in Imperialism in Asia, but the brief section on China currently in New Imperialism in Asia could stay since it deals specifically with the era of concern. Simply put, it clarifies why China wasn't carved up like Africa, which will be of interest to lay readers. Good call on Southeast Asia too. I was leaning toward a separate article, but it could go in a section on South and Southeast Asia.

Finally, what do you think of redirecting Imperialism in Asia to an article that stops its focus in the 1870s? 172 19:09, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I just moved the content on South Asia to Imperialism in Asia, which focuses on the British in India from 1600 to 1949. Now we'll have to work on a new, relevant section in this series. 172 19:23, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm still for geographical over chronological subdivision. South and East Asia are in my opinion two geographically and culturally distict subcontinents of the Eurasian landmass, each as entitled to continental rank as the other (and less populous) one, which we think of separately as Europe. I think South-east Asia should for the time being be treated as a part of South Asia (under that title, if it's created), since that's the present UN definition and accords with the approach appropriate to the present topic. Graculus 19:39, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree. Lumping China and India into a single section was completely arbitrary. However, there should be an article dealing with "South and Southeast Asia." After all, most think of the subcontinent when the term "South Asia" is used, not Southeast Asia.

Geographical divisions of articles are certainly preferable. But how do we deal with South Asia, Southeast Asia, and East Asia specifically in this series? 172 19:54, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Separating South and South-east is fine by me if you think the latter can stand alone: I accept wholly your point about the narrower definition (my "middle South Asia", but not necessarily most people's).

For the geographical daughters, I see no problem: the core article can refer to the "Imperialism in ..." articles, which in their own right offer both long-term perspective and the related specifics, and can equally be linked to from elsewhere. Graculus 20:03, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Fair enough. Do you want to delete New Imperialism in Asia and lump Imperialism in Asia in the series? My only reservation is that many readers are going to be unaware of the defining characteristics of this era. 172 20:09, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The specific chronological relationship to any principally geographical links can be clarified in the central text, so I think that would work very well (presuming that you mean amalgamation rather than deleting your existing work). Graculus 20:20, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That's just what I was thinking. In that case, we'll have to finish moving the salvageable portions of New Imperialism in Asia to Imperialism in Asia. 172 20:23, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

New Draft

Don't panic everyone, it's just a draft, which I'm keen to discuss: some of it can come out, or other content can go in. I think it's consistent with what we've been discussing lately, but it's not set in stone. I've changed many of the sections about, renaming them to make some of the articles stand out on their own. I've made the British section more clearly country-specific and created a section for the US (others can follow if articles are to be created). I've put the theories at the end, where I think they'll be more readily understood after the factual outline, and I've moved the rivalries to after Asia & Africa so that some of the geographical and chronological groundwork will already be laid by the time the reader gets there. I've reworded and rearranged a lot within the sections in the hope of greater clarity. Comments are welcomed. Graculus 01:59, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

re "empire for its own sake" - do we know who coined this phrase? Be nice to have a reference... (that's as far as I got ;-))Martin

I tried but couldn't find its original source - it has been used, but not necessarily by notable contemporaries. Graculus 08:52, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

At some point we're going to be online concurrently, so I'll wait for that to happen so that we can discuss the recent changes. Although I am very enthusiastic about your changes, my subsequent edits focused on reconciling the main article with the daughters. Due to the existing content, it's a little impractical to have separate sections on Britain and the United States. Those sections would overlap excessively with those on imperial rivalry and the rise of New Imperialism. 172 05:19, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for the positive response, 172: I think in fact there has to be a section on Britain at least, to avoid the impression that the whole was a British-driven process: there are in effect two distinct British-related issues to be discussed here - (a) a past commercial hegemony which others wanted to challenge; and (b) Britain's response to growing adversity - and I think they need differentiating very sharply, hence the "Britain" heading.

It's almost as if there are in fact two New imperialisms, at least in their inception, one British and perhaps French, characterised by relative economic stagnation and hypertrophy of capital, and the other among the newly-industrialising nations, inspired by protection of "nascent industries" and maximisation of the market in which they might enjoy that protection. There are also concernes which transcend the division (settlement for Britain, Germany or Italy, but clearly not for the U.S.).

There may be alternative solutions, but at the moment I think at least two country boxes are going to be essential, to develop the differing national characteristics of the phenomenon: to me, as I've intimated before, the difference between the "old" and "new" imperialism is most real among the colonising lands (though its consequences were of course felt more immediately among the colonised), and its differing features among them should be brought out. Graculus 08:52, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think that it would be best to establish a separate section on France, rather than Britain. The existing content on the rise of the New Imperialism deals with a reactive Britain and the emerging newly industrialized nations (Germany, the United States, Japan, and Italy) fairly well, but does not adequately make the case that France doesn't fit in either of these categories. I'm not ruling out starting a separate daughter on Britain in the future, but right now one on France would be the most pressing. 172 09:02, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Covering British mainsprings here in so much more depth than the others could be misconstrued as implying that the British experience is somehow the norm and the others consequent or aberrant, which needs to be avoided: there's also the danger of the space issue raising its head again in the event that others wish to add appropriate content.

A solution might be to cover Britain and the U.S. (the two countries on which we have most content and which are likely to be of most immediate interest to English-speaking readers here) under lesser headings (ie the next level down in the hierarchy, with the three ='s) and in sub-daughter articles to link from the "Rise of ..." section. But we need a heading at least for Britain. Graculus 09:27, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

For practicality, we could lump the Germany, the United States, Italy, and Japan under the "emerging empires" section; the daughter "imperial rivarly" can be converted into "emmerging empires and imperial rivarly." France is more or less unique, so it could have its own daugher to be added in the coming days. The Netherlands is another one that certainly doesn't fall under the "emerging empires" category. Perhaps we can deal with the Dutch East Indies in the Imperialism in Asia article. 172 09:37, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The daughters' subsidiary arrangement can be finalised later, but we need precise differentiation in the core as to what's being addressed. If France is to have its own article, I think the U.S. is a must. To me Dutch action remains Old imperialism, and Indonesia definitely belongs in the existing Imperialism in Asia or any subsequent regional subdivision for the South or South-east. Graculus 10:02, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I meant that the Dutch East Indies was "old imperialism." I just wanted to clarify that it doesn't need a separate entry in this series. Regarding the other issue, while the United States can be lumped with the other emerging empires (Germany, Italy, and Japan), France has to stand on its own. My only position is that if we're going to create separate articles on individual powers, a French article is the most pressing. 172 10:08, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A French article is fine by me, but the U.S. remains a must, and the British coverage here definitely needs differentiating from the general overview: I propose one to represent each "type" - Britain and France because they're each distinctive, and the U.S. to stand for the newly-industrialising powers (Germany, Italy or Japan can be added in future if others wish). Graculus 10:37, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

BTW, we haven't addressed the problem of differing spellings. I've noticed that most of my "centers," "labors," and "industrializings" have been changed to be consistent with the non-American spellings more prevalently used in the articles. I'll have to change the rest sooner or later. 172 09:06, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Caught me - I confess, I spellchecked it. I suppose Old World spelling is approporiate given the focus, but perhaps a U.S. daughter should be spelled correctly to those it concerns. Graculus 09:27, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

For consistency I'll try to stick with the Old World spelling. 172 09:37, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Although there might be more interest in the Untied States among Americans, the rise of Germany was more significant at the time, due to the colonization of Africa, the overall shift toward New Imperialism, the alliance systems, and the relation between New imperialism and WWI. In order to minimize the number of daughter articles, we can lump the US, Germany, Japan, and Italy under a single category. A separate article on France can be comparative, chronicling the characteristics that differentiate the two main empires of the time. Right now, I think that it would be best to work on the "emerging empires and imperial rivalry daughter" and start a new one on France with a strong comparative focus. 172 10:49, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

And Britain? Graculus 11:20, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Due to France's uniqueness and the lack of content pertaining to French imperialism, it's more pressing to start a French daughter at the moment. 172 11:27, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No, it's most pressing to have a British daughter, or at least to treat the country separately in the central article, because the outline otherwise proposed presently suggests that Britain is somehow archetypal and the others variants. In fact they're all variants, as NI is a post-1880s construct which itself lumps together parallel expansionist urges founded on widely diverse domestic concerns. There has to be a background section which discusses the elements common to all, before going into conditions in particular countries. The whole discussion of British capital is irrelevant to the other participants except arguably France (where relative retardation rested on different foundations). So we need distinct sections on: Britain - France - The New Imperialism in the newly industrialising countries (or a better title). Graculus 11:38, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sure, they're all "variants," but Britain was the core country in the reactive position. The emerging empires all follow a pattern that is distinctive enough to lump them together. France was neither the "core" power nor an emerging one, so it would be best to establish a daughter on it first. A number of strong factors that propelled French colonialism were also unique to France. Moreover, creating a French daughter first would be more practical, as there is a severe lack of attention to France in all the articles. 172 11:55, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Britain isn't the core except to the extent that other countries reacted to its prior free-trade paramountcy. In the pursuit of the NI agenda, Britain is just another participant with its own problems to address. The development of British finance capital and policy has no claim to a treatment except under the heading for Britain specifically. Graculus 12:02, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Okay. Now I understand what's bothering you. You could move the treatment of finance in the The rise of the New Imperialism to something that clearly specifies a British focus. But this could be in the rise of New Imperialism daughter as a 3 = heading under a main 2= British heading. 172 12:08, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Good, we're almost there: but the headings should be the other way round - 2=Rise of NI; 3=Britain, with other 3='s for France and the rest, since "The rise of ..." should embrace all. The others' dim view of Britain's Pax Britannica advantage belongs in the broader 2=Rise of, the finance capital issue in 3=Britain. Graculus 12:17, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Good idea. Sorry for not being clear. Do you want to do this in the The rise of the New Imperialism daughter? 172 12:20, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Great: yes. I'll redraft the NI core accordingly. Graculus 12:23, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to be offline for a few hours. Happy editing. 172 12:26, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

3rd Para of 'Rise of New Imperialism- A main factor in the breakdown of Pax Britannica and the rise of the New Imperialism was the breakdown of the Concert of Europe.

4th Para - The decline of British hegemony after the Franco-Prussian War was occasioned by changes in the European and world economies and in the continental balance of power, such as the breakdown of the Concert of Europe

Concert of Europe used twice very close together[ redundant], but never explained- link is present the second time the word occurs, but leads to a page called Congress of Vienna where the word Concert of Europe is not even used once.

Para 5- The resulting limitation of both domestic markets and export opportunities led government and business leaders in Europe and later the US to see the solution in sheltered overseas markets united to the home country behind imperial tariff barriers, prompting the widespread abandonment of free trade among Europe's powers (in Germany from 1879 and in France from 1881).

Para 6-The Depression of 1873-1896 also struck the powers of Continental Europe, prompting their abandonment of free trade. As opportunities in the European market thus became further limited, some business and government leaders, such as King Leopold II of Belgium and Jules Ferry of France, concluded that sheltered overseas markets would solve the problems of low prices and over-accumulation of surplus capital caused by shrinking continental markets.

sheltered overseas markets - Seems to me too much repetition- can be integrated

The box on the right hand side on the 'New Imperialism Series can come at the end of the article. One should assume that when someone searches for the meaning of what New Imperialism is, one would first finish reading the overall writeup first before trying to get into details. KRS

Well spotted, KRS - the repetitions are the results of successive overlays originating in different edits, and they'll be tidied up at next redraft. There'll be lots more too as we finalise the daughter sequence & hierarchy, but it looks like we'll get it all sorted out soon enough. I agree about the CoE, and I'll get round to an article asap if no-one else beats me to it. At the moment (like 172, I hope!) I'm concentrating on more beery & musical matters. It's hot: medicinal, you understand. Graculus 14:37, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Excellent job restructuring The rise of the New Imperialism section. I added a little to the main page. Later, I'll restructure the daughter accordingly. 172 16:34, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done some more tightening up, which I hope is agreeable. I think the discussion of Chamberlain or Ferry belongs under their respective countries: I'm also not sure that either articulated concerns of capital surplus. Leopold is different, as the Etat Independant was a free-trade area founded on royalties rather than protected trade. Good decision on the daughter boxes - they can also be daughters to other related wider articles (History of Britain, Africa, Asia etc.) Graculus 22:51, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

What about american imperialism ? See for example http://www.newamericancentury.org 16:35, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

There are relevant articles on contemporary US hegemony, such as Pax Americana, which needs significant work. The articles on neoconservatism (United States) deals with this think-tank, the Project for the New American Century, specifically. 172 18:40, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I added a section on French Indochina in Imperialism in Asia. The sections on France in the main page and The rise of the New Imperialism are still unfinished. 172 06:45, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

We've been neglecting this series over the past couple of days. So far, Rise of New Imperialism and Imperial rivalry require significant editing. Imperial rivalry is mostly incomplete; while the Rise of the New Imperialism lacks a section on France along with the main article. I hope I get to these problems shortly. 172 09:17, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've been having dire connection problems which have kept me to short articles. Can we call NI proper done apart from the French part, and I'll take a look at "Rise of ..." Graculus 19:40, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Garculus: Excellent job copyediting Rise of the New Imperialism. We can also wait to finish. I'll try to get to France meanwhile. 172 04:30, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

-- Why was there an incohate list of 19th century historical figures on the top of this page? Any comparative historical article, one on long-term historical processes, macro-level structural change, international relations, etc. could start off with a list of hundreds of key actors of the era. Let's keep these kinds of lists on articles related to dates. Wenteng 19:26, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)