Talk:New Imperialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Politics (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject History (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

i disagree with when new imperialism ended[edit]

i dont think it ended in 1914 when world war one started im certain that it lasted longer im sure it goes to 1919 when treaty ending world war one happined casue is it ended at the start of the war then fighting world war one was the end but im certain that this article is german centered casue franco prussian war was start of a united german empire and world war 1's end was when german empire broke up. so in fare ness we should at least say 1919 was the end of this period not 1914. and american empire did not break up til independence of philipines but japanese empire broke up in 1945 when ww2 ended. so obviusly this article is going by germany so why not take on atleast 4 more years of history to this article. 99.51.212.6 (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

vandalism?[edit]

While reading this article I came across this line: "the military actions needed to secure empire and j mac was also seen by colonial enthusiasts as 'the first, faltering steps of convalescence'" Looks like vandalism (j mac), to me. However, I'm too tired to find and correct the issue as it should be; someone should probably correct this line.68.53.232.61 10:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Very confused about this vandalism. The term "j mac" appears in the article, but when attempting to edit it out, it is not in the edit section for some reason. Could someone with more experience correct the issue please.66.20.28.21 16:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
It (j mac) has probably been edited out by now, but it would have helped to say what section it is/was in! Hugo999 (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

title[edit]

There are different ways of refering to this period of time, If you consider New Imperialism i the most accurate you should make reference to Imperialism itself when giving the definition and context for avoiding confussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsaba (talkcontribs) 17:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have gone through the article versions in a careful (and yet, admittedly imperfect) way to attempt to salvage what I can of both versions in the hopes of finding a middle ground which both sides can see as an improvement. I have tried to pay special attention to 172's immediate criticisms of Lir's version, but I have also deliberately not dug very deeply into the archives of this dispute.

Reading' Lir's version, I am disappointed to see that 172 simply reverted it. It seems to me that whatever flaws his version had, it did bring to the table some additional information which would undoubtably be of value to the reader. I have tried to retain those features while simultaneously not succumbing to what 172 calls "economic determinism".

For example, I found it useful to see the term "great adventure" linked to this period. I found some of Lir's phrasing (but not all) in the first paragraph to be superior.

To make a statement about the ethics of wiki editing: a revert is a slap in the face. Sometimes, therefore, a revert is warranted, for example when the changes are wholly malicious, or completely without merit. But to revert a genuine attempt at positive change, without even a cursory attempt to take into account the other person's changes, strikes me as wrong. Isn't it better to try to see what the other fellow is trying to do, and work with him?

I hope that my changes will be well-recieved, and of course edited carefully for further improvement. I don't intend for this to be the last word, by any means. It is exceptionally rare for me to edit at all, and I can't remember a single time in at least 3 years now that I actually got involved in a brewing edit controversy. But I did so because I'm really tired of this battle and because I think just maybe my influence can be positive.

Jimbo Wales 16:56, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I rewrote Lir's general overview, which overlooked every other trend and segment in society other than the "industrialists," in order to make it acceptable. However, it's now adds hardly anything that isn't already stated in breakdown of Pax Britannica section. This "general overview" was unnecessary to begin with (and nonstandard style). Hopefully, this will appease Lir, so I'll leave it alone. 172 19:34, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


I'm confused as how you can feel that by deleting most everything I added...that you will have somehow appeased me. You didn't rewrite what I wrote -- you simply deleted my general overview, and replaced it with completely unrelated comments (which may have a place in the article; but don't convey the information which my text conveyed). My ideas haven't been edited by you, they are just gone -- where is the compromise, cooperation, or discussion? As for whether the "general overview" was unnecessary -- please explain why you feel this article shouldn't provide readers with an overview of the content. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Lir,

Yes, I didn't rewrite what you wrote; some portions of your general overview were utterly unacceptable. However, all of the points that I could salvage appear in the new general overview. Below I go through your general overview point by point:

The expansions of this period took place against a background of increasing competition over resources, strategic power, and prestige between the industrialised nations (following the erosion of the 19th-century's "Pax Britannica").

You can find this in the new general overview. See the first and forth paragraphs of the new general overview. 172 21:03, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This period coincides with the rise of Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United States;

Yes, see first paragraph of the new general overview. 172 21:00, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

also during this period, China and Latin America were beginning to industrialize.

Hardly so. Even so, this would be off topic. 172 21:00, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

During this period, the world powers sought market and territorial expansion;

This is better addressed in the second paragraph of the new general overview. 172 21:00, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

merchants,national leaders, and other economic elites, desired new export markets -- they urged their governments to secure "captive markets", to end "free trade", and adopt policies of "protectionism".

(1) Only "economic elites???" What about colonial administrators, parliamentarians, military officers, missionaries, European settlers living abroad, etc., etc. If you're going to bring this point up, you should address the support among both capitalists and bureaucrats. (2) It also seems odd that merchants are listed first. The days of merchant capitalism were associated with mercantilism of the sixteenth and eighteenth century, not the era of the New Imperialism. The first state of capitalism--commercial capitalism-- was associated with merchants, geographical discoveries, mercantilism, and the increase in overseas trade wrought during the colonization of the Americas. Beginning about 1750, a new phase of capitalism, industrial capitalism, was made possible by the accumulation of vast amounts of capital and its investment in machinery and the factory system of manufacturing. A hundred years before the era of New Imperialism, the industrialist had already replaced the merchant as the dominant figure in the capitalist system; industrial capitalism mainly corresponded with the age of Pax Britannica. New Imperialism generally coincided with the era in which the ultimate control and direction of large areas of industry came into the hands of financiers, when industrial capitalism gave way to finance capitalism. I give you credit, though, for trying to account for imperialism's base of support, so the new general overview accounts for imperialism's base of support in the third paragraph. (3) Your point about captive markets and the waning of the free commerce of Pax Britannica is s now addressed in the second paragraph of the new general overview. 172 21:00, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This impulse was primarily motivated by perceived economic trends -- as well as increasing industrialist competition over resources, income, and prestige.

(1) Certainly New Imperialism occurred against the backdrop of the Long Depression, but what about the breakdown of the Concert of Europe? (2) Industrialist competition over...? Only industrialists were competing over "resources, income, and prestige?" And only their competition was relevant to these trends? I don't know where to begin to address what's wrong with that. Your general overview seems to be based on the implicit assumption that the state is a mere organ of class rule (the kind of crude Marxism that turns the stomach of serious academics influenced by Marxist analysis), ignoring the international agential power of the state and the role of the state as an actor in society. 172 21:00, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)



  • 172 stated: "also during this period, China and Latin America were beginning to industrialize." -- Hardly so. Even so, this would be off topic.
    • Lir responded: In comparison to, say, Afghanistan -- these regions were industrializing. Investors came to both China and Latin America, and invested their capital in the development of industrial infrastructure -- in that respect, these regions were certainly developing. This is not "off-topic" -- it is quite relevant to the issue at hand, since this "economic imperialism" was very much a part of the "new imperialism". As industrial output increased in China and Latin America, it further saturated the market; and thus, further inspired the European countries to increase and solidify their control of the global market.
      • Yes, China and Latin America were major destinations of the surplus capital of the industrialized great powers. However, the scale of industrial development in these societies at the time was relatively insignificant. Even to this day the majority of China's population resides in the countryside and is employed by the agrarian economy. 172 03:56, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Although it has unfortunately taken you a year and a half to express your objection to the above sentence; I am glad that you have done so. I agree that it is somewhat misleading to merely state, "they were industrializing" -- I offer the following compromise sentence:


  • 172 stated some other things.
    • Lir mostly agreed.
  • 172 stated: Certainly New Imperialism occurred against the backdrop of the Long Depression, but what about the breakdown of the Concert of Europe?
    • Lir responds: Why not mention both?
      • I agree that it should mention both. These trends were the flip side of the same coin, so to speak. And I did mention both. Please check it again. 172 03:58, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • 172 continues: Your general overview seems to be...the kind of crude Marxism that turns the stomach of serious academics
        • Lir notes: That is a personal attack.
          • Lirath Q. Pynnor
            • This is not a "personal attack." The subject of the sentence was the "general overview," not you. I assume that you are not a sentence.172 03:56, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Recent changes[edit]

Once again, please allow me to go through the problems with the recent changes point by point:

Before this era, Britain was the world's first and only industrialized power; its hegemony (Pax Britannica) was largely unchallenged. Between 1815 and 1870, a gospel of free trade and laissez faire had defined Britain's economic relations with the outside world; this school of thought (perhaps influenced by the American Revolution)

Yes, of course this was influenced by the American Revolution, plus a plethora of other trends. However, this is a general overview of New Imperialism; the breakdown of British, French, Spanish, and Portuguese mercantilism in the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century requires going into considerably greater detail than what we go into in this paragraph. This is a topic for a different section (in a different article). 172 04:35, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

...argued that there were no advantages in possessing colonies and that the cost of defending them was an expensive burden -- as a result, formal colonial expansion was comparatively small.

However, by the middle of the nineteenth century, other nations, such as Germany, the United States (US), Japan, and Italy, began to industrialize. To compete with British industry, these nations placed protective tariffs on imports. During the 1870s and 1880s, the free commerce of Pax Britannica waned as tariff walls rose within the US, Russia, France, and Germany. Meanwhile, as the industrialized nations gradually began to produce an increasing surplus of manufactured goods, Chinese and Latin American industry was stimulated by foreign capital investment;

European capital investment certainly had profound effects on the structures of the societies and economies. But what you did not see was significant autonomous industrial development in these nations in the late nineteenth century. Lir, I think we can make this easier if you just tell me on the talk page what you're trying to say. Are you trying to write a sentence that relates what was going on in East Asia and Latin America to New Imperialism (that seems to be my impression)? If that's your goal, this sentence doesn't seem too well-grounded in historical reality. If you want, I'll write something else. 172 04:35, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

further saturating the market -- the Long Deppression (1873-1896) convinced policymakers that colonialism, captive markets, and territorial expansion were answers to this growing economic crisis.

And some colonial bureaucrats found it to be an opportunity to bestow on themselves formal titles and feather their own nests. This sounds like Leopold, Crispi, and Ferry, but I would not just mention the Long Depression (the "economic crisis") as the only trend worth noting). 172 04:35, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Though lawmakers often used economic arguments to explain this resurgence of imperialist doctrine; it also had support from explorers, religious leaders, and the military -- who generally supported the movement for scientific, cultural, and stragetic reasons.

(The correct spelling is "strategic.") Everyone supported it for his/her own reasons. It's incorrect to distinguish one group and say that it's supporting imperialism for one reason, and then distinguish another group and say that it's supporting imperialism for another reason. History is more complicated than that. (In historical writing, a reductionism is a more problematic vice than an equivocation, so it's alright to be strategically vague at times.) 172 04:35, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Even some trade unions and socialists were supportive of the process.

An additional cause, of these expansionist aims, was the unstable balance of power which arose from the Franco-Prussian War, the breakdown of the Concert of Europe, and the creation of the new nation-states: Germany and Italy. Such competition resulted in increasing great power tensions and arguably led to the Great War.

Ugh. The word "cause" hurts my eyes. Also, when you're saying "arguably led to the Great War," you're making it sound too much like a simplistic matter of cause and effect. History is not mathematics. It was more carefully worded before. 172 04:35, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)



Firstly, if I write something, and you say it is "crude" -- that is a personal attack. If you say it "sucks" -- that is a personal attack. Try to be tactful. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I am uncertain how criticizing a piece of writing is a personal attack. Unless you are your writing. I would think a personal attack woul dbe calling you crude or saying you suck... maybe a personal attack would be saying your writing in general is crude or your writing in general sucks. But surely a comment directed at a specific piece of writing is not a personal attack. Snowspinner 17:11, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
But it is, give it some more thought. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Unless you are in fact your writing. Which is entirely possible, I suppose, given that you're a space alien. So why not also be a piece of writing. All the same, I find it unlikely. Snowspinner 20:50, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • You reverted a number of changes; when it appears from your above writing, that you only have a half-dozen complaints -- wouldn't it have been more productive for you to simply edit back a comple items...you do realize that reverting is inappropriate?
    • 172 stated: "this school of thought (perhaps influenced by the American Revolution)" -- Yes, of course this was influenced by the American Revolution...However, this is a general overview of New Imperialism...This is a topic for a different section (in a different article).
      • Lir replies: this consisted of 6 words...is it really such a problem for you? If Britain's anti-colonial period was inspired by the American Revolution...the reader will benefit from knowing that the New Imperialism was a reversal of policy extending back to the revolution.
    • 172 stated: Lir, I think we can make this easier if you just tell me on the talk page what you're trying to say. Are you trying to write a sentence that relates what was going on in East Asia and Latin America to New Imperialism?
      • Lir replied: of course, I would agree that there wasn't a great deal of autonomous industrial development within China/Latin America -- however, unless you disagree with the idea that foreign investors were investing in those regions...I'm not sure what your objection to the inclusion of that material is.
    • 172 stated: "further saturating the market -- the Long Deppression (1873-1896) convinced policymakers that...: -- I would not just mention the Long Depression...
      • Lir replied: by all means, list other reasons -- please do not revert my writing, merely because it doesn't include everything...it would have been far more productive if you had edited the sentence to read "the Long Depressed helped convince policymakers".
    • 172 stated: "Though lawmakers often used economic arguments to explain this resurgence of imperialist doctrine; it also had support from explorers, religious leaders, and the military -- who generally supported the movement for scientific, cultural, and stragetic reasons." -- It's incorrect to distinguish one group and say that it's supporting imperialism for one reason, and then distinguish another group and say that it's supporting imperialism for another reason. History is more complicated than that.
      • Lir replied: Firstly, its condescending to say, "History is more complicated than that."; secondly, do note that the text says "generally supported"...and, in general, religious leaders were not primarily concerned with creating strategic naval bases...military leaders were not primarily concerned with spreading christianity...and explorers were primarily concerned with science and discovery.
    • 172 stated: ";;Such competition resulted in increasing great power tensions and arguably led to the Great War." --Also, when you're saying "arguably led to the Great War," you're making it sound too much like a simplistic matter of cause and effect.
      • Lir replies: Not at all, the earlier text said that the New Imperialism "laid the foundations" for the Great War -- it is our POV that this economic competition had an impact on the Great War...there are others who will insist it had other causes.


Since you raised only 5 objections to my revision; each of which I believe can be addressed by briefly editing the relevant section of my version -- I will do so, and we shall see if you have further objections. If you find it tedious objecting to each point -- try editing my revision, don't revert everything simply because of a few grammar issues. You can compare my older version with this new one, which I believe addresses (to some degree) each of your 5 points...[1] I have also placed the final paragraph of the Overview, at the top -- it seems most relevant to first inform the user that this was a period of expansionism...marked by depression, unbalanced power, and the existence of new nations. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I can't take this any more[edit]

I'm just going to level with you. Yes, I do find it tortuous to respond to each and every one of your points. I know that you'll call this a "personal attack," but your writing is dense and based on a crude, simplistic brand of Marxism; and I don't see it improving. It is unreasonable for anyone to expect me to submit myself to another year and a half of wrangling with you to no avail. Let's just have a poll on which version users prefer. 172 21:12, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


What are your new objections to my revisions? Have I not addressed each and every objection you have raised? Lirath Q. Pynnor

Every time I go through problems with your changes you make even more sweeping changes with yet more problems for me to address. This is your classic tactic of filibustering, which is by no means unique to this page (And I'm just one of many who has had to endure this). After a year and a half, I know all too well that you're trying to frustrate me to the point of getting an ulcer in order to get me to go way and quit editing the page, so that you can ave this page all to yourself to impose your POV or personal agenda.

I'm just too weak to deal with this any more. Let's just settle this quickly and painlessly. We can settle this through the poll below (which does not state which version is yours and which version is mine in order to level the playing field-- see, I'm being fair). If I lose, I promise to abide by the results; on top of that, I'll even take this page off my watchlist and quit editing it if I lose. Call this whatever you will, I'm just being honest. 172


Sweeping changes? What was so sweeping about adding a sentence about investments in China and Latin America? That was about the most "sweeping" statement I added! You do realize, that this is a wiki -- I'm allowed to edit your text. Polls are not an acceptable method of resolving debate; you are going to have to discuss your objections. Anhd yes, its going to take awhile...this is a lengthy article. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I don't have another year and a half. I'm busy enough as it is-- I edit Wikipedia in the time in which I used to sleep. A poll is just an opportunity to open up the discussion to more editors. Instead of just talking with me, you'll be able to interact with other editors, who may be more receptive to the way you see things. 172 04:38, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you are too busy; but, that really isn't an acceptable reason to forgo all discussion. Let me note that you haven't been discussing for a year and a half -- you have been avoiding discussing for a year and a half. Really, if you put half as much effort into discussing -- as you do into belittling, reverting, and avoiding...you'd accomplish a great deal of discussion. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Poll on the general overview[edit]

Version 1[edit]

The Long Depression (1873-1896) helped convinced policymakers that colonialism, captive markets, and territorial expansion were answers to a growing economic crisis. Additional (and equally important) causes, of these expansionist aims, wwere the unstable balance of power which arose from the Franco-Prussian War, the breakdown of the Concert of Europe, and the creation of new nation-states: Germany and Italy. The resulting competition resulted in increasing great power tensions and arguably led towards the Great War.

Before this era, Britain was the world's first and only industrialized power; its hegemony (Pax Britannica) was largely unchallenged. Between 1815 and 1870, a gospel of free trade and laissez faire had defined Britain's economic relations with the outside world; this school of thought (perhaps influenced by the American Revolution) argued that there were no advantages in possessing colonies and that the cost of defending them was an expensive burden -- as a result, formal colonial expansion was comparatively small.

However, by the middle of the nineteenth century, other nations, such as Germany, the United States (US), Japan, and Italy, began to industrialize. To compete with British industry, these nations placed protective tariffs on imports. During the 1870s and 1880s, the free commerce of Pax Britannica waned as tariff walls rose within the US, Russia, France, and Germany. Meanwhile, as the industrialized nations gradually began to produce an increasing surplus of manufactured goods, Chinese and Latin American industry was stimulated by foreign capital investment.

Though lawmakers often used economic arguments to explain this resurgence of imperialist doctrine; it also had support from explorers, religious leaders, and the military -- who generally supported the movement for scientific, cultural, and strategic reasons. Even some trade unions and socialists were supportive of the process.

Support[edit]

--200.126.153.25 22:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC) - I am a doing an oxford career in modern history and I specialize on this theme

Version 2[edit]

Before the era of the New Imperialism, Britain was the world's first and only major industrialized power; and British hegemony (Pax Britannica) was largely unchallenged. Between 1815 and 1870, the gospel of free trade and laissez faire defined Britain's economic relations with the outside world; and formal colonial expansion was comparatively small. The school of laissez faire argued that there were no advantages in possessing colonies and that the cost of defending them was an expensive burden. Instead, British policy preferred to open the outside world to trade its industry.

However, by the middle of the nineteenth century, other nations, such as Germany, the United States, Japan, and Italy, began to industrialize. To compete with British industry, these nations placed protective tariffs on imports. The free commerce of the early nineteenth century era of Pax Britannica waned as tariff walls rose in the United States, Russia, France, and Germany in the 1870s and 1880s. Great Britain and its competitors—now producing a surplus of manufactured goods—began to search for trade outlets in captive markets; the ensuing Long Depression of 1873-1896 convinced the great powers' most influential policymakers that colonial empire was the solution to the problem.

Though industrialists, financiers, and imperialist statesmen in the great powers often used economic arguments to explain the necessity for colonial expansion, the New Imperialism (1870-1914) had support from a broad array of groups, including colonial administrators, missionaries, atavistic military elites, and elements of the landed aristocracies. Even some trade union leaders and some European socialists were enthusiastic about colonial expansion.

The scramble for overseas territory sprung just as much from the international rivalry between European states, stemming from problems of the balance of power in Europe that were extended abroad, as from their economic competition. Following the Franco-Prussian War, the breakdown of the Concert of Europe and the creation of nation-states in Germany and Italy heightened aggressive national rivalry, in which nations began to secure colonies according to what they believed to be a strategic necessity. Such competition resulted in increasing great power tensions and laid the groundwork for the start of the First World War.

Support[edit]

  1. --128.243.220.41 16:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC) This introduction seems superior to me.

Third option (no general overview)[edit]

Support[edit]

  1. 172 21:55, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC) (Adding a general overview was unnecessary in the first place. Everything addressed in either version is addressed clearly enough in the introduction and the section dealing with the rise of the New Imperialism.)
  2. I agree, to provide a "general overview" is what the introduction is for, so anything in the "general overview" that isn't already addressed elsewhere should be merged into the introduction. Gzornenplatz 04:17, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Fourth option[edit]

Use a general overview that has the flow and concisensess of #2, but with the less POV language of #1. -SV 16:19, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

/Merge

Fifth option[edit]

Discuss the article. Lirath Q. Pynnor

With whom? -SV
Me. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Whoa[edit]

That's all I have to say for now, except, aren't we writing a parallel history to a lot of other Wiki articles here?--Amerinese 17:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia the antithesis of New Imperialism?[edit]

Imperialism is the taking over of one idea from another often to lead. The New Imperialism might be going too far. Things like Wikipedia and the Free State Project keep this from happening by giving all sides a say and not one side taking over another unlike Democracy which seems to allow one side to take over the other only for a little while-even so —This unsigned comment is by 24.13.183.96 (talkcontribs) 05:50, 4 September 2005.

Wikipedia is capitalist in nature. As in real society, those that have the greater wealth influence society (a son of a president becomes president in a population of 300 million?). Democracy works if all are equal. This isn't true in real society and this is DEFIANTLY not true in cyber society. There are constant edit wars and when some higher up doesn't like what is said, they LOCK the page, or they BLOCK an IP address. WE have the tools but we don't OWN them and so, we have no power.
George Washington was an anti-Semite. This is fact. But wikipedia can make its own facts. And who can do anything about it? You’ll be locked or blocked if you say otherwise.
Wikipedia is what the majority think, what the minority allow.
Wikipedia is not fact.

-G

NPOV?[edit]

"The period is distinguished by an unprecedented pursuit of what has been termed "empire for empire's sake," aggressive competition for overseas territorial acquisitions and the emergence in colonizing countries of doctrines of racial superiority which denied the fitness of subjugated peoples for self-government."

This characterization does not apply to the U.S. The first paragraph needs to be rewritten. —This unsigned comment is by 80.216.253.48 (talkcontribs) 21:55, 27 February 2006.

Imperial rivalry[edit]

I've redirected the imperial rivalry article here, because it duplicated the text in this article without adding any additional content (in fact, it contained slightly less detail). I've also removed the article from {{NewImperialism}}. Feel free to revert if these edits were in error. --Muchness 20:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Too long main article[edit]

The "Rise of the New Imperialism" should be much shorter, just a summary of main article. --Beornas 17:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

I don't see any sources listed for this article. Don't you think this article should be flagged for "clean up"? --Jim 21:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. I have added an 'Unreferenced' template, since although several historians are mentioned in passing, there are no specific links to their work. This is an important historical article and is currently not at the appropriate level. Happydemic (talk) 05:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Social implications of the Old Imperialism[edit]

There is a section titled "Social implications of the Old Imperialism."

Is this a typo? I'm thinking it should be titled "Social implications of the NEW Imperialism," being that the first lines are

The Old Imperialism gave rise to new social views of colonialism. Rudyard Kipling, for instance, urged the United States to "Take up the White Man's burden"

because Kipling was born in 1865 and new imperialism took place in in the late 1800s...

The period is distinguished by an unprecedented pursuit of what has been termed "empire for empire's sake," aggressive competition for overseas territorial acquisitions and the emergence in some colonizing countries of doctrines of racial superiority which purported to explain the unfitness of backward peoples for self-government.

"backward peoples" is very loaded. The fact is that the civiliations that were "conquered" were technolgically stagnant and had been so for millenia. Without this "New Imperialism" we wouldn't be curing cancer and sending robots on missions outside the solar system. That fact is much more relevant than whatever pius and self-serving claims of cultural injustice that may be extant today. It is inappropriate to pre-load the definition with an opinion on what took place without first fairly and objectively explaining it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny Quick (talkcontribs) 07:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Other "new imperialisms"[edit]

Google books show a number of books that use the terms to refer to a variety of twentieth-century "new imperialism" and there should at least be an "other uses" section to point this out otherwise this article is less than complete and even dated looking. For any one who cares. (And somebody must with all those archives! :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

Second European colonization wave (19th century–20th century) should be merged here. Despite its including New Imperialism as a subsection, the terms cover exactly the same ground. This page's topic heading is terser, more well-known, and much much more active. -LlywelynII (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, should be merged, if not renamed to "Neo Imperialism".--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 02:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I second it. It has more or less the same information and covers nearly the same time period (the post World War I part in the Second European colonization wave (19th century–20th century) article is more maintenance of colonies than actual colonization). New Imperialism is a better title than Second European colonization wave (19th century–20th century) because Second European colonization wave (19th century–20th century) is unwieldy. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree, both articles should be merged. Many articles cover colonization. Since the First wave article now exists, the Second wave seems a more evident or appropriate title. 99.36.17.112 (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Merge into New Imperialism. Better title and better content.--KARL RAN (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it perhaps possible to merge the articles imperialism and new imperialism? There is a lot identical.

Bridgemanen (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


Oppose. As far as my understanding New Imperialism has a narrower definition than Second Wave of Imperialism. While some consider New imperialism to have begun in the 1830s with the French invasion of Algeria the term is widely used for the developments of the 1870s onwards, when colonial entreprizes massified. If acepting New Imperialism as a distinct subset of the Second Wave of Imperialism this article is large enought to stand by its own. In this logic the merger would be similar to merging WWII into a World Wars article.Chiton (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • looks like Second wave of European colonisation was recently removed. Without any merging and from the looks of it offers several tid bits that should have been merged. Here is a link for quick reference [2] --PLNR (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

A Wikipedia horror story[edit]

It was recently discovered that User:Lir (now blocked), who made quite a number of edits to this article in 2004, introduced a very troubling and untrue edit to Van Allen radiation belts in 2002 that has cascaded into a horrendous mess. The story on that is here: "Van Allen radiation belt" -- a Wikipedia horror tale ?

Editors who care about New Imperialism may want to go back and confirm Lir's edits, especially the unsourced edits. Cheers. N2e (talk) 07:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Picture caption[edit]

The picture, depicts a "tarte" which is a pie, not a king cake, regardless of play on words with king of cakes, roi des gateaux, galettes etc...--UnQuébécois (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The original French text caption is "“En Chine Le gâteau des Rois et... des Empereurs”; in English "In China [...] The cake of Kings and... of Emperors". The pun on "king cake" (modern Parisian French "galette des Rois") is clear; "gâteau" = "cake". The original cartoon makes no reference to a "tarte" [3]. The illustration is recognizable as a type of old style king cake. That it may remind some people today of a "pie" does not mean that is what the cartoonist intended, and the evidence is overwhelming against it. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Unmitigated Gall[edit]

Someone has posted a notice alleging factual inaccuracies (and weasel words, too!) but HAS NOT posted anything here in the talk section to that effect! I'm calling B.S. on this. I am also going to remove the notices. Any who doubt the veracity of the Congo Free State Section should read King Leopold's Ghost by Adam Hochschild (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Leopold's_Ghost)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.126.28.3 (talk) 12:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I put that there. King Leopold's Ghost is a very enjoyable book, but it certainly does not provide an impartial history of the Congo Free State - nor one which puts the blame in the right place. Hochschild is a journalist, not a historian after all and there is much more to it than he presents. I am sure this is not your intention, but the gist of the section before I edited it was that 'Leopold II (for no very obvious reason except sheer malice - along with some henchmen) decided to go and oppress, kill and cut the hands off the Congolese for money and then "we" (the British and the Americans, acting from noble and humanitarian motives) told him not to so he stopped, which it did, but it didn't really change under Belgian control'. Whether on not this is the upshot of the period, it is certainly not appropriate for a non-POV summary. I have removed the worse excesses of the section, but it still demonstrates quite a bit of it, but it is still not OK:
Take this example:
  • "In order to make this profit, he passed several cruel decrees that can be considered to be genocide." This just isn't true (I believe if you check the net, Hochschild himself is quoted as saying that no serious scholar considers the deaths in the Congo as a "genocide" which itself has an extremely specific definition). Even if this was true, I'd say that "cruel" is, to be honest, a weasel word which has emotional connotations and better ones can be substituted without changing the message.
In light of this, I hope you do not mind that I have undone your edit. I suggest that for real history writing on the Congo, read Jean Stengers "Congo, Mythes et réalités" (in French) or Barbara Emerson "Leopold II" and Neal Ascherson "The King Incorporated" (in English) Brigade Piron (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Kipling "White Man's Burden" Quote Inappropriate to Context[edit]

The reference to Kipling's "White Man's Burden" in the section "Social implications of the New Imperialism" misapprehends the poem, which is available on Wikisource:

<https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Five_Nations/The_White_Man%27s_Burden>

The poem, which is addressed to the United States in the context of the early days of U.S. involvement in the Philippines, is an anti-imperialist poem which lists reasons why the United States should not want to be involved in imperialist adventures. The phrase "white man's burden" is a bitter play on words, because it refers to the heavy backpack of the infantryman at least at much as it refers to an ideological burden of Manifest Destiny. This attitude is typical of Kipling, because his views tended to be anti-imperialism even though his is stereotyped as the unofficial poet laureate of the heyday of the British Empire. -- Bob (Bob99 (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC))

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on New Imperialism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)