Talk:New Imperialism/Archive 13

message: ----
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)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Great: yes. I'll redraft the NI core accordingly. Graculus 12:23, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'm going to be offline for a few hours. Happy editing. 172 12:26, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: New Draft