Talk:New Imperialism/Archive 16

message: We need a wiki-policy pointing out that ad hominem's are not to be accepted in wikipedia:talk page's and edit summaries, and those who persist w them are to be blocked for 24hrs. Then people like lir would be allowed to explain their thoughts behind their edits, and wouldn't be dismissed w the usual abusive condescension and ad hominem objections. For the record I am not a communist, and I do not share lir's politics, (nor 172's). I am however ready to hear out respectful arguments made by either. Lir is not a banned user, and is not to be subjected to  abuse. Sam [Spade] 06:58, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[wikipedia:no personal attacks]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  i disagree with when new imperialism ended 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: vandalism?

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

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

text: (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)

text: (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)
thread_title: title

message: 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====
--200.126.153.25 22:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Version 1

message: --200.126.153.25 22:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: 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====
# --128.243.220.41 16:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Version 2

message: # --128.243.220.41 16:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: ====Support====
#172 21:55, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Third option (no general overview)

message: #172 21:55, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: 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)
thread_title: Fourth option

message: 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)
thread_title:  Whoa 

message: 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 . Feel free to revert if these edits were in error. --Muchness 20:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Imperial rivalry

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Sources

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Social implications of the Old Imperialism

message: 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)
thread_title: Other "new imperialisms"

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree, should be merged, if not renamed to "Neo Imperialism".--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 02:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)

text: Merge into New Imperialism. Better title and better content.--KARL RAN (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Wikipedia horror story 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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" . 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)
thread_title:  Picture caption 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Kipling "White Man's Burden" Quote Inappropriate to Context 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on New Imperialism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140726194142/http://www.oxford-modernworld.com/entry?entry=t254.e352 to http://www.oxford-modernworld.com/entry?entry=t254.e352
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on New Imperialism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151223235858/http://www.gpc.edu/~proseman/Imperialism.htm to http://www.gpc.edu/~proseman/Imperialism.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi, I was recently editing the page Imperialism and I have come to realize that they are virtually the same thing and such research as I have conducted has not proven otherwise. Anyone against this idea or any reason why it has not happening already or if I am looking over some important factor? Thank you.
--Jackery01 (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger with [[Imperialism]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on New Imperialism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101225152729/http://www.colonialvoyage.com/eng/voc/index.html to http://www.colonialvoyage.com/eng/voc/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131207042319/http://www.yale.edu/gsp/colonial/belgian_congo/ to http://www.yale.edu/gsp/colonial/belgian_congo/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified