Question: When did the term imperialism first come to be used by its current definition?

Answer: in the late 1870s

In anglophone academic works, theories regarding imperialism are often based on the British experience. <hl> The term "Imperialism" was originally introduced into English in its present sense in the late 1870s by opponents of the allegedly aggressive and ostentatious imperial policies of British prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. <hl> It was shortly appropriated by supporters of "imperialism" such as Joseph Chamberlain. For some, imperialism designated a policy of idealism and philanthropy; others alleged that it was characterized by political self-interest, and a growing number associated it with capitalist greed. Liberal John A. Hobson and Marxist Vladimir Lenin added a more theoretical macroeconomic connotation to the term. Lenin in particular exerted substantial influence over later Marxist conceptions of imperialism with his work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. In his writings Lenin portrayed Imperialism as a natural extension of capitalism that arose from need for capitalist economies to constantly expand investment, material resources and manpower in such a way that necessitated colonial expansion. This conception of imperialism as a structural feature of capitalism is echoed by later Marxist theoreticians. Many theoreticians on the left have followed in emphasizing the structural or systemic character of "imperialism". Such writers have expanded the time period associated with the term so that it now designates neither a policy, nor a short space of decades in the late 19th century, but a world system extending over a period of centuries, often going back to Christopher Columbus and, in some accounts, to the Crusades. As the application of the term has expanded, its meaning has shifted along five distinct but often parallel axes: the moral, the economic, the systemic, the cultural, and the temporal. Those changes reflect - among other shifts in sensibility - a growing unease, even squeamishness, with the fact of power, specifically, Western power.

In anglophone academic works, theories regarding imperialism are often based on the British experience. The term "Imperialism" was originally introduced into English in its present sense <hl> in the late 1870s <hl> by opponents of the allegedly aggressive and ostentatious imperial policies of British prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. It was shortly appropriated by supporters of "imperialism" such as Joseph Chamberlain. For some, imperialism designated a policy of idealism and philanthropy; others alleged that it was characterized by political self-interest, and a growing number associated it with capitalist greed. Liberal John A. Hobson and Marxist Vladimir Lenin added a more theoretical macroeconomic connotation to the term. Lenin in particular exerted substantial influence over later Marxist conceptions of imperialism with his work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. In his writings Lenin portrayed Imperialism as a natural extension of capitalism that arose from need for capitalist economies to constantly expand investment, material resources and manpower in such a way that necessitated colonial expansion. This conception of imperialism as a structural feature of capitalism is echoed by later Marxist theoreticians. Many theoreticians on the left have followed in emphasizing the structural or systemic character of "imperialism". Such writers have expanded the time period associated with the term so that it now designates neither a policy, nor a short space of decades in the late 19th century, but a world system extending over a period of centuries, often going back to Christopher Columbus and, in some accounts, to the Crusades. As the application of the term has expanded, its meaning has shifted along five distinct but often parallel axes: the moral, the economic, the systemic, the cultural, and the temporal. Those changes reflect - among other shifts in sensibility - a growing unease, even squeamishness, with the fact of power, specifically, Western power.

question: When did the term imperialism first come to be used by its current definition?, context: In anglophone academic works, theories regarding imperialism are often based on the British experience. The term "Imperialism" was originally introduced into English in its present sense in the late 1870s by opponents of the allegedly aggressive and ostentatious imperial policies of British prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. It was shortly appropriated by supporters of "imperialism" such as Joseph Chamberlain. For some, imperialism designated a policy of idealism and philanthropy; others alleged that it was characterized by political self-interest, and a growing number associated it with capitalist greed. Liberal John A. Hobson and Marxist Vladimir Lenin added a more theoretical macroeconomic connotation to the term. Lenin in particular exerted substantial influence over later Marxist conceptions of imperialism with his work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. In his writings Lenin portrayed Imperialism as a natural extension of capitalism that arose from need for capitalist economies to constantly expand investment, material resources and manpower in such a way that necessitated colonial expansion. This conception of imperialism as a structural feature of capitalism is echoed by later Marxist theoreticians. Many theoreticians on the left have followed in emphasizing the structural or systemic character of "imperialism". Such writers have expanded the time period associated with the term so that it now designates neither a policy, nor a short space of decades in the late 19th century, but a world system extending over a period of centuries, often going back to Christopher Columbus and, in some accounts, to the Crusades. As the application of the term has expanded, its meaning has shifted along five distinct but often parallel axes: the moral, the economic, the systemic, the cultural, and the temporal. Those changes reflect - among other shifts in sensibility - a growing unease, even squeamishness, with the fact of power, specifically, Western power.


Question: What was the idealized value of imperialism?

Answer: philanthropy

In anglophone academic works, theories regarding imperialism are often based on the British experience. The term "Imperialism" was originally introduced into English in its present sense in the late 1870s by opponents of the allegedly aggressive and ostentatious imperial policies of British prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. It was shortly appropriated by supporters of "imperialism" such as Joseph Chamberlain. <hl> For some, imperialism designated a policy of idealism and philanthropy ; others alleged that it was characterized by political self-interest, and a growing number associated it with capitalist greed. <hl> Liberal John A. Hobson and Marxist Vladimir Lenin added a more theoretical macroeconomic connotation to the term. Lenin in particular exerted substantial influence over later Marxist conceptions of imperialism with his work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. In his writings Lenin portrayed Imperialism as a natural extension of capitalism that arose from need for capitalist economies to constantly expand investment, material resources and manpower in such a way that necessitated colonial expansion. This conception of imperialism as a structural feature of capitalism is echoed by later Marxist theoreticians. Many theoreticians on the left have followed in emphasizing the structural or systemic character of "imperialism". Such writers have expanded the time period associated with the term so that it now designates neither a policy, nor a short space of decades in the late 19th century, but a world system extending over a period of centuries, often going back to Christopher Columbus and, in some accounts, to the Crusades. As the application of the term has expanded, its meaning has shifted along five distinct but often parallel axes: the moral, the economic, the systemic, the cultural, and the temporal. Those changes reflect - among other shifts in sensibility - a growing unease, even squeamishness, with the fact of power, specifically, Western power.

In anglophone academic works, theories regarding imperialism are often based on the British experience. The term "Imperialism" was originally introduced into English in its present sense in the late 1870s by opponents of the allegedly aggressive and ostentatious imperial policies of British prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. It was shortly appropriated by supporters of "imperialism" such as Joseph Chamberlain. For some, imperialism designated a policy of idealism and <hl> philanthropy <hl>; others alleged that it was characterized by political self-interest, and a growing number associated it with capitalist greed. Liberal John A. Hobson and Marxist Vladimir Lenin added a more theoretical macroeconomic connotation to the term. Lenin in particular exerted substantial influence over later Marxist conceptions of imperialism with his work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. In his writings Lenin portrayed Imperialism as a natural extension of capitalism that arose from need for capitalist economies to constantly expand investment, material resources and manpower in such a way that necessitated colonial expansion. This conception of imperialism as a structural feature of capitalism is echoed by later Marxist theoreticians. Many theoreticians on the left have followed in emphasizing the structural or systemic character of "imperialism". Such writers have expanded the time period associated with the term so that it now designates neither a policy, nor a short space of decades in the late 19th century, but a world system extending over a period of centuries, often going back to Christopher Columbus and, in some accounts, to the Crusades. As the application of the term has expanded, its meaning has shifted along five distinct but often parallel axes: the moral, the economic, the systemic, the cultural, and the temporal. Those changes reflect - among other shifts in sensibility - a growing unease, even squeamishness, with the fact of power, specifically, Western power.

For some, imperialism designated a policy of idealism and <hl> philanthropy <hl> ; others alleged that it was characterized by political self-interest, and a growing number associated it with capitalist greed.

question: What was the idealized value of imperialism?, context: In anglophone academic works, theories regarding imperialism are often based on the British experience. The term "Imperialism" was originally introduced into English in its present sense in the late 1870s by opponents of the allegedly aggressive and ostentatious imperial policies of British prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. It was shortly appropriated by supporters of "imperialism" such as Joseph Chamberlain. For some, imperialism designated a policy of idealism and philanthropy; others alleged that it was characterized by political self-interest, and a growing number associated it with capitalist greed. Liberal John A. Hobson and Marxist Vladimir Lenin added a more theoretical macroeconomic connotation to the term. Lenin in particular exerted substantial influence over later Marxist conceptions of imperialism with his work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. In his writings Lenin portrayed Imperialism as a natural extension of capitalism that arose from need for capitalist economies to constantly expand investment, material resources and manpower in such a way that necessitated colonial expansion. This conception of imperialism as a structural feature of capitalism is echoed by later Marxist theoreticians. Many theoreticians on the left have followed in emphasizing the structural or systemic character of "imperialism". Such writers have expanded the time period associated with the term so that it now designates neither a policy, nor a short space of decades in the late 19th century, but a world system extending over a period of centuries, often going back to Christopher Columbus and, in some accounts, to the Crusades. As the application of the term has expanded, its meaning has shifted along five distinct but often parallel axes: the moral, the economic, the systemic, the cultural, and the temporal. Those changes reflect - among other shifts in sensibility - a growing unease, even squeamishness, with the fact of power, specifically, Western power.


Question: According to Lenin why must capitalistic countries have an imperialistic policy?

Answer: to constantly expand investment

In anglophone academic works, theories regarding imperialism are often based on the British experience. The term "Imperialism" was originally introduced into English in its present sense in the late 1870s by opponents of the allegedly aggressive and ostentatious imperial policies of British prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. It was shortly appropriated by supporters of "imperialism" such as Joseph Chamberlain. For some, imperialism designated a policy of idealism and philanthropy; others alleged that it was characterized by political self-interest, and a growing number associated it with capitalist greed. Liberal John A. Hobson and Marxist Vladimir Lenin added a more theoretical macroeconomic connotation to the term. Lenin in particular exerted substantial influence over later Marxist conceptions of imperialism with his work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. <hl> In his writings Lenin portrayed Imperialism as a natural extension of capitalism that arose from need for capitalist economies to constantly expand investment , material resources and manpower in such a way that necessitated colonial expansion. <hl> This conception of imperialism as a structural feature of capitalism is echoed by later Marxist theoreticians. Many theoreticians on the left have followed in emphasizing the structural or systemic character of "imperialism". Such writers have expanded the time period associated with the term so that it now designates neither a policy, nor a short space of decades in the late 19th century, but a world system extending over a period of centuries, often going back to Christopher Columbus and, in some accounts, to the Crusades. As the application of the term has expanded, its meaning has shifted along five distinct but often parallel axes: the moral, the economic, the systemic, the cultural, and the temporal. Those changes reflect - among other shifts in sensibility - a growing unease, even squeamishness, with the fact of power, specifically, Western power.

In anglophone academic works, theories regarding imperialism are often based on the British experience. The term "Imperialism" was originally introduced into English in its present sense in the late 1870s by opponents of the allegedly aggressive and ostentatious imperial policies of British prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. It was shortly appropriated by supporters of "imperialism" such as Joseph Chamberlain. For some, imperialism designated a policy of idealism and philanthropy; others alleged that it was characterized by political self-interest, and a growing number associated it with capitalist greed. Liberal John A. Hobson and Marxist Vladimir Lenin added a more theoretical macroeconomic connotation to the term. Lenin in particular exerted substantial influence over later Marxist conceptions of imperialism with his work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. In his writings Lenin portrayed Imperialism as a natural extension of capitalism that arose from need for capitalist economies <hl> to constantly expand investment <hl>, material resources and manpower in such a way that necessitated colonial expansion. This conception of imperialism as a structural feature of capitalism is echoed by later Marxist theoreticians. Many theoreticians on the left have followed in emphasizing the structural or systemic character of "imperialism". Such writers have expanded the time period associated with the term so that it now designates neither a policy, nor a short space of decades in the late 19th century, but a world system extending over a period of centuries, often going back to Christopher Columbus and, in some accounts, to the Crusades. As the application of the term has expanded, its meaning has shifted along five distinct but often parallel axes: the moral, the economic, the systemic, the cultural, and the temporal. Those changes reflect - among other shifts in sensibility - a growing unease, even squeamishness, with the fact of power, specifically, Western power.

In his writings Lenin portrayed Imperialism as a natural extension of capitalism that arose from need for capitalist economies <hl> to constantly expand investment <hl> , material resources and manpower in such a way that necessitated colonial expansion.

question: According to Lenin why must capitalistic countries have an imperialistic policy?, context: In anglophone academic works, theories regarding imperialism are often based on the British experience. The term "Imperialism" was originally introduced into English in its present sense in the late 1870s by opponents of the allegedly aggressive and ostentatious imperial policies of British prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. It was shortly appropriated by supporters of "imperialism" such as Joseph Chamberlain. For some, imperialism designated a policy of idealism and philanthropy; others alleged that it was characterized by political self-interest, and a growing number associated it with capitalist greed. Liberal John A. Hobson and Marxist Vladimir Lenin added a more theoretical macroeconomic connotation to the term. Lenin in particular exerted substantial influence over later Marxist conceptions of imperialism with his work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. In his writings Lenin portrayed Imperialism as a natural extension of capitalism that arose from need for capitalist economies to constantly expand investment, material resources and manpower in such a way that necessitated colonial expansion. This conception of imperialism as a structural feature of capitalism is echoed by later Marxist theoreticians. Many theoreticians on the left have followed in emphasizing the structural or systemic character of "imperialism". Such writers have expanded the time period associated with the term so that it now designates neither a policy, nor a short space of decades in the late 19th century, but a world system extending over a period of centuries, often going back to Christopher Columbus and, in some accounts, to the Crusades. As the application of the term has expanded, its meaning has shifted along five distinct but often parallel axes: the moral, the economic, the systemic, the cultural, and the temporal. Those changes reflect - among other shifts in sensibility - a growing unease, even squeamishness, with the fact of power, specifically, Western power.


Question: some debate that there is a correlation between capitalism, imperialism, and what?

Answer: aristocracy

<hl> The correlation between capitalism, aristocracy , and imperialism has long been debated among historians and political theorists. <hl> Much of the debate was pioneered by such theorists as J. A. Hobson (1858–1940), Joseph Schumpeter (1883–1950), Thorstein Veblen (1857–1929), and Norman Angell (1872–1967). While these non-Marxist writers were at their most prolific before World War I, they remained active in the interwar years. Their combined work informed the study of imperialism and it's impact on Europe, as well as contributed to reflections on the rise of the military-political complex in the United States from the 1950s. Hobson argued that domestic social reforms could cure the international disease of imperialism by removing its economic foundation. Hobson theorized that state intervention through taxation could boost broader consumption, create wealth, and encourage a peaceful, tolerant, multipolar world order.

The correlation between capitalism, <hl> aristocracy <hl>, and imperialism has long been debated among historians and political theorists. Much of the debate was pioneered by such theorists as J. A. Hobson (1858–1940), Joseph Schumpeter (1883–1950), Thorstein Veblen (1857–1929), and Norman Angell (1872–1967). While these non-Marxist writers were at their most prolific before World War I, they remained active in the interwar years. Their combined work informed the study of imperialism and it's impact on Europe, as well as contributed to reflections on the rise of the military-political complex in the United States from the 1950s. Hobson argued that domestic social reforms could cure the international disease of imperialism by removing its economic foundation. Hobson theorized that state intervention through taxation could boost broader consumption, create wealth, and encourage a peaceful, tolerant, multipolar world order.

The correlation between capitalism, <hl> aristocracy <hl> , and imperialism has long been debated among historians and political theorists.

question: some debate that there is a correlation between capitalism, imperialism, and what?, context: The correlation between capitalism, aristocracy, and imperialism has long been debated among historians and political theorists. Much of the debate was pioneered by such theorists as J. A. Hobson (1858–1940), Joseph Schumpeter (1883–1950), Thorstein Veblen (1857–1929), and Norman Angell (1872–1967). While these non-Marxist writers were at their most prolific before World War I, they remained active in the interwar years. Their combined work informed the study of imperialism and it's impact on Europe, as well as contributed to reflections on the rise of the military-political complex in the United States from the 1950s. Hobson argued that domestic social reforms could cure the international disease of imperialism by removing its economic foundation. Hobson theorized that state intervention through taxation could boost broader consumption, create wealth, and encourage a peaceful, tolerant, multipolar world order.


Question: When was the military-political complex reflected upon within the scope of understanding imperialism?

Answer: the 1950s

The correlation between capitalism, aristocracy, and imperialism has long been debated among historians and political theorists. Much of the debate was pioneered by such theorists as J. A. Hobson (1858–1940), Joseph Schumpeter (1883–1950), Thorstein Veblen (1857–1929), and Norman Angell (1872–1967). While these non-Marxist writers were at their most prolific before World War I, they remained active in the interwar years. <hl> Their combined work informed the study of imperialism and it's impact on Europe, as well as contributed to reflections on the rise of the military-political complex in the United States from the 1950s . <hl> Hobson argued that domestic social reforms could cure the international disease of imperialism by removing its economic foundation. Hobson theorized that state intervention through taxation could boost broader consumption, create wealth, and encourage a peaceful, tolerant, multipolar world order.

The correlation between capitalism, aristocracy, and imperialism has long been debated among historians and political theorists. Much of the debate was pioneered by such theorists as J. A. Hobson (1858–1940), Joseph Schumpeter (1883–1950), Thorstein Veblen (1857–1929), and Norman Angell (1872–1967). While these non-Marxist writers were at their most prolific before World War I, they remained active in the interwar years. Their combined work informed the study of imperialism and it's impact on Europe, as well as contributed to reflections on the rise of the military-political complex in the United States from <hl> the 1950s <hl>. Hobson argued that domestic social reforms could cure the international disease of imperialism by removing its economic foundation. Hobson theorized that state intervention through taxation could boost broader consumption, create wealth, and encourage a peaceful, tolerant, multipolar world order.

Their combined work informed the study of imperialism and it's impact on Europe, as well as contributed to reflections on the rise of the military-political complex in the United States from <hl> the 1950s <hl> .

question: When was the military-political complex reflected upon within the scope of understanding imperialism?, context: The correlation between capitalism, aristocracy, and imperialism has long been debated among historians and political theorists. Much of the debate was pioneered by such theorists as J. A. Hobson (1858–1940), Joseph Schumpeter (1883–1950), Thorstein Veblen (1857–1929), and Norman Angell (1872–1967). While these non-Marxist writers were at their most prolific before World War I, they remained active in the interwar years. Their combined work informed the study of imperialism and it's impact on Europe, as well as contributed to reflections on the rise of the military-political complex in the United States from the 1950s. Hobson argued that domestic social reforms could cure the international disease of imperialism by removing its economic foundation. Hobson theorized that state intervention through taxation could boost broader consumption, create wealth, and encourage a peaceful, tolerant, multipolar world order.


Question: When were Joseph Schumpeter and Norman Angell at their most prolific writing period?

Answer: before World War I

The correlation between capitalism, aristocracy, and imperialism has long been debated among historians and political theorists. Much of the debate was pioneered by such theorists as J. A. Hobson (1858–1940), Joseph Schumpeter (1883–1950), Thorstein Veblen (1857–1929), and Norman Angell (1872–1967). <hl> While these non-Marxist writers were at their most prolific before World War I , they remained active in the interwar years. <hl> Their combined work informed the study of imperialism and it's impact on Europe, as well as contributed to reflections on the rise of the military-political complex in the United States from the 1950s. Hobson argued that domestic social reforms could cure the international disease of imperialism by removing its economic foundation. Hobson theorized that state intervention through taxation could boost broader consumption, create wealth, and encourage a peaceful, tolerant, multipolar world order.

The correlation between capitalism, aristocracy, and imperialism has long been debated among historians and political theorists. Much of the debate was pioneered by such theorists as J. A. Hobson (1858–1940), Joseph Schumpeter (1883–1950), Thorstein Veblen (1857–1929), and Norman Angell (1872–1967). While these non-Marxist writers were at their most prolific <hl> before World War I <hl>, they remained active in the interwar years. Their combined work informed the study of imperialism and it's impact on Europe, as well as contributed to reflections on the rise of the military-political complex in the United States from the 1950s. Hobson argued that domestic social reforms could cure the international disease of imperialism by removing its economic foundation. Hobson theorized that state intervention through taxation could boost broader consumption, create wealth, and encourage a peaceful, tolerant, multipolar world order.

While these non-Marxist writers were at their most prolific <hl> before World War I <hl> , they remained active in the interwar years.

question: When were Joseph Schumpeter and Norman Angell at their most prolific writing period?, context: The correlation between capitalism, aristocracy, and imperialism has long been debated among historians and political theorists. Much of the debate was pioneered by such theorists as J. A. Hobson (1858–1940), Joseph Schumpeter (1883–1950), Thorstein Veblen (1857–1929), and Norman Angell (1872–1967). While these non-Marxist writers were at their most prolific before World War I, they remained active in the interwar years. Their combined work informed the study of imperialism and it's impact on Europe, as well as contributed to reflections on the rise of the military-political complex in the United States from the 1950s. Hobson argued that domestic social reforms could cure the international disease of imperialism by removing its economic foundation. Hobson theorized that state intervention through taxation could boost broader consumption, create wealth, and encourage a peaceful, tolerant, multipolar world order.


Question: Hobson argued that imperialism was an international what?

Answer: disease

The correlation between capitalism, aristocracy, and imperialism has long been debated among historians and political theorists. Much of the debate was pioneered by such theorists as J. A. Hobson (1858–1940), Joseph Schumpeter (1883–1950), Thorstein Veblen (1857–1929), and Norman Angell (1872–1967). While these non-Marxist writers were at their most prolific before World War I, they remained active in the interwar years. Their combined work informed the study of imperialism and it's impact on Europe, as well as contributed to reflections on the rise of the military-political complex in the United States from the 1950s. <hl> Hobson argued that domestic social reforms could cure the international disease of imperialism by removing its economic foundation. <hl> Hobson theorized that state intervention through taxation could boost broader consumption, create wealth, and encourage a peaceful, tolerant, multipolar world order.

The correlation between capitalism, aristocracy, and imperialism has long been debated among historians and political theorists. Much of the debate was pioneered by such theorists as J. A. Hobson (1858–1940), Joseph Schumpeter (1883–1950), Thorstein Veblen (1857–1929), and Norman Angell (1872–1967). While these non-Marxist writers were at their most prolific before World War I, they remained active in the interwar years. Their combined work informed the study of imperialism and it's impact on Europe, as well as contributed to reflections on the rise of the military-political complex in the United States from the 1950s. Hobson argued that domestic social reforms could cure the international <hl> disease <hl> of imperialism by removing its economic foundation. Hobson theorized that state intervention through taxation could boost broader consumption, create wealth, and encourage a peaceful, tolerant, multipolar world order.

question: Hobson argued that imperialism was an international what?, context: The correlation between capitalism, aristocracy, and imperialism has long been debated among historians and political theorists. Much of the debate was pioneered by such theorists as J. A. Hobson (1858–1940), Joseph Schumpeter (1883–1950), Thorstein Veblen (1857–1929), and Norman Angell (1872–1967). While these non-Marxist writers were at their most prolific before World War I, they remained active in the interwar years. Their combined work informed the study of imperialism and it's impact on Europe, as well as contributed to reflections on the rise of the military-political complex in the United States from the 1950s. Hobson argued that domestic social reforms could cure the international disease of imperialism by removing its economic foundation. Hobson theorized that state intervention through taxation could boost broader consumption, create wealth, and encourage a peaceful, tolerant, multipolar world order.


Question: How did Hobson argue to rid the world of imperialism?

Answer: taxation

The correlation between capitalism, aristocracy, and imperialism has long been debated among historians and political theorists. Much of the debate was pioneered by such theorists as J. A. Hobson (1858–1940), Joseph Schumpeter (1883–1950), Thorstein Veblen (1857–1929), and Norman Angell (1872–1967). While these non-Marxist writers were at their most prolific before World War I, they remained active in the interwar years. Their combined work informed the study of imperialism and it's impact on Europe, as well as contributed to reflections on the rise of the military-political complex in the United States from the 1950s. Hobson argued that domestic social reforms could cure the international disease of imperialism by removing its economic foundation. <hl> Hobson theorized that state intervention through taxation could boost broader consumption, create wealth, and encourage a peaceful, tolerant, multipolar world order. <hl>

The correlation between capitalism, aristocracy, and imperialism has long been debated among historians and political theorists. Much of the debate was pioneered by such theorists as J. A. Hobson (1858–1940), Joseph Schumpeter (1883–1950), Thorstein Veblen (1857–1929), and Norman Angell (1872–1967). While these non-Marxist writers were at their most prolific before World War I, they remained active in the interwar years. Their combined work informed the study of imperialism and it's impact on Europe, as well as contributed to reflections on the rise of the military-political complex in the United States from the 1950s. Hobson argued that domestic social reforms could cure the international disease of imperialism by removing its economic foundation. Hobson theorized that state intervention through <hl> taxation <hl> could boost broader consumption, create wealth, and encourage a peaceful, tolerant, multipolar world order.

question: How did Hobson argue to rid the world of imperialism?, context: The correlation between capitalism, aristocracy, and imperialism has long been debated among historians and political theorists. Much of the debate was pioneered by such theorists as J. A. Hobson (1858–1940), Joseph Schumpeter (1883–1950), Thorstein Veblen (1857–1929), and Norman Angell (1872–1967). While these non-Marxist writers were at their most prolific before World War I, they remained active in the interwar years. Their combined work informed the study of imperialism and it's impact on Europe, as well as contributed to reflections on the rise of the military-political complex in the United States from the 1950s. Hobson argued that domestic social reforms could cure the international disease of imperialism by removing its economic foundation. Hobson theorized that state intervention through taxation could boost broader consumption, create wealth, and encourage a peaceful, tolerant, multipolar world order.


Question: What served as a justification for imposing imperialistic policies on certain peoples or regions?

Answer: environmental determinism

<hl> The concept environmental determinism served as a moral justification for domination of certain territories and peoples. <hl> It was believed that a certain person's behaviours were determined by the environment in which they lived and thus validated their domination. For example, people living in tropical environments were seen as "less civilized" therefore justifying colonial control as a civilizing mission. Across the three waves of European colonialism (first in the Americas, second in Asia and lastly in Africa), environmental determinism was used to categorically place indigenous people in a racial hierarchy. This takes two forms, orientalism and tropicality.

The concept <hl> environmental determinism <hl> served as a moral justification for domination of certain territories and peoples. It was believed that a certain person's behaviours were determined by the environment in which they lived and thus validated their domination. For example, people living in tropical environments were seen as "less civilized" therefore justifying colonial control as a civilizing mission. Across the three waves of European colonialism (first in the Americas, second in Asia and lastly in Africa), environmental determinism was used to categorically place indigenous people in a racial hierarchy. This takes two forms, orientalism and tropicality.

question: What served as a justification for imposing imperialistic policies on certain peoples or regions?, context: The concept environmental determinism served as a moral justification for domination of certain territories and peoples. It was believed that a certain person's behaviours were determined by the environment in which they lived and thus validated their domination. For example, people living in tropical environments were seen as "less civilized" therefore justifying colonial control as a civilizing mission. Across the three waves of European colonialism (first in the Americas, second in Asia and lastly in Africa), environmental determinism was used to categorically place indigenous people in a racial hierarchy. This takes two forms, orientalism and tropicality.


Question: What was thought to decide a person's behavior?

Answer: the environment in which they lived

The concept environmental determinism served as a moral justification for domination of certain territories and peoples. <hl> It was believed that a certain person's behaviours were determined by the environment in which they lived and thus validated their domination. <hl> For example, people living in tropical environments were seen as "less civilized" therefore justifying colonial control as a civilizing mission. Across the three waves of European colonialism (first in the Americas, second in Asia and lastly in Africa), environmental determinism was used to categorically place indigenous people in a racial hierarchy. This takes two forms, orientalism and tropicality.

The concept environmental determinism served as a moral justification for domination of certain territories and peoples. It was believed that a certain person's behaviours were determined by <hl> the environment in which they lived <hl> and thus validated their domination. For example, people living in tropical environments were seen as "less civilized" therefore justifying colonial control as a civilizing mission. Across the three waves of European colonialism (first in the Americas, second in Asia and lastly in Africa), environmental determinism was used to categorically place indigenous people in a racial hierarchy. This takes two forms, orientalism and tropicality.

question: What was thought to decide a person's behavior?, context: The concept environmental determinism served as a moral justification for domination of certain territories and peoples. It was believed that a certain person's behaviours were determined by the environment in which they lived and thus validated their domination. For example, people living in tropical environments were seen as "less civilized" therefore justifying colonial control as a civilizing mission. Across the three waves of European colonialism (first in the Americas, second in Asia and lastly in Africa), environmental determinism was used to categorically place indigenous people in a racial hierarchy. This takes two forms, orientalism and tropicality.


Question: Humans in tropical environments were considered what?

Answer: less civilized

The concept environmental determinism served as a moral justification for domination of certain territories and peoples. It was believed that a certain person's behaviours were determined by the environment in which they lived and thus validated their domination. <hl> For example, people living in tropical environments were seen as " less civilized " therefore justifying colonial control as a civilizing mission. <hl> Across the three waves of European colonialism (first in the Americas, second in Asia and lastly in Africa), environmental determinism was used to categorically place indigenous people in a racial hierarchy. This takes two forms, orientalism and tropicality.

The concept environmental determinism served as a moral justification for domination of certain territories and peoples. It was believed that a certain person's behaviours were determined by the environment in which they lived and thus validated their domination. For example, people living in tropical environments were seen as "<hl> less civilized <hl>" therefore justifying colonial control as a civilizing mission. Across the three waves of European colonialism (first in the Americas, second in Asia and lastly in Africa), environmental determinism was used to categorically place indigenous people in a racial hierarchy. This takes two forms, orientalism and tropicality.

For example, people living in tropical environments were seen as " <hl> less civilized <hl> " therefore justifying colonial control as a civilizing mission.

question: Humans in tropical environments were considered what?, context: The concept environmental determinism served as a moral justification for domination of certain territories and peoples. It was believed that a certain person's behaviours were determined by the environment in which they lived and thus validated their domination. For example, people living in tropical environments were seen as "less civilized" therefore justifying colonial control as a civilizing mission. Across the three waves of European colonialism (first in the Americas, second in Asia and lastly in Africa), environmental determinism was used to categorically place indigenous people in a racial hierarchy. This takes two forms, orientalism and tropicality.


Question: Europe first colonized the Americas, then Asia, but what continent was third?

Answer: Africa

The concept environmental determinism served as a moral justification for domination of certain territories and peoples. It was believed that a certain person's behaviours were determined by the environment in which they lived and thus validated their domination. For example, people living in tropical environments were seen as "less civilized" therefore justifying colonial control as a civilizing mission. <hl> Across the three waves of European colonialism (first in the Americas, second in Asia and lastly in Africa ), environmental determinism was used to categorically place indigenous people in a racial hierarchy. <hl> This takes two forms, orientalism and tropicality.

The concept environmental determinism served as a moral justification for domination of certain territories and peoples. It was believed that a certain person's behaviours were determined by the environment in which they lived and thus validated their domination. For example, people living in tropical environments were seen as "less civilized" therefore justifying colonial control as a civilizing mission. Across the three waves of European colonialism (first in the Americas, second in Asia and lastly in <hl> Africa <hl>), environmental determinism was used to categorically place indigenous people in a racial hierarchy. This takes two forms, orientalism and tropicality.

Across the three waves of European colonialism (first in the Americas, second in Asia and lastly in <hl> Africa <hl> ), environmental determinism was used to categorically place indigenous people in a racial hierarchy.

question: Europe first colonized the Americas, then Asia, but what continent was third?, context: The concept environmental determinism served as a moral justification for domination of certain territories and peoples. It was believed that a certain person's behaviours were determined by the environment in which they lived and thus validated their domination. For example, people living in tropical environments were seen as "less civilized" therefore justifying colonial control as a civilizing mission. Across the three waves of European colonialism (first in the Americas, second in Asia and lastly in Africa), environmental determinism was used to categorically place indigenous people in a racial hierarchy. This takes two forms, orientalism and tropicality.


Question: What were the two forms of environmental determinism?

Answer: orientalism and tropicality

The concept environmental determinism served as a moral justification for domination of certain territories and peoples. It was believed that a certain person's behaviours were determined by the environment in which they lived and thus validated their domination. For example, people living in tropical environments were seen as "less civilized" therefore justifying colonial control as a civilizing mission. Across the three waves of European colonialism (first in the Americas, second in Asia and lastly in Africa), environmental determinism was used to categorically place indigenous people in a racial hierarchy. <hl> This takes two forms, orientalism and tropicality . <hl>

The concept environmental determinism served as a moral justification for domination of certain territories and peoples. It was believed that a certain person's behaviours were determined by the environment in which they lived and thus validated their domination. For example, people living in tropical environments were seen as "less civilized" therefore justifying colonial control as a civilizing mission. Across the three waves of European colonialism (first in the Americas, second in Asia and lastly in Africa), environmental determinism was used to categorically place indigenous people in a racial hierarchy. This takes two forms, <hl> orientalism and tropicality <hl>.

This takes two forms, <hl> orientalism and tropicality <hl> .

question: What were the two forms of environmental determinism?, context: The concept environmental determinism served as a moral justification for domination of certain territories and peoples. It was believed that a certain person's behaviours were determined by the environment in which they lived and thus validated their domination. For example, people living in tropical environments were seen as "less civilized" therefore justifying colonial control as a civilizing mission. Across the three waves of European colonialism (first in the Americas, second in Asia and lastly in Africa), environmental determinism was used to categorically place indigenous people in a racial hierarchy. This takes two forms, orientalism and tropicality.


Question: Who thought the world could be split into climatic zones?

Answer: geographic scholars

<hl> According to geographic scholars under colonizing empires, the world could be split into climatic zones. <hl> These scholars believed that Northern Europe and the Mid-Atlantic temperate climate produced a hard-working, moral, and upstanding human being. Alternatively, tropical climates yielded lazy attitudes, sexual promiscuity, exotic culture, and moral degeneracy. The people of these climates were believed to be in need of guidance and intervention from the European empire to aid in the governing of a more evolved social structure; they were seen as incapable of such a feat. Similarly, orientalism is a view of a people based on their geographical location.

According to <hl> geographic scholars <hl> under colonizing empires, the world could be split into climatic zones. These scholars believed that Northern Europe and the Mid-Atlantic temperate climate produced a hard-working, moral, and upstanding human being. Alternatively, tropical climates yielded lazy attitudes, sexual promiscuity, exotic culture, and moral degeneracy. The people of these climates were believed to be in need of guidance and intervention from the European empire to aid in the governing of a more evolved social structure; they were seen as incapable of such a feat. Similarly, orientalism is a view of a people based on their geographical location.

question: Who thought the world could be split into climatic zones?, context: According to geographic scholars under colonizing empires, the world could be split into climatic zones. These scholars believed that Northern Europe and the Mid-Atlantic temperate climate produced a hard-working, moral, and upstanding human being. Alternatively, tropical climates yielded lazy attitudes, sexual promiscuity, exotic culture, and moral degeneracy. The people of these climates were believed to be in need of guidance and intervention from the European empire to aid in the governing of a more evolved social structure; they were seen as incapable of such a feat. Similarly, orientalism is a view of a people based on their geographical location.


Question: Which regions have temperate climates?

Answer: Northern Europe and the Mid-Atlantic

According to geographic scholars under colonizing empires, the world could be split into climatic zones. <hl> These scholars believed that Northern Europe and the Mid-Atlantic temperate climate produced a hard-working, moral, and upstanding human being. <hl> Alternatively, tropical climates yielded lazy attitudes, sexual promiscuity, exotic culture, and moral degeneracy. The people of these climates were believed to be in need of guidance and intervention from the European empire to aid in the governing of a more evolved social structure; they were seen as incapable of such a feat. Similarly, orientalism is a view of a people based on their geographical location.

According to geographic scholars under colonizing empires, the world could be split into climatic zones. These scholars believed that <hl> Northern Europe and the Mid-Atlantic <hl> temperate climate produced a hard-working, moral, and upstanding human being. Alternatively, tropical climates yielded lazy attitudes, sexual promiscuity, exotic culture, and moral degeneracy. The people of these climates were believed to be in need of guidance and intervention from the European empire to aid in the governing of a more evolved social structure; they were seen as incapable of such a feat. Similarly, orientalism is a view of a people based on their geographical location.

question: Which regions have temperate climates?, context: According to geographic scholars under colonizing empires, the world could be split into climatic zones. These scholars believed that Northern Europe and the Mid-Atlantic temperate climate produced a hard-working, moral, and upstanding human being. Alternatively, tropical climates yielded lazy attitudes, sexual promiscuity, exotic culture, and moral degeneracy. The people of these climates were believed to be in need of guidance and intervention from the European empire to aid in the governing of a more evolved social structure; they were seen as incapable of such a feat. Similarly, orientalism is a view of a people based on their geographical location.


Question: What did the the Europeans think the peoples in the tropics were in need of?

Answer: guidance

According to geographic scholars under colonizing empires, the world could be split into climatic zones. These scholars believed that Northern Europe and the Mid-Atlantic temperate climate produced a hard-working, moral, and upstanding human being. Alternatively, tropical climates yielded lazy attitudes, sexual promiscuity, exotic culture, and moral degeneracy. <hl> The people of these climates were believed to be in need of guidance and intervention from the European empire to aid in the governing of a more evolved social structure; they were seen as incapable of such a feat. <hl> Similarly, orientalism is a view of a people based on their geographical location.

According to geographic scholars under colonizing empires, the world could be split into climatic zones. These scholars believed that Northern Europe and the Mid-Atlantic temperate climate produced a hard-working, moral, and upstanding human being. Alternatively, tropical climates yielded lazy attitudes, sexual promiscuity, exotic culture, and moral degeneracy. The people of these climates were believed to be in need of <hl> guidance <hl> and intervention from the European empire to aid in the governing of a more evolved social structure; they were seen as incapable of such a feat. Similarly, orientalism is a view of a people based on their geographical location.

question: What did the the Europeans think the peoples in the tropics were in need of?, context: According to geographic scholars under colonizing empires, the world could be split into climatic zones. These scholars believed that Northern Europe and the Mid-Atlantic temperate climate produced a hard-working, moral, and upstanding human being. Alternatively, tropical climates yielded lazy attitudes, sexual promiscuity, exotic culture, and moral degeneracy. The people of these climates were believed to be in need of guidance and intervention from the European empire to aid in the governing of a more evolved social structure; they were seen as incapable of such a feat. Similarly, orientalism is a view of a people based on their geographical location.


Question: What was a similar view about the Asian continent called?

Answer: orientalism

According to geographic scholars under colonizing empires, the world could be split into climatic zones. These scholars believed that Northern Europe and the Mid-Atlantic temperate climate produced a hard-working, moral, and upstanding human being. Alternatively, tropical climates yielded lazy attitudes, sexual promiscuity, exotic culture, and moral degeneracy. The people of these climates were believed to be in need of guidance and intervention from the European empire to aid in the governing of a more evolved social structure; they were seen as incapable of such a feat. <hl> Similarly, orientalism is a view of a people based on their geographical location. <hl>

According to geographic scholars under colonizing empires, the world could be split into climatic zones. These scholars believed that Northern Europe and the Mid-Atlantic temperate climate produced a hard-working, moral, and upstanding human being. Alternatively, tropical climates yielded lazy attitudes, sexual promiscuity, exotic culture, and moral degeneracy. The people of these climates were believed to be in need of guidance and intervention from the European empire to aid in the governing of a more evolved social structure; they were seen as incapable of such a feat. Similarly, <hl> orientalism <hl> is a view of a people based on their geographical location.

question: What was a similar view about the Asian continent called?, context: According to geographic scholars under colonizing empires, the world could be split into climatic zones. These scholars believed that Northern Europe and the Mid-Atlantic temperate climate produced a hard-working, moral, and upstanding human being. Alternatively, tropical climates yielded lazy attitudes, sexual promiscuity, exotic culture, and moral degeneracy. The people of these climates were believed to be in need of guidance and intervention from the European empire to aid in the governing of a more evolved social structure; they were seen as incapable of such a feat. Similarly, orientalism is a view of a people based on their geographical location.


Question: Who did the geographic scholars work for?

Answer: colonizing empires

<hl> According to geographic scholars under colonizing empires , the world could be split into climatic zones. <hl> These scholars believed that Northern Europe and the Mid-Atlantic temperate climate produced a hard-working, moral, and upstanding human being. Alternatively, tropical climates yielded lazy attitudes, sexual promiscuity, exotic culture, and moral degeneracy. The people of these climates were believed to be in need of guidance and intervention from the European empire to aid in the governing of a more evolved social structure; they were seen as incapable of such a feat. Similarly, orientalism is a view of a people based on their geographical location.

According to geographic scholars under <hl> colonizing empires <hl>, the world could be split into climatic zones. These scholars believed that Northern Europe and the Mid-Atlantic temperate climate produced a hard-working, moral, and upstanding human being. Alternatively, tropical climates yielded lazy attitudes, sexual promiscuity, exotic culture, and moral degeneracy. The people of these climates were believed to be in need of guidance and intervention from the European empire to aid in the governing of a more evolved social structure; they were seen as incapable of such a feat. Similarly, orientalism is a view of a people based on their geographical location.

According to geographic scholars under <hl> colonizing empires <hl> , the world could be split into climatic zones.

question: Who did the geographic scholars work for?, context: According to geographic scholars under colonizing empires, the world could be split into climatic zones. These scholars believed that Northern Europe and the Mid-Atlantic temperate climate produced a hard-working, moral, and upstanding human being. Alternatively, tropical climates yielded lazy attitudes, sexual promiscuity, exotic culture, and moral degeneracy. The people of these climates were believed to be in need of guidance and intervention from the European empire to aid in the governing of a more evolved social structure; they were seen as incapable of such a feat. Similarly, orientalism is a view of a people based on their geographical location.


Question: When is the earliest Britain had an imperialist policy?

Answer: the sixteenth century

<hl> Britain's imperialist ambitions can be seen as early as the sixteenth century . <hl> In 1599 the British East India Company was established and was chartered by Queen Elizabeth in the following year. With the establishment of trading posts in India, the British were able to maintain strength relative to others empires such as the Portuguese who already had set up trading posts in India. In 1767 political activity caused exploitation of the East India Company causing the plundering of the local economy, almost bringing the company into bankruptcy.

Britain's imperialist ambitions can be seen as early as <hl> the sixteenth century <hl>. In 1599 the British East India Company was established and was chartered by Queen Elizabeth in the following year. With the establishment of trading posts in India, the British were able to maintain strength relative to others empires such as the Portuguese who already had set up trading posts in India. In 1767 political activity caused exploitation of the East India Company causing the plundering of the local economy, almost bringing the company into bankruptcy.

Britain's imperialist ambitions can be seen as early as <hl> the sixteenth century <hl> .

question: When is the earliest Britain had an imperialist policy?, context: Britain's imperialist ambitions can be seen as early as the sixteenth century. In 1599 the British East India Company was established and was chartered by Queen Elizabeth in the following year. With the establishment of trading posts in India, the British were able to maintain strength relative to others empires such as the Portuguese who already had set up trading posts in India. In 1767 political activity caused exploitation of the East India Company causing the plundering of the local economy, almost bringing the company into bankruptcy.


Question: When was the British East India Company established?

Answer: 1599

Britain's imperialist ambitions can be seen as early as the sixteenth century. <hl> In 1599 the British East India Company was established and was chartered by Queen Elizabeth in the following year. <hl> With the establishment of trading posts in India, the British were able to maintain strength relative to others empires such as the Portuguese who already had set up trading posts in India. In 1767 political activity caused exploitation of the East India Company causing the plundering of the local economy, almost bringing the company into bankruptcy.

Britain's imperialist ambitions can be seen as early as the sixteenth century. In <hl> 1599 <hl> the British East India Company was established and was chartered by Queen Elizabeth in the following year. With the establishment of trading posts in India, the British were able to maintain strength relative to others empires such as the Portuguese who already had set up trading posts in India. In 1767 political activity caused exploitation of the East India Company causing the plundering of the local economy, almost bringing the company into bankruptcy.

question: When was the British East India Company established?, context: Britain's imperialist ambitions can be seen as early as the sixteenth century. In 1599 the British East India Company was established and was chartered by Queen Elizabeth in the following year. With the establishment of trading posts in India, the British were able to maintain strength relative to others empires such as the Portuguese who already had set up trading posts in India. In 1767 political activity caused exploitation of the East India Company causing the plundering of the local economy, almost bringing the company into bankruptcy.


Question: Who chartered the British East India Company?

Answer: Queen Elizabeth

Britain's imperialist ambitions can be seen as early as the sixteenth century. <hl> In 1599 the British East India Company was established and was chartered by Queen Elizabeth in the following year. <hl> With the establishment of trading posts in India, the British were able to maintain strength relative to others empires such as the Portuguese who already had set up trading posts in India. In 1767 political activity caused exploitation of the East India Company causing the plundering of the local economy, almost bringing the company into bankruptcy.

Britain's imperialist ambitions can be seen as early as the sixteenth century. In 1599 the British East India Company was established and was chartered by <hl> Queen Elizabeth <hl> in the following year. With the establishment of trading posts in India, the British were able to maintain strength relative to others empires such as the Portuguese who already had set up trading posts in India. In 1767 political activity caused exploitation of the East India Company causing the plundering of the local economy, almost bringing the company into bankruptcy.

question: Who chartered the British East India Company?, context: Britain's imperialist ambitions can be seen as early as the sixteenth century. In 1599 the British East India Company was established and was chartered by Queen Elizabeth in the following year. With the establishment of trading posts in India, the British were able to maintain strength relative to others empires such as the Portuguese who already had set up trading posts in India. In 1767 political activity caused exploitation of the East India Company causing the plundering of the local economy, almost bringing the company into bankruptcy.


Question: What happened to the East India Trading Company in 1767?

Answer: exploitation

Britain's imperialist ambitions can be seen as early as the sixteenth century. In 1599 the British East India Company was established and was chartered by Queen Elizabeth in the following year. With the establishment of trading posts in India, the British were able to maintain strength relative to others empires such as the Portuguese who already had set up trading posts in India. <hl> In 1767 political activity caused exploitation of the East India Company causing the plundering of the local economy, almost bringing the company into bankruptcy. <hl>

Britain's imperialist ambitions can be seen as early as the sixteenth century. In 1599 the British East India Company was established and was chartered by Queen Elizabeth in the following year. With the establishment of trading posts in India, the British were able to maintain strength relative to others empires such as the Portuguese who already had set up trading posts in India. In 1767 political activity caused <hl> exploitation <hl> of the East India Company causing the plundering of the local economy, almost bringing the company into bankruptcy.

question: What happened to the East India Trading Company in 1767?, context: Britain's imperialist ambitions can be seen as early as the sixteenth century. In 1599 the British East India Company was established and was chartered by Queen Elizabeth in the following year. With the establishment of trading posts in India, the British were able to maintain strength relative to others empires such as the Portuguese who already had set up trading posts in India. In 1767 political activity caused exploitation of the East India Company causing the plundering of the local economy, almost bringing the company into bankruptcy.


Question: Which country had trading posts in India before Britain?

Answer: the Portuguese

Britain's imperialist ambitions can be seen as early as the sixteenth century. In 1599 the British East India Company was established and was chartered by Queen Elizabeth in the following year. <hl> With the establishment of trading posts in India, the British were able to maintain strength relative to others empires such as the Portuguese who already had set up trading posts in India. <hl> In 1767 political activity caused exploitation of the East India Company causing the plundering of the local economy, almost bringing the company into bankruptcy.

Britain's imperialist ambitions can be seen as early as the sixteenth century. In 1599 the British East India Company was established and was chartered by Queen Elizabeth in the following year. With the establishment of trading posts in India, the British were able to maintain strength relative to others empires such as <hl> the Portuguese <hl> who already had set up trading posts in India. In 1767 political activity caused exploitation of the East India Company causing the plundering of the local economy, almost bringing the company into bankruptcy.

question: Which country had trading posts in India before Britain?, context: Britain's imperialist ambitions can be seen as early as the sixteenth century. In 1599 the British East India Company was established and was chartered by Queen Elizabeth in the following year. With the establishment of trading posts in India, the British were able to maintain strength relative to others empires such as the Portuguese who already had set up trading posts in India. In 1767 political activity caused exploitation of the East India Company causing the plundering of the local economy, almost bringing the company into bankruptcy.


Question: When did France take control of Algeria?

Answer: 1830

<hl> France took control of Algeria in 1830 but began in earnest to rebuild its worldwide empire after 1850, concentrating chiefly in North and West Africa, as well as South-East Asia, with other conquests in Central and East Africa, as well as the South Pacific. <hl> Republicans, at first hostile to empire, only became supportive when Germany started to build her own colonial empire. As it developed, the new empire took on roles of trade with France, supplying raw materials and purchasing manufactured items, as well as lending prestige to the motherland and spreading French civilization and language as well as Catholicism. It also provided crucial manpower in both World Wars.

France took control of Algeria in <hl> 1830 <hl> but began in earnest to rebuild its worldwide empire after 1850, concentrating chiefly in North and West Africa, as well as South-East Asia, with other conquests in Central and East Africa, as well as the South Pacific. Republicans, at first hostile to empire, only became supportive when Germany started to build her own colonial empire. As it developed, the new empire took on roles of trade with France, supplying raw materials and purchasing manufactured items, as well as lending prestige to the motherland and spreading French civilization and language as well as Catholicism. It also provided crucial manpower in both World Wars.

question: When did France take control of Algeria?, context: France took control of Algeria in 1830 but began in earnest to rebuild its worldwide empire after 1850, concentrating chiefly in North and West Africa, as well as South-East Asia, with other conquests in Central and East Africa, as well as the South Pacific. Republicans, at first hostile to empire, only became supportive when Germany started to build her own colonial empire. As it developed, the new empire took on roles of trade with France, supplying raw materials and purchasing manufactured items, as well as lending prestige to the motherland and spreading French civilization and language as well as Catholicism. It also provided crucial manpower in both World Wars.


Question: When did France begin in earnest to rebuild its global empire?

Answer: 1850

<hl> France took control of Algeria in 1830 but began in earnest to rebuild its worldwide empire after 1850 , concentrating chiefly in North and West Africa, as well as South-East Asia, with other conquests in Central and East Africa, as well as the South Pacific. <hl> Republicans, at first hostile to empire, only became supportive when Germany started to build her own colonial empire. As it developed, the new empire took on roles of trade with France, supplying raw materials and purchasing manufactured items, as well as lending prestige to the motherland and spreading French civilization and language as well as Catholicism. It also provided crucial manpower in both World Wars.

France took control of Algeria in 1830 but began in earnest to rebuild its worldwide empire after <hl> 1850 <hl>, concentrating chiefly in North and West Africa, as well as South-East Asia, with other conquests in Central and East Africa, as well as the South Pacific. Republicans, at first hostile to empire, only became supportive when Germany started to build her own colonial empire. As it developed, the new empire took on roles of trade with France, supplying raw materials and purchasing manufactured items, as well as lending prestige to the motherland and spreading French civilization and language as well as Catholicism. It also provided crucial manpower in both World Wars.

France took control of Algeria in 1830 but began in earnest to rebuild its worldwide empire after <hl> 1850 <hl> , concentrating chiefly in North and West Africa, as well as South-East Asia, with other conquests in Central and East Africa, as well as the South Pacific.

question: When did France begin in earnest to rebuild its global empire?, context: France took control of Algeria in 1830 but began in earnest to rebuild its worldwide empire after 1850, concentrating chiefly in North and West Africa, as well as South-East Asia, with other conquests in Central and East Africa, as well as the South Pacific. Republicans, at first hostile to empire, only became supportive when Germany started to build her own colonial empire. As it developed, the new empire took on roles of trade with France, supplying raw materials and purchasing manufactured items, as well as lending prestige to the motherland and spreading French civilization and language as well as Catholicism. It also provided crucial manpower in both World Wars.


Question: What religion did the French spread along with their imperialism?

Answer: Catholicism

France took control of Algeria in 1830 but began in earnest to rebuild its worldwide empire after 1850, concentrating chiefly in North and West Africa, as well as South-East Asia, with other conquests in Central and East Africa, as well as the South Pacific. Republicans, at first hostile to empire, only became supportive when Germany started to build her own colonial empire. <hl> As it developed, the new empire took on roles of trade with France, supplying raw materials and purchasing manufactured items, as well as lending prestige to the motherland and spreading French civilization and language as well as Catholicism . <hl> It also provided crucial manpower in both World Wars.

France took control of Algeria in 1830 but began in earnest to rebuild its worldwide empire after 1850, concentrating chiefly in North and West Africa, as well as South-East Asia, with other conquests in Central and East Africa, as well as the South Pacific. Republicans, at first hostile to empire, only became supportive when Germany started to build her own colonial empire. As it developed, the new empire took on roles of trade with France, supplying raw materials and purchasing manufactured items, as well as lending prestige to the motherland and spreading French civilization and language as well as <hl> Catholicism <hl>. It also provided crucial manpower in both World Wars.

As it developed, the new empire took on roles of trade with France, supplying raw materials and purchasing manufactured items, as well as lending prestige to the motherland and spreading French civilization and language as well as <hl> Catholicism <hl> .

question: What religion did the French spread along with their imperialism?, context: France took control of Algeria in 1830 but began in earnest to rebuild its worldwide empire after 1850, concentrating chiefly in North and West Africa, as well as South-East Asia, with other conquests in Central and East Africa, as well as the South Pacific. Republicans, at first hostile to empire, only became supportive when Germany started to build her own colonial empire. As it developed, the new empire took on roles of trade with France, supplying raw materials and purchasing manufactured items, as well as lending prestige to the motherland and spreading French civilization and language as well as Catholicism. It also provided crucial manpower in both World Wars.


Question: Where did France focus its efforts to rebuild its empire?

Answer: Africa

<hl> France took control of Algeria in 1830 but began in earnest to rebuild its worldwide empire after 1850, concentrating chiefly in North and West Africa , as well as South-East Asia, with other conquests in Central and East Africa, as well as the South Pacific. <hl> Republicans, at first hostile to empire, only became supportive when Germany started to build her own colonial empire. As it developed, the new empire took on roles of trade with France, supplying raw materials and purchasing manufactured items, as well as lending prestige to the motherland and spreading French civilization and language as well as Catholicism. It also provided crucial manpower in both World Wars.

France took control of Algeria in 1830 but began in earnest to rebuild its worldwide empire after 1850, concentrating chiefly in North and West <hl> Africa <hl>, as well as South-East Asia, with other conquests in Central and East Africa, as well as the South Pacific. Republicans, at first hostile to empire, only became supportive when Germany started to build her own colonial empire. As it developed, the new empire took on roles of trade with France, supplying raw materials and purchasing manufactured items, as well as lending prestige to the motherland and spreading French civilization and language as well as Catholicism. It also provided crucial manpower in both World Wars.

France took control of Algeria in 1830 but began in earnest to rebuild its worldwide empire after 1850, concentrating chiefly in North and West <hl> Africa <hl> , as well as South-East Asia, with other conquests in Central and East Africa, as well as the South Pacific.

question: Where did France focus its efforts to rebuild its empire?, context: France took control of Algeria in 1830 but began in earnest to rebuild its worldwide empire after 1850, concentrating chiefly in North and West Africa, as well as South-East Asia, with other conquests in Central and East Africa, as well as the South Pacific. Republicans, at first hostile to empire, only became supportive when Germany started to build her own colonial empire. As it developed, the new empire took on roles of trade with France, supplying raw materials and purchasing manufactured items, as well as lending prestige to the motherland and spreading French civilization and language as well as Catholicism. It also provided crucial manpower in both World Wars.


Question: When did French Republicans back building the French empire?

Answer: when Germany started to build her own

France took control of Algeria in 1830 but began in earnest to rebuild its worldwide empire after 1850, concentrating chiefly in North and West Africa, as well as South-East Asia, with other conquests in Central and East Africa, as well as the South Pacific. <hl> Republicans, at first hostile to empire, only became supportive when Germany started to build her own colonial empire. <hl> As it developed, the new empire took on roles of trade with France, supplying raw materials and purchasing manufactured items, as well as lending prestige to the motherland and spreading French civilization and language as well as Catholicism. It also provided crucial manpower in both World Wars.

France took control of Algeria in 1830 but began in earnest to rebuild its worldwide empire after 1850, concentrating chiefly in North and West Africa, as well as South-East Asia, with other conquests in Central and East Africa, as well as the South Pacific. Republicans, at first hostile to empire, only became supportive <hl> when Germany started to build her own <hl> colonial empire. As it developed, the new empire took on roles of trade with France, supplying raw materials and purchasing manufactured items, as well as lending prestige to the motherland and spreading French civilization and language as well as Catholicism. It also provided crucial manpower in both World Wars.

question: When did French Republicans back building the French empire?, context: France took control of Algeria in 1830 but began in earnest to rebuild its worldwide empire after 1850, concentrating chiefly in North and West Africa, as well as South-East Asia, with other conquests in Central and East Africa, as well as the South Pacific. Republicans, at first hostile to empire, only became supportive when Germany started to build her own colonial empire. As it developed, the new empire took on roles of trade with France, supplying raw materials and purchasing manufactured items, as well as lending prestige to the motherland and spreading French civilization and language as well as Catholicism. It also provided crucial manpower in both World Wars.


Question: Jules Ferry thought that the "higher races" have a duty to what?

Answer: civilize the inferior

It became a moral justification to lift the world up to French standards by bringing Christianity and French culture. <hl> In 1884 the leading exponent of colonialism, Jules Ferry declared France had a civilising mission: "The higher races have a right over the lower races, they have a duty to civilize the inferior ". <hl> Full citizenship rights – ‘’assimilation’’ – were offered, although in reality assimilation was always on the distant horizon. Contrasting from Britain, France sent small numbers of settlers to its colonies, with the only notable exception of Algeria, where French settlers nevertheless always remained a small minority.

It became a moral justification to lift the world up to French standards by bringing Christianity and French culture. In 1884 the leading exponent of colonialism, Jules Ferry declared France had a civilising mission: "The higher races have a right over the lower races, they have a duty to <hl> civilize the inferior <hl>". Full citizenship rights – ‘’assimilation’’ – were offered, although in reality assimilation was always on the distant horizon. Contrasting from Britain, France sent small numbers of settlers to its colonies, with the only notable exception of Algeria, where French settlers nevertheless always remained a small minority.

In 1884 the leading exponent of colonialism, Jules Ferry declared France had a civilising mission: "The higher races have a right over the lower races, they have a duty to <hl> civilize the inferior <hl> ".

question: Jules Ferry thought that the "higher races" have a duty to what?, context: It became a moral justification to lift the world up to French standards by bringing Christianity and French culture. In 1884 the leading exponent of colonialism, Jules Ferry declared France had a civilising mission: "The higher races have a right over the lower races, they have a duty to civilize the inferior". Full citizenship rights – ‘’assimilation’’ – were offered, although in reality assimilation was always on the distant horizon. Contrasting from Britain, France sent small numbers of settlers to its colonies, with the only notable exception of Algeria, where French settlers nevertheless always remained a small minority.


Question: What did France offer that was rare by imperial standards?

Answer: assimilation

It became a moral justification to lift the world up to French standards by bringing Christianity and French culture. In 1884 the leading exponent of colonialism, Jules Ferry declared France had a civilising mission: "The higher races have a right over the lower races, they have a duty to civilize the inferior". <hl> Full citizenship rights – ‘’ assimilation ’’ – were offered, although in reality assimilation was always on the distant horizon. <hl> Contrasting from Britain, France sent small numbers of settlers to its colonies, with the only notable exception of Algeria, where French settlers nevertheless always remained a small minority.

It became a moral justification to lift the world up to French standards by bringing Christianity and French culture. In 1884 the leading exponent of colonialism, Jules Ferry declared France had a civilising mission: "The higher races have a right over the lower races, they have a duty to civilize the inferior". Full citizenship rights – ‘’<hl> assimilation <hl>’’ – were offered, although in reality assimilation was always on the distant horizon. Contrasting from Britain, France sent small numbers of settlers to its colonies, with the only notable exception of Algeria, where French settlers nevertheless always remained a small minority.

Full citizenship rights – ‘’ <hl> assimilation <hl> ’’ – were offered, although in reality assimilation was always on the distant horizon.

question: What did France offer that was rare by imperial standards?, context: It became a moral justification to lift the world up to French standards by bringing Christianity and French culture. In 1884 the leading exponent of colonialism, Jules Ferry declared France had a civilising mission: "The higher races have a right over the lower races, they have a duty to civilize the inferior". Full citizenship rights – ‘’assimilation’’ – were offered, although in reality assimilation was always on the distant horizon. Contrasting from Britain, France sent small numbers of settlers to its colonies, with the only notable exception of Algeria, where French settlers nevertheless always remained a small minority.


Question: How did france differ from Britain in managing its colonies?

Answer: small numbers of settlers

It became a moral justification to lift the world up to French standards by bringing Christianity and French culture. In 1884 the leading exponent of colonialism, Jules Ferry declared France had a civilising mission: "The higher races have a right over the lower races, they have a duty to civilize the inferior". Full citizenship rights – ‘’assimilation’’ – were offered, although in reality assimilation was always on the distant horizon. <hl> Contrasting from Britain, France sent small numbers of settlers to its colonies, with the only notable exception of Algeria, where French settlers nevertheless always remained a small minority. <hl>

It became a moral justification to lift the world up to French standards by bringing Christianity and French culture. In 1884 the leading exponent of colonialism, Jules Ferry declared France had a civilising mission: "The higher races have a right over the lower races, they have a duty to civilize the inferior". Full citizenship rights – ‘’assimilation’’ – were offered, although in reality assimilation was always on the distant horizon. Contrasting from Britain, France sent <hl> small numbers of settlers <hl> to its colonies, with the only notable exception of Algeria, where French settlers nevertheless always remained a small minority.

question: How did france differ from Britain in managing its colonies?, context: It became a moral justification to lift the world up to French standards by bringing Christianity and French culture. In 1884 the leading exponent of colonialism, Jules Ferry declared France had a civilising mission: "The higher races have a right over the lower races, they have a duty to civilize the inferior". Full citizenship rights – ‘’assimilation’’ – were offered, although in reality assimilation was always on the distant horizon. Contrasting from Britain, France sent small numbers of settlers to its colonies, with the only notable exception of Algeria, where French settlers nevertheless always remained a small minority.


Question: The French thought bringing what would uplift other regions?

Answer: Christianity and French culture

<hl> It became a moral justification to lift the world up to French standards by bringing Christianity and French culture . <hl> In 1884 the leading exponent of colonialism, Jules Ferry declared France had a civilising mission: "The higher races have a right over the lower races, they have a duty to civilize the inferior". Full citizenship rights – ‘’assimilation’’ – were offered, although in reality assimilation was always on the distant horizon. Contrasting from Britain, France sent small numbers of settlers to its colonies, with the only notable exception of Algeria, where French settlers nevertheless always remained a small minority.

It became a moral justification to lift the world up to French standards by bringing <hl> Christianity and French culture <hl>. In 1884 the leading exponent of colonialism, Jules Ferry declared France had a civilising mission: "The higher races have a right over the lower races, they have a duty to civilize the inferior". Full citizenship rights – ‘’assimilation’’ – were offered, although in reality assimilation was always on the distant horizon. Contrasting from Britain, France sent small numbers of settlers to its colonies, with the only notable exception of Algeria, where French settlers nevertheless always remained a small minority.

It became a moral justification to lift the world up to French standards by bringing <hl> Christianity and French culture <hl> .

question: The French thought bringing what would uplift other regions?, context: It became a moral justification to lift the world up to French standards by bringing Christianity and French culture. In 1884 the leading exponent of colonialism, Jules Ferry declared France had a civilising mission: "The higher races have a right over the lower races, they have a duty to civilize the inferior". Full citizenship rights – ‘’assimilation’’ – were offered, although in reality assimilation was always on the distant horizon. Contrasting from Britain, France sent small numbers of settlers to its colonies, with the only notable exception of Algeria, where French settlers nevertheless always remained a small minority.


Question: Where did the French send a large number of settlers?

Answer: Algeria

It became a moral justification to lift the world up to French standards by bringing Christianity and French culture. In 1884 the leading exponent of colonialism, Jules Ferry declared France had a civilising mission: "The higher races have a right over the lower races, they have a duty to civilize the inferior". Full citizenship rights – ‘’assimilation’’ – were offered, although in reality assimilation was always on the distant horizon. <hl> Contrasting from Britain, France sent small numbers of settlers to its colonies, with the only notable exception of Algeria , where French settlers nevertheless always remained a small minority. <hl>

It became a moral justification to lift the world up to French standards by bringing Christianity and French culture. In 1884 the leading exponent of colonialism, Jules Ferry declared France had a civilising mission: "The higher races have a right over the lower races, they have a duty to civilize the inferior". Full citizenship rights – ‘’assimilation’’ – were offered, although in reality assimilation was always on the distant horizon. Contrasting from Britain, France sent small numbers of settlers to its colonies, with the only notable exception of <hl> Algeria <hl>, where French settlers nevertheless always remained a small minority.

Contrasting from Britain, France sent small numbers of settlers to its colonies, with the only notable exception of <hl> Algeria <hl> , where French settlers nevertheless always remained a small minority.

question: Where did the French send a large number of settlers?, context: It became a moral justification to lift the world up to French standards by bringing Christianity and French culture. In 1884 the leading exponent of colonialism, Jules Ferry declared France had a civilising mission: "The higher races have a right over the lower races, they have a duty to civilize the inferior". Full citizenship rights – ‘’assimilation’’ – were offered, although in reality assimilation was always on the distant horizon. Contrasting from Britain, France sent small numbers of settlers to its colonies, with the only notable exception of Algeria, where French settlers nevertheless always remained a small minority.


Question: Where did Charles de Gaulle and the Free French run operations during World War 2?

Answer: overseas colonies

<hl> In World War II, Charles de Gaulle and the Free French used the overseas colonies as bases from which they fought to liberate France. <hl> However after 1945 anti-colonial movements began to challenge the Empire. France fought and lost a bitter war in Vietnam in the 1950s. Whereas they won the war in Algeria, the French leader at the time, Charles de Gaulle, decided to grant Algeria independence anyway in 1962. Its settlers and many local supporters relocated to France. Nearly all of France's colonies gained independence by 1960, but France retained great financial and diplomatic influence. It has repeatedly sent troops to assist its former colonies in Africa in suppressing insurrections and coups d’état.

In World War II, Charles de Gaulle and the Free French used the <hl> overseas colonies <hl> as bases from which they fought to liberate France. However after 1945 anti-colonial movements began to challenge the Empire. France fought and lost a bitter war in Vietnam in the 1950s. Whereas they won the war in Algeria, the French leader at the time, Charles de Gaulle, decided to grant Algeria independence anyway in 1962. Its settlers and many local supporters relocated to France. Nearly all of France's colonies gained independence by 1960, but France retained great financial and diplomatic influence. It has repeatedly sent troops to assist its former colonies in Africa in suppressing insurrections and coups d’état.

question: Where did Charles de Gaulle and the Free French run operations during World War 2?, context: In World War II, Charles de Gaulle and the Free French used the overseas colonies as bases from which they fought to liberate France. However after 1945 anti-colonial movements began to challenge the Empire. France fought and lost a bitter war in Vietnam in the 1950s. Whereas they won the war in Algeria, the French leader at the time, Charles de Gaulle, decided to grant Algeria independence anyway in 1962. Its settlers and many local supporters relocated to France. Nearly all of France's colonies gained independence by 1960, but France retained great financial and diplomatic influence. It has repeatedly sent troops to assist its former colonies in Africa in suppressing insurrections and coups d’état.


Question: After 1945, what challenged the French empire?

Answer: anti-colonial movements

In World War II, Charles de Gaulle and the Free French used the overseas colonies as bases from which they fought to liberate France. <hl> However after 1945 anti-colonial movements began to challenge the Empire. <hl> France fought and lost a bitter war in Vietnam in the 1950s. Whereas they won the war in Algeria, the French leader at the time, Charles de Gaulle, decided to grant Algeria independence anyway in 1962. Its settlers and many local supporters relocated to France. Nearly all of France's colonies gained independence by 1960, but France retained great financial and diplomatic influence. It has repeatedly sent troops to assist its former colonies in Africa in suppressing insurrections and coups d’état.

In World War II, Charles de Gaulle and the Free French used the overseas colonies as bases from which they fought to liberate France. However after 1945 <hl> anti-colonial movements <hl> began to challenge the Empire. France fought and lost a bitter war in Vietnam in the 1950s. Whereas they won the war in Algeria, the French leader at the time, Charles de Gaulle, decided to grant Algeria independence anyway in 1962. Its settlers and many local supporters relocated to France. Nearly all of France's colonies gained independence by 1960, but France retained great financial and diplomatic influence. It has repeatedly sent troops to assist its former colonies in Africa in suppressing insurrections and coups d’état.

question: After 1945, what challenged the French empire?, context: In World War II, Charles de Gaulle and the Free French used the overseas colonies as bases from which they fought to liberate France. However after 1945 anti-colonial movements began to challenge the Empire. France fought and lost a bitter war in Vietnam in the 1950s. Whereas they won the war in Algeria, the French leader at the time, Charles de Gaulle, decided to grant Algeria independence anyway in 1962. Its settlers and many local supporters relocated to France. Nearly all of France's colonies gained independence by 1960, but France retained great financial and diplomatic influence. It has repeatedly sent troops to assist its former colonies in Africa in suppressing insurrections and coups d’état.


Question: Where did France lose a war in the 1950's?

Answer: Vietnam

In World War II, Charles de Gaulle and the Free French used the overseas colonies as bases from which they fought to liberate France. However after 1945 anti-colonial movements began to challenge the Empire. <hl> France fought and lost a bitter war in Vietnam in the 1950s. <hl> Whereas they won the war in Algeria, the French leader at the time, Charles de Gaulle, decided to grant Algeria independence anyway in 1962. Its settlers and many local supporters relocated to France. Nearly all of France's colonies gained independence by 1960, but France retained great financial and diplomatic influence. It has repeatedly sent troops to assist its former colonies in Africa in suppressing insurrections and coups d’état.

In World War II, Charles de Gaulle and the Free French used the overseas colonies as bases from which they fought to liberate France. However after 1945 anti-colonial movements began to challenge the Empire. France fought and lost a bitter war in <hl> Vietnam <hl> in the 1950s. Whereas they won the war in Algeria, the French leader at the time, Charles de Gaulle, decided to grant Algeria independence anyway in 1962. Its settlers and many local supporters relocated to France. Nearly all of France's colonies gained independence by 1960, but France retained great financial and diplomatic influence. It has repeatedly sent troops to assist its former colonies in Africa in suppressing insurrections and coups d’état.

question: Where did France lose a war in the 1950's?, context: In World War II, Charles de Gaulle and the Free French used the overseas colonies as bases from which they fought to liberate France. However after 1945 anti-colonial movements began to challenge the Empire. France fought and lost a bitter war in Vietnam in the 1950s. Whereas they won the war in Algeria, the French leader at the time, Charles de Gaulle, decided to grant Algeria independence anyway in 1962. Its settlers and many local supporters relocated to France. Nearly all of France's colonies gained independence by 1960, but France retained great financial and diplomatic influence. It has repeatedly sent troops to assist its former colonies in Africa in suppressing insurrections and coups d’état.


Question: Where did France win a war in the 1950's

Answer: Algeria

In World War II, Charles de Gaulle and the Free French used the overseas colonies as bases from which they fought to liberate France. However after 1945 anti-colonial movements began to challenge the Empire. France fought and lost a bitter war in Vietnam in the 1950s. <hl> Whereas they won the war in Algeria , the French leader at the time, Charles de Gaulle, decided to grant Algeria independence anyway in 1962. <hl> Its settlers and many local supporters relocated to France. Nearly all of France's colonies gained independence by 1960, but France retained great financial and diplomatic influence. It has repeatedly sent troops to assist its former colonies in Africa in suppressing insurrections and coups d’état.

In World War II, Charles de Gaulle and the Free French used the overseas colonies as bases from which they fought to liberate France. However after 1945 anti-colonial movements began to challenge the Empire. France fought and lost a bitter war in Vietnam in the 1950s. Whereas they won the war in <hl> Algeria <hl>, the French leader at the time, Charles de Gaulle, decided to grant Algeria independence anyway in 1962. Its settlers and many local supporters relocated to France. Nearly all of France's colonies gained independence by 1960, but France retained great financial and diplomatic influence. It has repeatedly sent troops to assist its former colonies in Africa in suppressing insurrections and coups d’état.

Whereas they won the war in <hl> Algeria <hl> , the French leader at the time, Charles de Gaulle, decided to grant Algeria independence anyway in 1962.

question: Where did France win a war in the 1950's, context: In World War II, Charles de Gaulle and the Free French used the overseas colonies as bases from which they fought to liberate France. However after 1945 anti-colonial movements began to challenge the Empire. France fought and lost a bitter war in Vietnam in the 1950s. Whereas they won the war in Algeria, the French leader at the time, Charles de Gaulle, decided to grant Algeria independence anyway in 1962. Its settlers and many local supporters relocated to France. Nearly all of France's colonies gained independence by 1960, but France retained great financial and diplomatic influence. It has repeatedly sent troops to assist its former colonies in Africa in suppressing insurrections and coups d’état.