Talk:New Imperialism/archive 4

talk to Talk:Economic theories of the New Imperialist era

this whole wait to see what other users think doesnt seem to be working very well...

A: The collapse of the British and Spanish empires in the New World following the American Revolution and revolutions in the viceroyalties of New Spain (to become Mexico) and Peru (to become Gran Colombia) signalled the failure of mercantilism and contributed to the appeal of the classical liberalism of Adam Smith for emerging nation-states. Richard Cobden, a disciple of Smith, contended that the costs of occupation often exceeded the financial return to the taxpayer. In other words, formal empire afforded no reciprocal economic benefit when trade would continue whether the overseas political entities were nominally sovereign or not.

B: The economic, political, and technological developments, of the late 19th century, rendered imperial competition feasible, in spite of Britain’s centuries of naval superiority. The decline of Pax Britannica, was made possible by developments such as the breakdown of the Concert of Europe and the establishment of industrial powers in Germany, Italy, the United States, and Japan. The industrial nations began to enter an era of aggressive national rivalry, particularly in regards to trade and colonialism, this era being known as that of the New Imperialism.

Vera Cruz

You keep bringing this up yet the majority of the active participants in this discussion have made their preferences clear. Slrubenstein

splitting into two parts can be done, just like some books are in two parts

can be, but should it be? I still agree with Tannin above. I do think that any general discussion of imperialism should be in a separate article (as you suggest), but that this article still needs to include discussion of the reasons for, and significance of, the New Imperialism, and that any theories that touch on these specific issues belongs in this article. Slrubenstein

just hang on a tic, Vera, I'm working my way through the whole thing bit by bit. I will return to this shortly. Tannin

Tannin again. Some notes as I (belatedly) re-read the present article carefully, making minor grammatical changes as I go to clarify and simplify the language without (I trust) making any change to the substantive content.

Introductory section is just fine as it stands. Should it also mention the participation of the two non-European colonial powers (the US and Japan) in the late 19th/early 20th Century land-grab? Vera Cruz raised this issue originally, and my feeling is that we should not arbitrarily restrict discussion to the European powers just because they happened to be European. What do others think?

I agee with you and VC on this point Slrubenstein

The Breakdown of Mercantilism and the Rise of Pax Britannica. First para repeats itself a bit. I'd like to streamline it so that it reads more smoothly but that would require more sweeping changes than our current gentlemans' agreement permits (as I interpret it). Also, on content rather than style, does it not under-stress the matter of externalities? Changes in the assessment of external costs seem to me to have been very important in the various international fashions for trade, informal empire, and formal empire over the years.

can you put a draft here? I certainly am in favor of streamlining; the reason I suggest putting a draft here first is that it is easier for all of us to discuss/vote on one (significant) change at a time. As for adding information on externalities, in principle I agree with you, but this section is background only; a trully lengthy discussion of this topic should be in other articles. My suggestion: introduce only those external factors that are also relevant to the breakdown of PB and the rise of NI. Slrubenstein

Second para is muddled. It does not make it clear why the continental European powers were inward-focussed. 172 is probably best equipped to deal with this one. (As an aside, the Concert of Europe ought to have a major article to itself.) Third para seems OK.
Last para in this section reads: "In this sense, the movement toward aggressive national rivalry, the movement toward formal empire and imperial competition, had its roots in the breakdown of Pax Britannica." I should have thought that the movement toward aggressive national rivalry & formal empire & imperial competition was the breakdown of the Pax Britannica."

I agree with you. For what it is worth, I think the larger issue is what we mean by a "cause." I think the last paragraph presents something more like what Aristotle called the material cause (or perhaps it is more like a formal cause), when today when we use the word "cause" or look for "roots" we are asking about efficient causes, or final causes. This is all the more reason to work with the general structure you proposed above, in which we first profide a historical account of what happened, and then review different explanations for why. Slrubenstein

Back on-line at last! Alas, I have to do some real work. Yes, on a Sunday. (Remind me one day soon to write an appallingly POV article about the Howard Government, the Goods and Services Tax, and its effect on Australian small business people's ever-increasing regulatory workload, to the detriment of their well-being and health.) Tannin

I have not received one response regarding what is wrong with:

The economic, political, and technological developments of the late 19th century rendered imperial competition feasible, in spite of Britain’s centuries of naval superiority. The decline of Pax Britannica, was made possible by developments such as the breakdown of the Concert of Europe and the establishment of industrial powers in Germany, Italy, the United States, and Japan. The industrial nations began to enter an era of aggressive national rivalry, particularly in regards to trade and colonialism, this era being known as that of the New Imperialism.

Vera Cruz

Okay, my main objection is to your presenting the above paragraph and the other one ("The collapse of the British and Spanish empires in the New World...") as laternatives. They are not, at all: what you label "A" deals with the decline of mercantilism, and the rise of PB. Your paragraph, labelled "B," introduces the decline of PB and the rise of NI. Any time you delete A and replace it with B I will revert, because B not only in no way addresses the issues covered by A, it does not belong in that section where A is located. They simply are not parallel.

On the principle of chronological order = logical order when dealing with history, I have no objection in principle to the information in B being placed in the appropriate section (the decline of PB and the rise of NI). My main objection is that I blieve that information is already there. But I do have some issues with phrasing:

"in spite of Britain’s centuries of naval superiority" is unnecessary, because Britain's naval superiority 20 or 50 or 100 or 150 or 200 or 300 years ago is not relevant, only Britain's naval superiority at the time (if you use the words "in spite of")
"The decline of Pax Britannica, was made possible by developments such as the breakdown of the Concert of Europe" I am not sure if the breakdown of the Concert of Europe is a "cause" of the decline of PB, or a sign of the decline of PB. I suspect the latter makese more sense.

I do however like the last sentence.

Does this answer your questions? Slrubenstein

Now first of all,

"in spite of Britain’s centuries of naval superiority"

is used I think twice, unless he changed it, in 172s version, I have it in my version because he started reverting everything I did and I was trying to be agreeable.

With all due respect, here you sound like you are taking things personally and are getting defensive, as if you were competing with 172. You asked what people thought of the two paragraphs, and I gave my answer -- all I was commenting on was the two paragraphs.

I don't think it's that bad since it does remind the reader that somehow Britian lost that total naval superiority,

Okay, I agree with you that this point is important, but my objection to having it in this specific context stands. It is inappropriate in this particular paragraph. The general point you think it makes is I agree important and should be made in the article, but elsewhere.

this being akin to the US losing it's air superiority. The reason for this loss being found, naturally, in industrialization, as we can expect the spread of computer technology to have an impact on US air superiority.

So that objection isn't much of one, seeing as how I don't particularly care whether Britian's naval superiority is mentioned here, as Pax Britannica needs its own article.

I am commenting not on the content but on the writing style. The only way the style of this article will ever improve is if we are capable of distinguishing betwen the two kinds of criticisms, and the two kinds of solutions.

I think the breakdown of the Concert of Europe is both a sign and a cause-the overriding and primary reason for this era, (and of course for World War I), in my opinion, is the spread and advancement of industrialization combined with capitalism.

I do not care what you think -- or what 172 thinks, or what I think (so do not take this personally). We are writing an encyclopedia article which means we are writing about what other people think, and we must make attributions. There is considerable debate among scholars over NI, so the article says, I am sure some of this debate is over causes. The introductory paragraphs should present the scholarly consensus, and if the consensus of most historians is as you say that the breakdown of the Concert of Europe is a cause, well, then, I stand corrected and we can change the article appropriately. If there is debate, this issue should be covered in a section on theories of NI.

As for A and B being alternatives...They are alternatives-something has to come after the introduction, new imperialism?, part. Do we want to start talking away about Cobden and Smith and mercantilism and finance capitalism and... or should we ease into it with something along the lines of B...that is:

The industrial nations began to enter an era of aggressive national rivalry, particularly in regards to trade and colonialism, this era being known as that of the New Imperialism.

Well, for goodness sakes, how much clearer do I have to be? Yes, yes, yes, yes I think that right after the introduction we should start with the section on the decline of Mercantilism and the rise of PB, meaning paragraph A. I have said this before and so have others. It is a matter of a well-organized article (not content, but style) and I really thought I was clear: the two paragraphs refer to different time periods, and the one discussing the earlier time period should come before the one discussing the later time period.

I'd like to thank you for responding. Vera Cruz

Any time! Slrubenstein

I did some smoothing out of the opening two sections. Here is my logic:

The preamble discusses the term (necessary, I think, given how much discussion we have had on the term itself)

The introduction introduces the phenomenon itself (what the term signifies).

This seems pretty logical to me; I think that to avoid clumsy phrases and redundancies, we should try to keep all discussion of terminology in one section, and all discussion of the phenomenon in other sections. As long as no one changes the first sentence, I also think it makes sense to open with a brief discussion of terminology as it provides good general context. Slrubenstein

I support Slrubenstein’s latest revisions. Other than the opening paragraphs though, the article hasn’t changed substantially since I first posted it. It’s now time to start writing the blank articles, such as the Concert of Europe.

172

I’ve read some criticisms of this article on other pages. None of the content is copyrighted. It’s not an undergraduate’s work. It’s been edited many times by many users, scattered around, and contains some random typos (I wrote the bulk of the article on the Wikipedia prompt screen; it wasn’t anything that I had had published). I find the accusations that it’s an undergraduate’s POVing mixed-in with textbook passages kind of amusing anyway. Some cannot stand to not condemn anything that I’ve touched, so they’ll say that the better parts are copyright violations.

172

I see no reason to have a discussion of the origins of the word imperialism here that is better placed on imperialism Vera Cruz

Vera Cruz:

I’m not the only one who feels that Ortolan88’s paragraph is necessary to understand what distinguishes this era of imperialism from any other. I suspect that you do too, and that you’re sabotaging this article.

Plz see imperialism if you are interested in the origins of the word. Vera Cruz

You are outnumbered once again, Vera Cruz. I feel more empowered to defend someone else’s contribution from your obsessive deleting than one of my own.

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:New_Imperialism/archive_4"

Talk:New Imperialism/archive 4

Navigation

Search

Toolbox

Personal tools