Talk:New Imperialism (1871-1914)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ok, this seems to solve the problem. WP articles are harder to link to if they are too complicated, i understand, but if they are too general, ;;i.e does the "new coca-cola" article refer to the "old new" or the "new new"
Ive got nothing to say about any of the content, so that made me suitable for making this decision on purely aesthetic grounds entirely. -Sv
Which is more useful to somebody who has never heard of Pax Britannica or New Imperialism. (Pick one or submit your own revision)
- 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.
or
- 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.
