Talk:New Imperialism/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Let me answer as many questions as possible:

1.) “New Imperialism” is the most common term used in historiography to refer to era between the Franco-Prussian War and World War I. In the beginning of my article at least, it states that the term is used to differentiate this era between mercantilism and the era of free trade colonialism between the Congress of Vienna and the Franco-Prussian War.

Mercantilism seemed to be on the wane after the American Revolution and the publication of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. Yet nearly a hundred years later, an increased drive toward formal colonialism (empire for empire's sake) was evident. That's why there's a seperate article on this era, New Imperialism.

2.) Vera Cruz picks out one word in a large article and uses this as an excuse to delete the vast majority of it.

3.) Vera Cruz says that he will continue to delete my text unless I go through it line by line with him on AOL instant messenger. This request is a bit extreme, isn’t it?

4.) So many historical trends have been linked to the rise of New Imperialism: the industrialization of Germany, the industrialization of the United States, Union victory in the Civil War, the Panic of 1893 in the US, the Long Depression of 1873 onward in Europe, trade unionism, the rise of socialism, amalgamation of industry, the schism of the Liberal Party, conflict in Ireland, the Spanish American War, protectionism in Germany, protectionism in the United States, the unification of Germany, the unification of Italy, the fall of Napoleon III, stability under the Third Republic, the Indian Mutiny, Romanticism, the liberal nationalism of Garibaldi, mass-psychology, the rise of mass-society, centralization of nation states, Social Darwinism, racism, Britain’s relative decline, Britain’s strength, Russian conflicts with the Ottoman Empire, strategic threats to the Suez canal, etc.

Vera Cruz is not connecting them. He’s not illuminating why these events were unfolding during this era, not expressing an appreciation of underlying economic, political, and cultural changes that are pushing Europe into this era of aggressive nationalism.

His sweeping edits have left the text, which had been meticulously organized in order to weave all the sections together, utterly incomprehensible. As I’ve said earlier, he’s left a jumbled mess of topics that no non-expert could understand in context. All these events are mentioned, but that’s only because he’s leaving my original heading with one or two topic sentences intact.

5.) If a word in the text is objectionable, delete the word, not something like 2/3 of the text.

172

Let us be clear 172, I found over 66% of your text to be objectionable, in excess of 90% of it was modified in some form. I am picking out your entire article and using that as a reason to make changes, not one mere word. If you are confused about something in this article, plz ask and I will try to re-write it so that non-experts can better understand it.

That being said, I have asked you to go through this line by line, so we can find out just what exactly you object to, since you still have not addressed anything within the article, instead preferring to give a general critique. Vera Cruz

Vera Cruz:

Your article cannot be understood by non-experts.

You have a list of historic trends.

No non-expert reader will be able to understand why they are there in the article in the first place and why they might be connected.

You can't just say that find 2/3 of an article objectionable and delete 90% of it.

Please, other users, help me!

172

Vera Cruz:

Copy the text and make these "minor revisions" on Word or some word processing program on your computer.

You might be making minor changes to your version, but you're still deleting 90% of the text of this article each time.

Just because the article is shorter, doesn’t mean that it’s more understandable.

172

Just because your article is longer doesn't mean that it's more understandable. Vera Cruz

My longer article is more understandable.

It explains why each listed historical trend is linked to the rise of aggressive nationalism in this era. That's why it's longer! I teach a course on this subject, I know what I'm talking about.

172

Instead of arguing that you are an expert, why don't you pick out something particular that u feel isn't properly explained, and explain how u would better explain it. Vera Cruz

Vera Cruz:

Your article consists largely of cut/pasted sentences from mine. It’s an incoherent, jumbled mess that you feel is more understandable simply because it’s shorter.

I’ll point out grave flaws in historical accuracy. For one, your references to the “African Power Vacuum” are way off. The “power vacuum” was in the North due to the decline in Ottoman power, not in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Lord Salisbury’s reference to “dying nations” did not refer to crumbling, European empires in Africa. Portugal held on to Mozambique and Angola, for instance. You’re confusing the reference to “dying nations”, which referred to the great, absolutist empires of the past that had not industrialized, such as China and the Ottomans.

Your brief overview of the Long Depression is also a vast oversimplification. The Long Depression was not merely the cause of Britain’s relative industrial decline, as it was experienced throughout continental Europe. You also don’t really link the relationship between the Long Depression and the flight of capital to non-industrial markets overseas, such as India, China, Latin America, and the formal colonies. So aside from being historically inaccurate, your version doesn’t even articulate why this section is in the article.

You refer to the rise of finance capitalism, but don’t link it to the amalgamation of industry. In turn, you don’t link these broader economic trends to New Imperialism.

This is just to name a few problems. I don't have time to explain why the article in general tells us little about New Imperialism.

172

When every single line of an article (a long, poorly written, and tendentious one) has been changed six times between midnight and breakfast, no one, no matter how patient, is going to help either Vera Cruz or 172. I came here with a simple question, still unanswered, except by appeal to unstated authority. Why call this "new imperialism" when the term imperialism was invented in the 19th century to distinguish a new phenomenon from previous phenomena? My authorities for this are the Oxford English Dictionary and J. A. Hobson. I have no horse in this race. As far as I can see, 172 is a committed leftist bringing up some undisputed information and some unwelcome viewpoints in a challenging way and Vera Cruz is . . . I just can't figure it out. Vera Cruz might even be working towards some kind of dialectic success that we could all applaud, but the truculence and deceptiveness make it impossible to tell. Next year, after all the fuss dies down, we might have an article, but as long as that obfuscating "new" is in there, I doubt it. Ortolan88

Ortolan88:

The term "New Imperialism" is not my invention. There is no other more common name to refer to this era of imperialism (1871-1914).

It was considered an era of “new imperialism” at the time. Mercantilism seemed to be on the wane after the American Revolution, yet after the Franco-Prussian War there was an intense drive toward formal empire once again in Western Europe that cumulated in the scramble for Africa. As a historian, I’m not of liberty to come up with new terminology. I have to use the most commonly recognized term to refer to this era.

User:172

Yes, people should chronicle other eras of imperialism.

But I’m having enough trouble chronicling the era between 1871-1914, the era known as New Imperialism. My article keeps on becoming a jumbled mess because non-expert contributors edit it after coming to baseless conclusions.

1) Some suspect me of being biased somehow. I’ve been accused of being anti-Western and Euro-centric. (contradictory?) 2) Some suspect that the article is flawed because it’s so long. Some say that it reads like a textbook, suspecting that it’s a copyright violation. Others say that the writing is incomprehensible. (contradictory?)

In short, a lot of people dislike me, but few have read the article that I keep restoring. Granted the earlier version was flawed, but I’ve since edited it substantially. Most criticism has come from readers who haven’t read but a few sentences, not realizing in the first place that the era between 1871 and 1914 was notable in itself due to the an increased drive toward formal colonialism. Ironic once again though, since this distinction is noted in the first paragraph.

Ericd:

Deleting rude comment by Ericd.

Please don't make sarcastic comments. Your not helping the article.

172

Ericd:

I’m not dispensing that energy to salvage a few sentences. I’m dispensing that energy because I started and wrote that article and Vera Cruz is arbitrarily deleting 90% of it.

I don’t want to engage in petty, personal arguments with you anymore. I’d rather engage in more constructive dialogue.

It’s easy to accuse of bias. But what biases are evident in the article? I truly doubt that you’ve read my revised version in its entirety.

172

"Who haven’t read but a few sentences" Only a few sentences are enough make an article partial. Dispending such energy to maintain these sentences makes you biased. Ericd

"Rude insults" : Terrorisme intellectuel

There is no way to be constructive with you and you have no sense of humor. Pouaaaaah !

Ericd:

You continue to call me names, accusing me of bias. Why don't you describe this bias, giving concrete examples? That would beconstructive than calling me a terrorist because I’ve offended you for some inane reasons.

172

PLEASE please please cut it out. If anyone here is not acting in good faith, insults will have no effect; if someone is acting in good faith, insults will have a bad effect. I believe that 172 knows a good deal of history. I also believe that his/her original contribution was poorly written and had NPOV issues. I have made some minor edits myself to the first three paragraphs, to addd a little balance and to cut a lot of unnecessary words, and I do not think 172 or anyone else has taken issue with my changes. But a glance at the history of the article shows a lot of reversions and wasted effort. Let's just take one paragraph at a time, discuss specific issues on the talk page, and make changes one step at a time, please...

And if Ericd and 172 insist on snapping at one another, could you please do it on your personal pages? Believe it or not, I take both Wikipedia and this page seriously. So I keep looking at the pages when there are changes. Only to find that the changes do not relate directly to specific improvements in the article. I do not mean to stop you guys from expressing yourselves, but please, you have your own pages just for this purpose. Slrubenstein

Slrubenstein:

Why did you restore the earlier version of the opening paragraph? That earlier version I wrote. I agreed with Vera Cruz with regard to that paragraph.

Please, before criticizing the article, keep an open mind and read the whole thing. You might have read it a while ago, but it's much improved now.

I wish people would read the whole article before criticizing it and editing it.

172

172 why did you cut ?

For goodness sake, 172, stop being so defensive and argumentative! I did not restore an earlier verzion, I made some changes. Also, along with the changes I entered "see talk." Haven't you been around long enough to know that this means that an explanation is forthcoming? Haven't you been around long enough to know it takes time to write an explanation? Can't you wait five minutes before reacting? Here is my explanation:

I made three changes to the first paragraph.

1) I changed "is" to "was." The article clearly locates this set of polities in a particular time period in the past, therefore, we should use the past tense.

2) I cut some extraneous words from the first paragraph -- I do not believe my edit has any effect on content.

3) I deleted this:

Ushering out the gradual, rational empire-building of the mid-Victorian era known as the age of Pax Britannica, the late nineteenth century late-Victorian era was an one of "empire for empire's sake".

Perhaps this belongs in the article, but I contend for structural and argumentative reasons it does not belong in the opening section. The sentence makes two claims that I suspect historians disagree over, and even if there is consensus these claims need considerable explanation. The first claim is that earlier empire building was "rational." Rational in what sense? According to whom? I am not rejecting the claim, only pointing out that these questions must be explained, and such explanation is better suited to the body of the article rather than the intro. Second, what does "empire for empire's sake" mean? If anything, the article itself argues against this characterization, because it provides various reasons to account for New Imperialism; it was not an end in itself but a means to otehr ends.

I repeat: I am not saying this material does not belong in the article, only that it does not belong here. There should be one section on how historians differ over how to characterize earlier imperialism (was it rational? According to whom? In what way) and there should be a section on how historians debate over how to characterize New Imperialism (as an end in itself or as a means to other ends). These claims do not need to be in the intro. Slrubenstein

Slrubenstein:

You’re restoring flawed, earlier versions. The reference to Spanish mercantilism is too controversial. Other historians would emphasize the succession of the Bourbons in metropolitan Spain, arguing that the wars of independence in Latin America were largely conservative, backed by elite Creoles fearful of some liberal constitutional changes after the War of Spanish Succession. In addition, nation-state shouldn’t be capitalized.

172, yes, the wars of independence were largely conservative (according to most historians) but some historians argue that in many ways the American revolution was conservative too. That is not the point. The point is that mercantile colonialism was replaced by other forms of imperialism, because mercantilism collapsed -- and the American revolution is one sign of its collapse, but so was the collapse of the Spanish empire. In any event, these facts do not mean that the reference to Spain should be deleted, it means it should be expanded on (perhaps elsewhere). But if you are going to cut the reference to New Spain and Peru, you should cut the reference to the American revolution. By the way, this may be why some people think of you as Eurocentric -- as you point out, they are wrong to do so but I think the problem is that they are not expressing themselves articulately. In some ways the article is very strong on global connections, but in some places it is too narrow and I think it is this occasional narrowness people react to. As for the capital N, wikipedia article begin with capital letters and this is a link. By the way, whatever you do please do not reinsert this awkward phrase "a disciple of Adam Smith was Richard Cobden;" common English usage is to put predicates after subjects. Slrubenstein

I complement some changes, such as the deletion of that sentence with the world "rational". But I noted the above flaws.

I just don't think that we need to mention Spain because it leaves the door open to too much irrelevant debate. Spain was only a big player in the era of New Imperialism insofar as the US and Britain were eclipsing it in its traditional spheres of influence.

Most Latinos would not consider it irrelevant, in general. But you are right that it is not central to New Imperialism. But neither is the American revolution -- so cut that, too. But I thought the line about the American revolution was there because the issue was -- in this 'graph -- mercantilism (not New Imperialism). If the issue is mercantilism, the Spanish empire is very, very relevant indeed.

I think that we both can agree that the continental order following the defeat of Napoleon, defined by the Congress of Vienna, played a larger role in ushering in the age of free trade colonialism and Pax Britannica than the Latin American wars of independence.

yes -- and a greater role than the American Revolution too. If you want to cut the reference to Latin America for this reason, cut the reference to the US for this reason too.

You'll find some poor writing in the beginning (e.g. the Cobden sentence) because the beginning was edited so much.

again, please do not be so defensive. I do not care who wrote it, or how it came to be, but when you reverted my changes you reverted back to this sentence, and I was simply pointing out that this was another one of my changes (besides including reference to Latin America), Slrubenstein

The American Revolution played a large role in the political discourse in Britain, contributing to the decline of mercantilism. I’ll live with your changes though since you articulate this matter subtly.

Okay -- the point is, the decline of mercantilism had structural as well as discursive causes. On another matter, why did you change English to British? I will defer to you as I am no expert on British history, but I thought the union with Scotland only came in the mid-late 1700s, that the thriteen English-speaking colonies in North America were colonies of England and not, generally, Scotland, Ireland, or Wales or some union of the four. I am not asking you to change the article or add any of this information -- I am just curious. Slrubenstein

in 1776 they were considered british

and, in that same year, revolted against the british to regain their british rights

Ortolan-try editing my version instead of going through 172s article-there you will find that, unlike 172, i am quite willing to accept your edits. Vera Cruz

What good will that do? 172 will just revert whatever he didn't write. -- Zoe

I just added my little note about the origin of the word at the bottom of the version I found here and then like an old plow horse I plodded through the rest copy-editing, fixing markup, etc. I will be glad to do the same to your version. Where is it? Ortolan88

Although I have had my own differences with 172, I do not think Vera Cruz's proposal is at all constructive, and not for Zoe's reason. Like it or not, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Over the past year or so I have seen far greater conflicts over an article. In no case was the sollution found through two competing articles. The question of whther or not Wikipedia will survive (let alone thrive) is precisely this issue: can a contentious process in which people with conflicting opinions and styles produce good articles? I know some people (I thinkg Larry Sanger is one, if I remember his recent postings correctly) have come to doubt it. Nevertheless, this is the proposition. I will not choose to work on 172's version or Vera Cruz's version. There is only one version, Wikipedia's version, and 172, Vera Cruz, Zoe, Ortolan88, myself and others will all work on it... Slrubenstein

Good luck. I've decided that I'm not interested in pursuing this article or any other article that 172 writes as long has he continues his policy of reversion of anything he didn't write. -- Zoe

I'll do the same Ericd

Let's see if my little note on word origin and usage survives. I agree with Slrubenstein that there really is only one article, and no author. I haven't had much luck "working" with either 172 or Vera Cruz, but I'm an easygoing guy. All I want is an interesting, well-written, reliable encyclopedia. If this article doesn't work out, I'll come back to it next year some time. Ortolan88

Good job on your contribution to the article on New Imperialism. It was much needed. Do you think that it would be a good idea to place it earlier in the article? That would clarify some confusion early on, right?

Thanks to the person how italicized “Pax Britannica” as well.

All the recent changes are quite constructive!

172

Thanks, Why was it such a hard job to convince you? Move it up if you like. I started this by saying that I thought new imperialism was confusing and needed explanation. I should have just put it in the article in the first place, but I have lost stuff in edit wars before and didn't care to lose this one. I also did the markup on pax brit and other and fixed the headers and got rid of half the "scare" quotes, all noted carefully in the summary line. Ortolan88

Restoring the more descriptive version edited by Ortolan88 and Slrubenstein. Their contributions, namely editing the entire text and adding much needed background, were invaluable. Vera Cruz’s version is too choppy, lacks historical background, and is not properly woven together yet. Also, it removes the vast majority of the former article edited by Ortolan88, Slrubenstein, and myself.

172

Vera Cruz: Other than being dreadfully long for a Wikipedia article, what is wrong with the longer version? I read selections from about half of the deleted text and it didn't seem to merit outright deletion (much of the text needs to be moved to other articles and summarized here however). --mav

Can u be specific as to what i have outright deleted? Furthermore, is there no way to include whatever that is back into my version, isntead of completely reverting it to 172s pet project? Vera Cruz

To give you ( Vera Cruz) the benefit of the doubt, I think you are attempting a copy edit. I know you are making this a flabbier article. I suspect you are smuggling some kind of secret thesis into the article. Could you state in 200 words or less what your aims are so they can be judged outside the context of an endless edit war. I am probably as suspicious of 172 as it is possible to be, but verbose as it is, his version has a beginning, middle, and end, sections, a theme. It is simply too much trouble to figure out what you are trying to do. 172 has calmed down. If you would calm down too, we might get something accomplished. Ortolan88 22:16 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)

Contributors! New Imperialism is the subject of a huge amount of historical literature. This article’s bound to be long. If anything, more is needed! The latest ADDITIONS have been much needed.

172

If it is too long then people won't read it or even attempt to edit it. Anything over 30,000 bytes is way too long for a Wikipedia article and must be summarized and the detail spun-off into sub-articles (hint: summarize each section and move the more detailed text to another article linked from that section: See United States for an example). We are an encyclopedia and therefore we summarize human knowledge and make it accessible to the largest possible audience. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a great deal of detail but it does mean that any particular article on a subject needs to be relatively brief. --mav

Mav:

The article makes good use of headings. Readers will be able to skip sections that don’t interest them. Maybe some, for instance, will only be interested in the causes; maybe some will only be interested in the chronology. This topic is the focal point of so much literature that a shorter article probably could not give the complexities of the era justice. --172

Again. This is a top-level article meaning that it should introduce the subject of New Imperialism. Complexities can and should be explained in other articles that are linked from this one. The greatest talent any writer can have is the ability to write succinct introductions of complex subjects. The summary for the history section at United States and the introuction of the whole article above it are clearly written succinct introductions. We have already gone over this with the history of china article. --mav

Plz, I can't understand why this is being said.

"I suspect you are smuggling some kind of secret thesis into the article." Ortolan

Would somebody explain to me what this is all about? How can I defend myself against people who oppose my article merely on the grounds that they are suspicious? What is so wrong with my version of the article? Vera Cruz

Okay, sorry, Vera, suspect and smuggle were unfair. I should have said I fear that you have some motive that I can't detect in all the flurry of unfathomable, unfollowable edits. If you would just slow down for a minute and state in 200 words what you think needs to be said and done about the period of European imperialism between 1850 and 1920 (roughly) then we could all sit down together and go to work.

Judging from the respective user pages, I'd have a lot more fun knocking a few back and staring into the fire with you than with 172, but the fact is that you won't tip your hand and your actions in continually deconstructing and recompounding this article don't speak well for you, while 172 seems to have backed off from his previous intransigence.

I am in no pact with anyone except the people who want to make a good encyclopedia. Maybe Slrubenstein will have me. As far as I can see, both you and 172 have made sound contributions to that end, but for some reason you've got your sights set on leaving this article muddled and incomplete, while 172 seems willing to rise above any personal preferences. Ortolan88 02:51 Jan 6, 2003 (UTC)

Vera Cruz doesn’t realize that the older version has been edited substantially by other users and myself.

This is the sentence regarding mercantilism:

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) signaled the failure of mercantilism and contributed to the appeal of the classical liberalism of Adam Smith” Note the phrase “signaled”.

The word “pigheaded” has been removed as well. I understand the bad connotation, but the word merely means “stubborn”. His headstrongness, after all, was infamous. Nevertheless, it’s gone.

Even if these changes weren’t made, it would still be little recourse to arbitrarily remove the vast majority of the article. That’s why I keep restoring the more descriptive version edited by Ortolan88 and Slrubenstein and proofread by Mav and others. --172

Vera Cruz, please stop reverting to the shorter version and help us summarize the sections in the longer version and spin-off much of the detail into other articles. --mav

Vera Cruz, I restored the previous version of the article. You seem to be the only one who objects to it as a whole -- otherwise, there seems to be an emerging consensus on everyone else's part that this version should be the basis for the article. I myself believe it has superior narrative flow and organization -- your last version was choppy and poorly organized. Please do not take offence: no one is saying that you do not have valuable contributions to make. Just, please, do not revert this article again. Share with us in these talk pages your specific and substantive concerns, and we will continue improving the article bit by bit. Slrubenstein

Vera Cruz, the first paragraph looks good to me. Nice intro in fact. --mav

The latest revisions have been very constructive. Congratulations to everyone!

172

Okay, I hate to be a pain in the ass, but I have problems with the first paragraph. I won't make any changes; let me explain my problems, and then see if others agree and have solutions.

First, I object to mentioning the decline of Pax Britanica as one cause in the first sentence for two reasons. For one thing, I just do not think the first sentence is the place to mention causes -- it should specify the place, time, and general characteristic, no more. But I also think it is problematic, highlighting Britain so much given that this is a global phenomena. If there are reasons why Britain is the paradigmatic or most important case, fine, but explain why in detail in the body of the article (which it does, I think), but just do not bring it up in the first paragraph, it raises too many questions. Second, although I think it is useful to mention how others refer to this phenomena (I am referring to the phrases in bold, like "Empire for Empire's sake") I think these appelations have to be contextualized. Do people still refer to it this way, or are we refering to contemporaries (in which case, the sentence should have the past tense). Who refers to the phenomenon this way -- politicians, advocates, critics, journalists, historians? This information should be there, I think Slrubenstein

I agree with Slrubenstein. The first para should aim at simply giving an overview, something like (rough draft off the top of my head):

NI was an era of rapid European colonial expansion spanning the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Between the Franco-Prussian War and World War I, a renewed drive for economic conquest developed amongst the world's most powerful nations. During this period, Europe added 20% of the Earth's land area (nearly 23,000,000 km²) to its collection of overseas colonial possessions. As the only continent not already formally or informally occupied by the Western powers, Africa was the primary target (although expansion took place in other areas too, notably .... (short list of most prominent ones: Phillipines? Expansion of European enclaves and influence in China? etc.) Contemporary writers in England (other places too?) variously described the New Imperialisim as "The Era of Empire for Empire's Sake", "The Great Adventure", and "The Scramble for Africa".

Secomd para or section: Clarification of terms: why "new" imperialisim. (Much as it is at present)

Decline of the Pax Britannica is probably best left to a subsequent section.

I also agree with Mav: this article is starting to turn into something of real value. Congratulations to all. Tannin

That's a better version. The purpose of the inclusion of the nicknames "Scramble for Africa" is the classic writing tactic of "tell 'em what you're going to tell 'em", but they are much better placed at the end of the first paragraphs rather than in the middle. Make sure you get rid of that extremely twee twixt while you're replacing the lead. Ortolan88

I too think this is better, but I defer to Tannin or others to make the actual changes if we have a consensus, Slrubenstein

This is a historical subject and the context is history.

Onecontext is work by historians -- but there are other contexts for usage, honestly: novelists, journalists, essayists, and others were talking about imperialism before, during and after the time period. A good article will acknowledge that

People have and do still refer to it this way.

swell. The question is, who? I do not men individual names, but which groups of people?

Whether somebody did in 1870 I do not know.

Obviously nor do I. But hopefully someone out there, who has been contributing to this article, has done serious historical research and should be able to add this important information to the article.

The decline of Pax Britannica is a major cause, seeing as how that led to international competition and the end of Britian as the lone superpower.

Vera Cruz, I do not know why you are saying this since no one has disputed it. My point is simply that it is poor style to single out this one cause in the first sentence. Slrubenstein

Other causes, if u wish to add to paragraph, are militarization and industrialization. I felt it would be best to give the preceeding era, much as we give the preceeding monarch, in this case, as Britain had a global empire, the decline of Britian is a global issue.Vera Cruz

Contradicting myself, I agree with this also. The trouble with describing thetransition from the PB to thet NI in the first para is that, for balance, it needs to be very brief (a single sentence of moderate length would be best), and yet, for clarity, it should not assume that the reader already knows all what the PB was. A tricky bit of drafting, that - which is why I suggested consigning it to the body of the article where it can be dealt with at more length. Tannin

I agree... And I still think one has to be clear about what we mean by "cause." Certainly PB declined prior to the rise of NI. But just because one thing precedes another doesn't mean it is the entire cause. I think that the decline of PB and the rise of NI both had another cause, or causes, and the article should do justice to this without oversipmplifying Slrubenstein

Furthermore, the term has also been applied to the aggrandizement of lesser powers by great powers since earliest history. <----What does this mean? Vera Cruz

If you don't know what aggrandizement means, you're in the wrong article. "increase the power, wealth, rank". Ortolan88

Now, is it appropriate to say that greater powers aggrandize lesser ones, when it is arguable that they "decrease the power, wealth, rank" of said lesser powers? Vera Cruz

Ah! Fixed it.Ortolan88

How about, for the second para:

The expansions of the NI took place against a background of increasing competition for resources, income and prestige between the nations of newly industrialised Europe (who were by this time no longer content to leave the Pax Britannica unchallenged), a power vaccuum left by the crumbling Chinese and Ottoman Empires, and the rise of finance capitalism. Scholars continue to debate the causes and ramifications of this period of imperial colonialism, most notably, the relationship this period might have to the First World War.

Tannin

NI is not solely Europe, it includes USA and Japan Vera Cruz

Tannin, I really like both this and your rewrite of the first paragraph above (see my new embedded comments). I think you should cut and paste them in.

Vera Cruz, I agree with you which is precisely why it is not right to privilege Bristish history. Slrubenstein

Can we reverse the policy of writing at the bottom? If I have to keep waiting to download long talk pages Im gonna scream. Vera Cruz

Sorry, but I think this is a very bad idea. I too get frustrated with my slow computer (which gets me into lots of edit conflicts. But this is a Wikipedia convention and if we change it we will exclude lots and lots of people. Also, please identify edits as minor only if you are correcting spelling or grammar... Slrubenstein

Categories: Talk archives

Talk:New Imperialism/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search