Talk:New Imperialism/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about New Imperialism. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Picking up with beginning of a new controversy.

An anonymous contributer mistakenly put this in the article, when it should be here on the talk page:

This material largely addresses matters from an economic perspective. For some other views of imperialism see the works of such Beit Professors of Imperial History at Oxford as Lionel Curtis and Reginald Coupland.

For the moment, there are no articles on Curtis and Coupland, so the links are not especially helpful -- but let's hope that will change. In any event, I hope this contributor, or others, will find ways to incorporate the views of these historians into the article. I am sure the contributor has read the talk pages before joining in, so s/he knows that I and others have called for more discussion of debate among historians (or political scientists) in the article. In the meantime, if you are not yet ready to make a substantive contribution to the article (anonymous person), I think your purposes would be better served if at the bottom of the article you said "see x and y for alternative views," and list specific books or articles by these two scholars. In any event the article should have a bibliography... Slrubenstein

Someone - Slrubenstein - suggested only mentioning the Beit Professors here, mistakenly supposing that that was a comment on the main article. However it was intended as a suggestion of alternatives for readers who did not have a largely economic focus. As such, it seemed necessary to provide an alternative suggestion early on, and the only "comment" was a hint about the nature of that focus. PML.

I -- Slrubenstein -- suggested in the paragraph above that PML place the following at the bottom rather than the top of the article:

"see x and y for alternative views," and list specific books or articles by these two scholars.

I also suggested that PML actually work these views into the body of the article. I stand by these suggestions. Slrubenstein

With all due respect, "We do not begin each article by stating that it is not yet complete, true though this necesarrily is", is precisely why I did not initially adopt that approach. I did so just there in order to clarify that the introductory part comprised hints for wider research and not comments on the main material, since that seemed to be the main outstanding objection. I stand by my view that readers should be steered right early on - a footnote is not suitable for people with a surfing approach. I fully appreciate that other views should be incorporated rather than referred to or linked - subject to space constraints etc. - but again with all due respect, the material is not currently amenable to that since it has not yet been webbed (well, the Encyclopaedia Britannica has some stuff, but that is restricted). It seemed and still seems appropriate to provide as much as is currently available, rather than waiting for some ultimate perfection.

Now, can we find some approach that does reconcile these requirements? PML.

go to the bottom, where it says See also: and do it there Vera Cruz

No, that does not reconcile the requirements. That imitates a textbook but fails to deliver the requirements of this medium; a surfer cannot use that to direct his course. It is as bad as giving someone spaghetti and telling him it is just the same as the fettucine he asked for, ignoring the possibility that there are real reasons quite apart from flavour and nutritional value. (That's a real case.)

So the question remains, how do we deliver surfers what they need on entry, without interfering with the flow of the material proper for those that do want it? I had supposed that spelling out the reasons would serve - like telling the waitress that I have difficulty eating spaghetti without splashing - only to find that the critics changed their objection to a comment to an objection to the digression. So, how to make this narrow - indeed, somewhat selective - material work as an entry to a wider field rather than what it presently is, a restriction of agenda? PML.

is there something you want to add to the first paragraph? A (See also) is hardly useful there. Vera Cruz

Surfers do not want a note telling them some Oxford professors who aren't even available on the World Wide Web have some different ideas than the article that follows. What surfers want is a clear, well-written article from us. Wanna help? Then tell us something about these interesting non-economic perspectives on imperialism. Ortolan88

To take that position is to rule out any interim assistance. Pending being able to do it right, what do we do? Furthermore, even doing it right would involve some introductory material. My own feeling was that this whole piece was misguided by adopting a particular and possibly subjective view of historical mechanisms, but that the cure would involve distinct pieces rather than getting forever longer.

I want to refer people wider, pending writing something else and merely linking wider, but either way I want a usable entry point that does not get in the way while still telling people what they are getting early on - the principle of newspaper prose style, which is acknowledgedly stylistically poor prose (except in the hands of a master). So, how? Saying "don't" is no answer, and neither is "do nothing now". PML.

I didn't say do nothing. I said go to work and write something substantive for the article about these interesting non-economic perspectives on imperialism. Get out of the talk page and into the article. What did these people have to say? Put it in there. Your proposal to defuse the article at the beginning without adding any substance is just plain poor compositional technique. Any newspaper writer would be able to knock out a couple of paragraphs on these Oxford johnnies, no sweat. See if you can do as well. If it is longer than a couple of paragraphs, make it a separate article and put a link to it near the beginning of this article, else, find a place for it somewhere in the body. Don't tell us what writers do, show us. Ortolan88

That does not address the issue of pending. I have already acknowledged the desirable end; I have also been pointing out, and other people have been steadfastly ignoring, the need for something provisional. I started in by trying to provide that, and what is more a fuller answer would not resolve the objection made to my provisional attempts - the objection was to anything before the main material. What can be done in those areas? So far, all attempts have been undercut - in effect if not in intent amounting to "do nothing now".

To state correctly that one is not recommending "do nothing" is bait and switch. The answer "do nothing now" is a non-answer - and people are just not seeing that "now".

By the way, any journalist who jumped in writing before he had access to his sources would be no journalist at all. This week, and possibly all this month, all I can do is something provisional. Unless someone can get hold of a copy of "Civitas Dei" (the other one) and do the work before I do... PML.

If you had spent half the time you've spent defending this silly idea to writing up what you already know we would be on to some other subject. I repeat. Go to work. Do the work. Show us what a bright person you are and how much you know. I am not your enemy. I am trying to get you to show your stuff, but you are wasting your time shadow-boxing with me. If you don't have anything to say now, then, in fact, my advice is, do nothing until you have something to say, but you must remember some shred of what these heroes of yours had to say, so put that shred in the article and then come back after you get hold of a copy of their books and do more. That is how we do it here in Wikipedia land. As someone else said at the beginning of this pointless debate, "Everything in Wikipedia is provisional." And, not that I'm recommending it, but if you think journalists wait until they have full informtion before writing, you really do not know anything about journalism. (And I do know a lot about it.) Ortolan88

Well, I've tracked down the two mysterious gentlemen. First:

Lionel Curtis (1872-1955): town clerk of Johannesburg (1902); Acting Colonial Secretary to organize municipal government in Transvaal (1904-06); Beit Lecturer in Colonial History, Oxford University (1911); Fellow, All Souls College (1921); founder, Royal Institute of International Affairs (1919). He gives powerfully paternalistic expression to the White Man's Burden. Some quotes (taken, for dramatic effect, entirely out of context) follow:

The people of China are one race inhabiting one country.

The premature extension of representative institutions throughout the Empire would be the shortest road to anarchy.

As in the seventeenth and eighteenth centurles, so in the nineteenth, the British Commonwealth, as the price of its own existence, was forced to extend its commerce and settlements to the uttermost parts of the world. It was the people of Britain who were brought thereby into touch with the ultimate problem of politics, that which arises from the mutual contact of the principal families of mankind, and of one level of civilization with another. It was they who learnt by experience that those relations cannot be limited to trade. It was they who were forced by responsibility to recognize that a civilized state must intervene to redress the anarchy into which traders, armed with the resources of civlization, plunge the society of primitive races. It was they who recognized first the necessity and then the duty of creating a new order in the wake of, and indeed in advance of, trade. It was they who in time came to recognize that order itself is to be valued only as the necessary foundation for the further extension of liberty. It was the older Commonwealth, and not the new one, which was led by contact with ultimate facts to assume the task of preparing for freedom the vast multitude of human beings who have yet to realize what freedom means.

... the stronger civilization has a responsibility for the weaker which it cannot evade.

Whilst enlarging its bounds in Asia, Africa, and the Pacific so as to include hundreds of millions who must for centuries remain incapable of assuming the burden of government ..... To-day some forty-five millions of Europeans are responsible for the peace, order, and good government of some three hundred and filty millions of the backward races

But he was by no means a mere jingoistic, paternalistic fool. There are subtleties, an ability to see more than John Bull saw:

It is a commonplace that states had developed and civilizations were flourishing in Asia at a period when Europe was still plunged in a barbarism as primitive as that prevailing in the other continents.

Frankly, we must realize that the first effect of European civilization on the older societies is disruptive.

If you can turn this sort of stuff into a useful contribution to an overview of the New Imperialism, PML, then I will tip my cap to you most humbly. Good luck! Tannin 11:27 Jan 7, 2003 (UTC)

Sir Reginald Coupland (1884-1952): Fellow, Trinity College, Oxford; lecturer, Trinity College, Oxford; Beit Lecturer in Colonial History, Oxford University (1913-18); Beit Professor of History of the British Empire, Oxford University (1920-48); Fellow, All Souls College (1920-48); Fellow, Nuffield College (1939-50); member, Palestine Royal Commission (1936-37); member, Cripp Mission to India (1942). Publications:

Britain and India, 1600-1941,1941
The Cripps mission, 1942
East Africa and its invaders, from the earliest times to the death of Seyyid Said in 1856. 1956
The exploitation of East Africa, 1856-1890; the slave trade and the scramble.
India; a re-statement. 1945
The Indian problem; report on the constitutional problem in India,. 1944
Kirk on the Zambesi, a chapter of African history. 1928
Livingstone's last journey. 1947
The Quebec Act: a study in statesmanship.
The war speeches of William Pitt, the younger. (Ed.) 1940
Welsh and Scottish nationalism; a study, 1954
Wilberforce, a narrative.

Harder to find any extracts from his work, but reading between the lines of what little is available on-line, I gather that Coupland was a significant behind-the-scenes mover and shaker in the administration of the Empire, but not until long after the period of interest to this article. The list of his publications is suggestive. (Having quite an interest in the Congo Free State, I'm sure I should enjoy his Kirk on the Zambesi.) Tannin

I have some problems with the structure of the first quarter or so of the article. Currently, it goes like this:

Introduction
The New Imperialism
The Rise and Fall of Mercantilism and Pax Britanica
Background: the Age of Pax Britanica

What is the logic for the third and fourth sections? They seem to have overlapping content, and to move back and forth chronologically. Frankly, I think it is a mess. I have a suggestion -- again, I want to know what others think, and am willing to let someone else start rearragning things.

After an introduction that really introduces the article as a whole, I'd do this:

Introduction
Mercantilism and its decline (I think this is important to explain why later forms of Imperialism are different from what you see in the 16th and 17th centuries)
Pax Britanica and its Decline
The New Imperialism (OR incorporate this etymological information into the introduction -- but it if is its own section, it should follow and not precede PB)

Does this make sense? Slrubenstein

No-I do not see how the ==New Imperialism== section can go before, if its part of the introduction, but must go after otherwise. I think it is quite fine early on because the reader is likely going to be wondering, "New Imperialism?" and yet is so long that it deserves a header.

An "introduction" section serves a different purpoas than a "body" section of an article, and must be conceived of differently. Obviously NI must be mentioned in the introduction, to introduce the whole article. But in the body, it must go in its proper place -- and I am suggestion a chronological principal for organization, since so much of this is histoy. What is your principle for organization, and why?

The third and 4th sections are my version and 172s version-I took mine and posted it there so that people could compare the two of them and thus encourage some form of editing.

you should have let people know.

I did.

Also, is it necesary to discuss Pax Britanica and Mercantilism seperately? Vera Cruz

I think so, since they are quite different. Slrubenstein

But are the that different in the context of New Imperialism? Each has its own page btw...

This is getting to be fun again, folks. I'm betting that the lines (that I removed because they seemed superfluous to me (as layout) but were restored as not superfluous by Vera Cruz (as guides to the reader)) actually mark places where there should be a break and a link to a separate article. Comments?

This is an unusually long article, and even though I generally dislike and doubt the value of the Wikipedian habit of breaking every article up into tiny little niblets, we should probably be looking ahead to breaking this one up after we get the writing all settled. Ortolan88 18:18 Jan 7, 2003 (UTC)

talk to Talk:Economic theories of the New Imperialist era

There is content in this page that gets off the topic, but i see no reason to discuss this as of yet. For now, plz examine:

The Rise and Fall of Mercantilism and Pax Britanica
Background: the Age of Pax Britanica

Vera Cruz

"This period is marked by a power vaccuum left by the crumbling Chinese, Russian and Ottoman Empires, and the rise of finance capitalism."

This over-simplistic statement removed, too POV.

Also, redundant paragraph on Pax Britannica/backround removed

172

I thought we were getting somewhere with this article, but now we have the return of the Death of a Thousand Cuts from Vera Cruz. What appear to be many, many changes, but who could figure them out? Italics lost, hierarchical heads ignored, half the article temporarily lost in the bit bucket, not a single summary line provided, no plot line of changes proposed here. You know, if I knew what you were up to, I might even agree with it, although I doubt it. This is bad for the Wikipedia. Ortolan88

I agree with Ortoloan88 and have a suggestion for EVERYONE: Given that there is a lot of difference of opinion not only over the content of this article but over its form, I think that for the time-being (a week or so) we should consider no change to be "minor" and discuss all proposed changes on these talk pages. I know this sounds tedious -- but given the endless reverts, with little net change, over the past week or so, I really, really believe discussing EVERY proposed change first will be more efficient and effective. I myself proposed two changes recently, and brought them up here first, and I was satisfied by the results. I urge all participants now to suggest changes here, and wait until there is at least one response before working on the article itself. There are only five or us who have been very active, and it seems like one or two of us are on line at least several hours a day, so I do not think this process will take too much time. And I repeat, it is better than a revert war. Slrubenstein

The article is in adequate to fine shape now. Why don’t we move on to articles that need much more attention? Why don’t we move on to writing articles for the red links, like the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, Tanganyika, or the Entente Cordiale, just to name a few.

As it is, we probably have the illuminating encyclopedia article on New Imperialism online.

172

The comments by Ortolan88 are absolutely, 100%, completely, wrong in stating "If you had spent half the time you've spent defending this silly idea to writing up what you already know we would be on to some other subject. I repeat. Go to work."

Frankly, I a currently unwell, busy at other work (note my delays revisiting here), away from my sources, and with limited access to download and upload facilities. This sort of provisional stuff is all I can currently do. To point out the "correct" way of proceeding is not constructive when it is not actually an option. He is perpetuating the mistake that people are not entitled to contribute what they can in areas that they can, if they cannot contribute in areas that would be ideal. It is the criticism that authors level at critics.

And frankly, if he thought I was under the impression I supposed journalists wait for full information, he mistook the point. They do not suppose that not being able to get information entitles them to make it up - not the reputable ones, anyway. I was certainly not going to quote from memory, and do not have any detail on the substance of the relevant works anyway. PML.

I think a chatroom would solve a lot of trouble. Vera Cruz

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.

Vera Cruz

On a hurried reading (I have to go to work), the former is more learned and informative, the latter communicates much more to the non-expert reader. (Defining "expert reader" as one who knows enough of this subject not to need to read the Wikipedia entry.) Don't race in to change it just yet Vera Cruz. Wait a day or so and see what other participants think. It can probably (a) be improved further and (b) gain consensus support (saving yet more edit wars) if you let it sit here in talk for a while first. Tannin

(As is obvious from my comment above, I agree wholeheartedly with Slrubenstein's very sensible suggestion about discussing changes here before implementing them.) Tannin 23:34 Jan 8, 2003 (UTC)

Its so easy to get bogged in the details, and forget the obvious. See my comments on the redirect on Talk:New Imperialism (1871-1914) -Sv

---

Aside from its confusing background information, the mad redirect itself was confusing. "New Imperialism 1871-1914" is confusing and redundant. That era was the one and only period known as "New Imperialism", not one era of many different eras known as "New Imperialism".

Some have called Bush's policies an era of "New Imperialism", but that's a historical allusion to another era. Realpolitik, for istanced is used today is much the same way.

I gave you guys a reason. The mad redirect is confusing and unnecessary.

---

I agree with 131. Why redirect?

172

why pretend there is a consensus, is my question: three pages of talk? just specify the term, and leave the general term open for general use. "New" is not enough of a qualifier, especially if it refers to something OLD. thanks.-Sv

If 172 is right, the "New Imperialism" is the term by which historians know this period. In other words, if you call up a historian and say, "What can you tell me about the New Imperialism?" he would start telling you about this phase or British history. In that case, the name is exactly the one that should be used, and it is a layman's error to object to the term because to him it seems ambiguous. We need to validate that this really is the term used for this phase of history, and doesn't refer to other things as well, and if so the title stays, period. --Len

I think we should use a totally different name. Vera Cruz

Vera Cruz is troubled because there's too much discussion so he moves the whole article away. I am trolled out on this article, between Vera and that guy who is unwell, so good luck to you all, back to literature and music for me. Ortolan88

the article is receiving well-deserved praise: regarding the most recent edit by AdamRetchless:

"M 04:51 Jan 9, 2003 . . AdamRetchless (wikify, remove redundancies...needs more simple editing! (but great article!))"

172

Vera Cruz seems to be the only person who wants to change the name. I agree that the title of the article should use the term used most often by historians. If there are other terms that have been used to describe the phenomena, thee should be redirects from those terms to this article. If there are related phenomena (e.g. mercantilism, colonialism) there should be links. These two measures will ensure that anyone who wants to learn about this topic will find the article.

On a side note, I think that any time such a valued contributor to Wikipidia as Ortolan88 is driven away from an article, people should seriously reconsider both the content and form of their interventions. Slrubenstein

Ortolan88 is constantly making these accusations against me which are totally false, the most latest being that I moved this article somewhere else...yah....I sure did.... Vera Cruz

I got the impression that Vera Cruz had redirected this article at some point. I was wrong. Ortolan88

There may be some useful content in the following paragraph, but I think it is redundant. Also, if any of this does belong in the article, it certainly belongs later, not where it was -- you do not talk about the rise of PB before the paragraph on the decline of mercantilism:

==Mercantilism and Pax Britannica==

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.

Slrubenstein

Good work, Slrubenstein.

Why does Vera Cruz want to restore that redundant version?

172

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.

---

Version b is very confusing. What economic, political, and technological developments? Why not address them in the section pertaining to the causes of New Imperialism? Wasn't the breakdown of the Concert of Europe the establishment of nation-states in Italy and Germany?

Version a tells us why Pax Britannica was possible in the first place. We can't really understand New Imperialism unless we understand why Pax Britannica was possible in the first place, right?

131.247.155.93

Paragraph B would naturally be followed by paragraphs on those changes. A discussion of Pax Britannica is for Pax Britannica, not this page. Vera Cruz

Vera Cruz, an article on New Imperialism is essentially the same as an article on the breakdown of Pax Britannica.

172

There is more to it than that. Vera Cruz

Vera Cruz is right! leave it with his version

MarcusAurelius

Let users who have contributed to the article have some imput, such as Slrubenstein.

172

Vera Cruz,

Slrubenstein already explained why:

There may be some useful content in the following paragraph, but I think it is redundant. Also, if any of this does belong in the article, it certainly belongs later, not where it was -- you do not talk about the rise of PB before the paragraph on the decline of mercantilism:

Mercantilism and Pax Britannica

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. Slrubenstein

172

talk moved to Talk:Economic theories of the New Imperialist era

I did some reorganization of the first three parts of the article -- I incorporated the discussion of the definition into the preamble, and I put in a "signpost" to expplain the logic of the second and third sections (following the introduction). I still have one concern about organization, but I do not want to make a change unilaterally. Slrubenstein

On a first-quick-glance basis, it looks much better. I confess to a marked reluctance to wade all the way through the article again though, as every time I start to do that, I get half-way down only to check Recent Changes and discover that it's been changed again already. If it's still there in the morning (almost bedtime for me here) I'll re-read it properly and comment more carefully. Tannin

Thanks for the compliment, and yes, please do look at it again when you are refreshed.

To Vera Cruz, 172, other recent contributors: given Tannin's understandable comment, perhaps we can hold of on reversions and major changes for a day or two, and have some more discussion first? Slrubenstein