Talk:New Imperialism/Archive 1

1 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 1 (You are here.) Talk:New Imperialism/archive 2 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 3 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 4 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 5 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 6 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 7 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 8 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 9 Talk:New Imperialism/Linking to the alternative version from the top of the article Talk:New Imperialism/archive 10 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 11 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 12 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 13 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 14 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 15 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 16 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 17 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 18 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 19 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 20

This article, besides being highly NPOV, reads like a copyright violation. --

Not a copyright. Vast majority of article is mine. 172

The title is a mess also. It should be European imperialism in the 19th century or something like that. -- Zoe

--- Zoe, apparently you don&#8217;t know much about &#8220;European imperialism in the nineteenth century&#8221;.

Read the first paragraph of the article you want to rename:

"In a scramble for overseas markets between the Franco-Prussian War and World War, Europe added almost 9 million square miles&#8212;one-fifth of the land area of the globe&#8212;to its overseas colonial possessions. Ushering out the cavalier colonialism of the mid-Victorian era, the age of Pax Britannica, the late nineteenth century Romantic Age was an era of "empire for empire's sake". But scholars debate the causes and ramifications of this period of colonialism, dubbed &#8220;The New Imperialism&#8221; to distinguish it from earlier eras of overseas expansion, such as the mercantilism of the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries or the liberal age of &#8216;free trade&#8217; colonialism of the mid-nineteenth century."

--- New Imperialism refers specifically to the era of imperialism between 1871-1914, between the Franco-Prussian War and World War I.

I deleted an editorializing comment in the first graph, and added a reference to Spain. this is an important article, but it is woefully not NPOV -- I have two suggestions for the original author: first, delete sentences like "non one owned Africa" which are utterly Eurocentric (some Africans surely claimed to own at least parts of Africa; many Europeans owned property in Africa at that time) and uncritical (there are very complex issues in the very notion of "ownership". Second, distinguish between historical facts and interpretations/explanations.  The author herself admits in the beginning that there is scholarly debate over the causes and consequences -- but the article provides a unified account, and obscures those debates. Slrubenstein

Were does the term New Imperialism come from ? Who has references ? User:Ericd

--

Where does the term "American Revolution" come from? Come on! It's a common term. Go online. Type in "New Imperialism". You'd see how common it is.

---

the article addresses the complex issue of ownership, esp. toward the end

I will take 172's word for it that this work is original, though it reads like it was copied from a textbook. Still, this article is a mess. Not only is it too dense for anyone but a historical scholar of the era to understand, but it makes oblique references to tons of things that aren't spelled out here. I have many questions:
 * 1) Britain was the "workshop of the world", meaning that its finished goods were no longer produced so efficiently and cheaply that they could often undersell comparable, locally manufactured goods in almost any other market. - Britain was the workshop of the world BECAUSE her goods were no longer produced so efficiently?  The two halves of this sentence don't seem to make sense.
 * 127-I want a source for "workshop of the world" so we can quote it-I dont like using " " without somebody or something to attribute it to. Vera Cruz
 * 1) If political conditions in a particular overseas markets were stable enough, Britain could its economy through free trade alone without having to resort to formal rule or mercantilism. - Britain could WHAT its economy?
 * Britain could force its eonomyVera Cruz
 * 1) We need an article on the Long Depression, since you refer to it so often.
 * It's linked
 * 1) Rhodes and Milner also advocated the prospect of a "Cape to Cairo empire - Who's Milner?
 * 2) I took out the slam of Roosevelt's racism, but I left in the Kipling one. Can someone look at it more balanced?
 * Didnt read it, but why is kipling different than roosevelt?Vera Cruz
 * 1) We need an article on the Second Industrial Revolution, which you keep refering ot.
 * Yes, we do. We also need to somewhere note that medieval historians refer to the first industrial revolution as occuring during their period. Vera Cruz
 * 1) the interwar Great Depression beginning in the US - I thought the Great Depression began in Europe. Wasn't German hyperinflation ahead of 1929?
 * 2) Porter, however, notes that Britain, "Struck with outmoded physical plants and outmoded forms of business organization&#8230; now felt the less favorable effects of being the first to modernize." Who is Porter?
 * 3) What was the Crystal Palace Speech?
 * 4) What is the Dependency Theory?
 * 5) What were the Moroccan Crisis and the Tangier Crisis?
 * 6) What was the Roosevelt Corollary?

This needs a lot of work. Your NPOV anti-Americanism and anti-Westernism is blatant. -- Zoe

Searching for "New Imperialism" does no good. There are too many articles talking about 21st century new imperialism to weed out those talking about the era you're refering to. -- Zoe

we should use neo-colonialism and globalisation for 20th/21st century issues. Vera Cruz

Quit making large changes under the guise of Minor changes. Whether you think the old headers were "more attractive" or not, they're not in the style of Wikipedia. You also deleted all of the markup in the first paragraph. -- Zoe

"Jewish Conspiracy" use two common words is it neutral ? An article about Colonialism seems more adequate. User:Ericd -

There is already an article on colonialism. NEW IMPERIALISM REFERS TO A SPECIFIC ERA OF COLONIALISM BETWEEN 1871-1914!

Yelling does no good to anyone.

I see that you reverted every single change I made. This is going to the mailing list for resolution. -- Zoe

I don't think it is appropriate to refer to this era as a "scramble" except when discussing World War I causation or some source prior to WWI which for whatever reason felt that this was an era of hectic scrambling. Im sure somebody out there thinks this was a slow, calculated, and methodical era. Vera Cruz

--- Vera Cruz:

New Imperialism and "Scramble for Africa" are very common terms in the historiography on the subject. The Scramble for Africa often refers to the Congress of Berlin in 1885, for instance.

&#8220;Workshop of the world&#8221; is a common cliché in the era&#8217;s historiography as well.

Yes, I am not disagreeing that these are very common. However they need more context around them before they should be here, in short instead of

The scramble for africa ...blah blah blah.. blah blah. africa.... blah blah. empire

We need

The Scramble For Africa
blah blah blah scramble blah blah blah blah blah 1885 blah blah blah blah blah rhodesia blah blah blah great adventure blah blah blah capitalism blah blah blah world war blah blah blah

Do you see the difference?

Vera Cruz, I will try to clarify all the flaws that you've pointed out. Let me do it some other time though when Zoe is offline.

She&#8217;s got a vendetta against me or something.

Just a passer-by and read a few paragraphs. The text really look like copies with comestic edits from a book or some copyrighted sources, though 172 said it is original. If you want to see Wikipedia succeed, it's very important that you don't add material restricted by others' copyrights. The legal liability could really hurt the project, so please don't do it.

By luck a lot of USSR printed books are de facto public domain ;)

-

I really appreciate the allegations of copyright violations! Unwittingly, you people are complementing my prose!

172

Yah, plz refrain from copyright violation accusations unless you have some substantiated reason for such. Vera Cruz

---

172, you are not being fair to Zoe -- I have been following this exchange and she does not have a vendetta or anything against you. This is a community in which no article has an author, and all people work together to improve articles. As I have said before, this article covers an important phenomena, and has a lot of important information. But it is not by any means a finished article, and it has serious NPOV problems. Zoe has raised important questions, and I have made a couple of constructive suggestions. Please do not get defensive: others will work on this article, and will appreciate your contributions if you respond to questions and suggestions without getting defensive. Slrubenstein

I disagree. I think both are being unfair. I think 172 is being unfair because he would rather tell zoe to go read history instead of re-writing text so that one doesnt ever need to go to another source BUT zoe is also throwing out little bits like "Wow! You are an annoying user!" which is not appropriate. Vera Cruz


 * Agree. Although I don't really know the grudges between Zoe and 172 yet reading 172's text is a bit painful. He/she can explain the specific terms and trim the verse a bit. The general idea is making the article readible and scholastic for newcomers without showing off the contributors expertise. People come to wikipedia to learn, contribute and get their question answered but not being intimidated by wikipedian veterans!!! Others just have to be patient; editing long articles needs time. cybercavalier

--

I'll clarify the article myself, alright? Vera Cruz's above suggestions are more than enough.


 * Okay, Don't get annoyed. Oh you can quote some fo your USSR public domain text here so Zoe won't bitch on your scholarship.-- cybercavalier.

Some say that my prose is painful while others say that it reads like a copyright violation or a textbook. Some say that I'm being Eurocentric while others say I have an anti-Western bias.

This is a bit reassuring.

172

The American Revolution discredited mercantilism <POV Vera Cruz

Yes, I agree Vera Cruz. That's why I took it out of the article 8 hours ago... Vera Cruz

--

I revised that statement already.

It reads:

The American Revolution discredited mercantilism at that time to many observers in Britain and contributed to the appeal of the classical liberalism of Adam Smith

Im going to sleep

By this paragraph

cavalier colonialism of the mid-Victorian era, the age of Pax Britannica, the late nineteenth century Romantic Age was an era of "empire for empire's sake". But scholars debate the causes and ramifications of this period of colonialism, dubbed &#8220;The New Imperialism&#8221; to distinguish it from earlier eras of overseas expansion, such as the mercantilism of the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries or the liberal age of &#8216;free trade&#8217; colonialism

I think you confuse things

At the very least-it should be rewritten without the words:


 * cavalier and liberal

these words will siply lead to debate over whether they are properly applied-in short they are pov

furthermore,

the reader who knows what Pax Brittanica is, or who knows what free trade colonialism is, they are simply bored and irritated by having to read, yet again, that yes, the New Imperialist Age followed the Pax Britannica age, yes yes, i know already

and the reader who doesnt know is left wondering, without even a link to click on


 * Victorian Age?
 * Romantic Age?
 * Mercantilism?
 * Free trade colonialism?

Put it in another part of the text if you must

Comparisons between the New Imperialist Age and earlier imperialist eras
but the opening paragraph is not a good place for even mentioning these

-

I fixed the opening according to your suggestions. 172

---
 * In midst of Britain&#8217;s relative industrial decline, the fact that invisible financial exports actually kept Britain &#8220;out of the red&#8221; is somewhat indicative of both Britain&#8217;s pressure to secure overseas markets in both nominally independent states and colonies and its newly precarious hegemony over overseas markets.

This sentence is rather muddy. What is it actually saying? What are "invisible financial exports"? How did they keep Britian out of the red? How is this "indicative of pressure"? I think it should be turned into a paragraph, broken into about five shorter sentences, and replace allusions to something we don't know with plain English and/or fuller explanations. --Len

--

Vera Cruz,

Please don't butcher the article.

Your versions leaves little information and conveys little understanding


 * Wow, now even 172's ally gets attacked. Don't you see a theme here, 172?  You're all alone here, there must be something wrong with you.  -- Zoe

I continue to have two major problems with this article. First, although the opening claims that there is scholarly debate over the causes and functioning of this form of imperialism, the actual structure of the article obscures all debate. I suggest it be reorganized to signal clearly points of contention. Otherwise, it lacks NPOV. Second, there are too many sloppy phrases like "became known as." As we edit Wikipedia we ought to scrutinize use of the passive voice -- passive voice usually goes along with lack of clarity. Known by whom/to whom? Views must be ascribed, or again, we enter into NPOV problems, Slrubenstein

Absolutely. Vera Cruz

I've read all the sarcastic responses and I still don't see what is "new" about New Imperialism. Since there have been empires since before Philip of Macedon, there has been imperialism in the general sense of the term throughout recorded history. However, this article simply covers what most people, including most political scientists and historians, would simply call "imperialism", the expansion of the British Empire, the French Empire, and the German Empire into Africa and Asia, along with pathetic tagalong attempts by the Belgians, Russians, and Americans, Europe-envy by Japan, and colonial leftovers from the Dutch. This imperialsm "ran" from the mid-nineteenth century to the end of World War II. Mercantilism and colonialism have names of their own and need not be distinguished further from imperialism by this confusing use of "new". When something old and familiar picks up a new name suddenly, one can only wonder why. Ortolan88

--- Ortolan88- the term "New Imperialism" is the most common term referring to the era of imperialism between 1871-1914 ---

Vera Cruz&#8217;s revised version is worse than no version. Nobody but an expert on this era would have any idea why such a list of historical trends is listed in an article pertaining to New Imperialism. It&#8217;s not illuminating by any means.

My version, however, clearly spells out why each trend under a certain heading is thought to have contributed to an era of formal colonialism. My version chronicles the history of the era, describes a range of competing theories, and lists causes.

Vera Cruz&#8217;s version only looks like an improvement superficially because it&#8217;s shorter. Saying that the article is too long is an arbitrary excuse for systematically wiping out my contributions. I&#8217;m sure people are deleted to dismantle this article in particular because it is one that I started. There are other even longer articles on more obscure topics after all.

172


 * It's not going better !

Ericd

---Ortolan--New Imperialism is not an article title I like, Im simply not interested in getting into an edit war over the name, however, this name is commonly used to describe an imperialist period, which, at the time, was considered to be a new revivial and intensification of imperialist activity. Vera Cruz


 * What makes you think I want to get in an edit war? I have come here to discuss the article and, as a fairly well-read individual, I believe the term new imperialism will be confusing to ordinary encyclopedia readers.  It is confusing to me, and makes me suspiciouus.  By some simple research I find that the term imperialism itself was first recorded in 1858 (Oxford English Dictionary) and that Hobson, who pretty much invented scholarship in this area wrote a book called Imperialism in 1905, not "new imperialism".  There is already an article on Imperialism and while it is a briefer article, I honestly believe it has the better title, by far.  Calling imperialism new imperialism has the paradoxical effect of denying the fact that it was imperialism itself that was new.  The previous Spanish, Portuguese, and Dutch empires were never called imperialist; they were called colonialist.  I don't think I have an ax to grind, other than a belief that clarity is better than obscurity, in an encyclopedia at least.  Granted, the expression new imperialism is used from time to time (tellingly, often in "quotes"), but I believe those usages are also ill-advised.  Ortolan88

172-try being more specificVera Cruz

Vera Cruz: Vera Cruz: tell me you SN so that I can contact you via AOL instant messenger.

Tell me on the talk page: 172

what vital section have i removed?Vera Cruz

- Vera Cruz, it doesn't seem as if you've read the version that I keep restoring.

New Imperialism had its origins in the breakdown of Pax Britannica; your revision not only fails to indicate this, but also leaves a lay reader with the impression that the era of Cobdenite imperialism was the opening phase of New Imperialism. It is the broad consensus of scholars that New Imperialism was rendered feasible by the breakdown of the concert of Europe, but your version does not illuminate whatsoever to the changes of continental balance of power that allowed other industrialized nation-states to compete with British influence overseas, despite her centuries of longstanding naval and maritime superiority.

Your article progresses according to this list of topics: Pax Britannica, Loss of Britain's Comparative Advantage, The Long Depression, The African Power Vacuum, Increasing Competition, Chamberlain, Hobson, Capitalism, and Finance, British Strategic Expansions, Social Darwinism, and Human Rights. This is a jumbled, utterly incoherent mess of topics that no lay reader would be able to put in context after reading your version. My version, however, listed causes, but wove the text together so that there would be a natural progression to the next cause. My version demonstrated an appreciation for the interconnectedness of history.

If your so convinced that the version that I keep restoring is biased, what is the bias then?

I dont think your version is very biased, I do think it needs improvement. So far, I have not seen the words Cobdenite Imperialism within this article, so I doubt that it leaves anyone with the impression that New Imperialism is even related to Cobdenite Imperialism.

The fact that I am even mentioning Pax Brittanica in the article is a clear indicator that they are related. As the Franco-Prussian War is clearly noted as a "beginning" for the New Imperialist Era, and this same war is noted as a major even in the end of Pax Brittanica, I do not think the reader will doubt that the era of Pax Brittanica ended and resulted in an era of new Imperialism. I urge you to clarify this issue, but by editing my version, rather than continuing with yours.

I believe my version does illuminate the changes of continental power which allowed other nation-states to compete with Britain - of prime interest here are:


 * Formation of Germany and Italy
 * Increasing industrialization of the United States, Germany, France, and Italy
 * Increasing independence in south america and india
 * The end of a war between France and Prussia
 * The surplus of capital and production, partly due to the Second Industrial Revolution
 * An increasing fear amongst British politicians that they must obtain "strategic colonies" and a similar fear amongst Germans that they must counter the British and their "unfair advantage"
 * a sense of financial "investment" being at stake in the colonies
 * a fear of russian expansion

As for the progression of topics in the article, you can see by scrolling down that I am hardly done editing your version, and so naturally things are not in any sort of permanent position within the framework of a final article

So I ask again, what vital information have I left out?Vera Cruz

---

Historians debate the Latin American wars of independence too much to claim that the fall of Spanish colonialism contributed to the attack on mercantilism. We shouldn&#8217;t get into this debate here.

You mention these causes, but you don&#8217;t weave them together well. Hence what I said about the jumbled list.

And regarding that article in the talk page, I don't feel the need to define everything because I'm not engaging in a discussion with a lay reader.

Don&#8217;t divert the issue. Your article is too disorganized to clearly spell out to the reader why all these trends led to the breakdown of Pax Britannica and why all these trends might have been interconnected.

Why don't you suggest improvements, and let me edit the article.

I suppose the reason, 172, is that even though I do highly value your contributions, I think I'm a better editor than you. One reason, which is very important is that I am very much aware who my audience is, we are not simply writing to the lay person we are writing to Juanita who knows nothing about european history and happaned to come here and click on "random page"-and we want to make damn sure she doesnt think, 'sheeit, this shiznizzle be whackner my book'

You state that I didn't weave the article together well, certainly it is unfinished which is why im asking what in particular you feel is left out, oh we can weave here 172-but first we have to take apart your entire work, because your audience was yourself, who knows what you are talking about, and your audience should have been some kid in 2nd grade.Vera Cruz

Now, i had a rather long discussion with 172, in which little, but some, was accomplished. I think reading this will be quite useful for wikipedians, and I suspect it hints at a method of editing that most of you fail to do when an edit war occurs. Vera Cruz


 * Talk:New_Imperialism/veracruz and 127


 * You know with your sweeping edits, literally incomprehensible, and crookedly disguised as minor changes, you really don't have anything to teach us about solving edit wars, unless it is through the miraculous power of the negative example. At this point, this whole article is so poisoned that I can't imagine that anyone would want to work on it.  Ortolan88

For starters you could lose the attitude. Vera Cruz

Vera Cruz:

You&#8217;re disguising major changes as minor ones.

Your sweeping edits have left the text, which had been meticulously organized in order to weave all the sections together, utterly incomprehensible. You&#8217;ve made little progress in conveying any understanding whatsoever of what could possibly expalin the shift toward formal colonialism after the Franco-Prussian War. As I&#8217;ve said earlier, you&#8217;ve left a jumbled mess of topics that no lay reader (lay means someone who is NOT an expert) could understand in context.

I&#8217;d like to ask an objective observer whether or not any non-expert could be able to discern off-hand how these factors pertained to the shift to formal empire (Vera Cruz lists these topics, giving little insight as to why): Pax Britannica, Loss of Britain's Comparative Advantage, The Long Depression (now historically inaccurate), The African Power Vacuum (now historically inaccurate), Increasing Competition, Chamberlain, Hobson, Capitalism, and Finance, British Strategic Expansions, Social Darwinism, and Human Rights.

History, however, is interacting whole. That&#8217;s why my article expecitily stipulates under each topic how each historical trend is considered a cause. Thus, my article is actually more comprehensible to non-expert readers.

Someone else with a PhD in any specialization pertaining to modern European history should have a look at this article.

Im willing to go through this line by line with anybody who is interested. Im not willing to sit and bicker with a bunch of egoists who would rather talk about "poisoned articles" and "butchering of articles" or any other such childish drivelish nonsensical trolling. Vera Cruz

Furthermore, 172s version clearly states, "Kaiser Wilhelm II was pigheaded" so I hardly think his version is NPOVVera Cruz


 * Well, speaking for the childish drivelish nonsensical trolls:
 * Why not stop marking huge and complex changes as "minor"?
 * Why not explain what it is you are trying to do on the talk page rather than bulling ahead and boasting of your private pacts with your fellow "non-troll" 172?
 * Why not answer a reasonable question about what makes the topic of this article "new" imperialism, since it was imperialism itself that was new?
 * Why make a meaningless offer to go over your changes line by line?   If this article weren't so fishy (term copyright by Trolls associated), people wouldn't be so suspicious and ill-tempered about what you are doing?
 * Why not scrap the whole article, post a proposed outline, and then collaborate with others in filling it in? No one could possibly follow all the changes you and 172 have made.  You might as well be the same person, muddying the water, poisoning the well, confusing the issue beyond all redemption.
 * Why not replace this article with #REDIRECT Imperialism ?
 * Tom Parmenter, Ortolan88


 * Tom, the people on recent changes dont want to see 10,000 reminders that Im working on this article. Ive posted the occasional major edit so that they can be aware.
 * 1) You are being absurd talking of pacts and such inanity.
 * 2) I have answered this question, but you are so bent on being a jerk, Im sure you didn't read it very carefully. So here it is again:

Vera Cruz
 * ---Ortolan--New Imperialism is not an article title I like, Im simply not interested in getting into an edit war over the name, however, this name is commonly used to describe an imperialist period, which, at the time, was considered to be a new revivial and intensification of imperialist activity. Vera Cruz
 * I hardly think imperialism was new at this time, seeing as how imperialism was existant thousands of years ago. Was the term "Imperialism" new in 1900, I have no idea as I havent read many history books from that period, but as we identify imperialists of 3000 BC, we certainly don't want all this information on the same page as a discussion of the Assyrian Empire
 * 1) By discarding my offer to go over this line by line, as meaningless, you seem to indicate that you don't really want to discuss the topic, you merely want to be disagreeable
 * 2) Scrapping the article...hmmm...thats...yah....lets delete wikipedia and start over...that'll solve all our problems
 * 3) As I mentioned, imperialism is not the same topic-this is a history article on a period such as the Computer Age Nuclear Age Victorian Era World War I or Middle Ages This is a subage-the late Victorian Era-the period of the "New Imperialism" that is-the resurgence of great clashing nation-states and an uncertain balance of power