Talk:New Imperialism

What's with all these new links? This looks like a curse. 172 09:49, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Just making sure people can find their way around the talk page archive. Ксйп Cyp 09:55, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The temp page and vote are irrelevant now that the main page is a series/executive summary under the 32 K limit. Lir/PP's version has received no support and belongs on the VFD page, not the main article. 172 21:03, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

According to the Village pump, PP has now left, or at least changed his name, so I'm assuming no-one will be working on that temp page anymore. Therefore, there seems little point in keeping the link. I withdraw my vote for a link. Angela 01:51, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Due to these developments, Lir/PP's temp page was moved to User talk:Pizza Puzzle/New Imperialism (temp)172 07:05, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Imperialism in Asia

Glad to see the renaming of the tautological "New Imperialism and the Scramble for Africa". There's a big problem with the Asia daughter too, though, in that much of it replicates the subject and chronological coverage of the article "Imperialism in Asia" - indeed, the latter paradoxically says more about the post-1858 period in India then does "New Imperialism in Asia", which I realise is still in progress (all the more reason to rectify the anomaly now rather than after further work). The two should be combined in a single "Imperialism in Asia" covering the colonial impact as a whole, without a chronological division which was more real among colonisers than colonised. If this is in danger of being too large (as I suspect will be the case), it should be split between South and East Asia, which begins to better represent the reality of a supercontinent comprising most of the world's population. Graculus 13:54, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

== Series box == (from archive 11)

The "series box" is too big. Something the size of History of Germany's one would be more appropriate. You don't need details on what's in each sub-article: it should be obvious from the title and the summary. Martin 12:50, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Seconded: it also makes subsequent amendment all the harder: it should be kept basic for the time being, with the possibility of later expansion when it's more final. Graculus 13:19, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I implemented this earlier suggestion. 172 reverted me, saying "there's no need to do this". I suggest that doing this would be a good idea, for the reasons I gave above. I would like 172 to explain why it would not be a good idea, rather than just reverting me out of hand. Thanks. Martin 15:23, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

For the record, I did post an explanation on his talk page. 172 15:33, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

(Yup: I posted the above at the very same minute 172 posted the below to my talk page Martin)

I appreciate that you've been cleaning up the New Imperialism mess, especially the edits involving Scramble for Africa and Colonization of Africa. However, I reverted your work on the series box. Unlike the German history series, consisting of articles about each successive regime in chronological order, the arrangement of this series is less clean cut. So specifying what is included under each daughter articles only makes the series more navigable and less confusing. Although the structure and arrangement of the series will be altered over time by Graculus and I, the subtopics in the series box should stay. There's only a superficial reason to remove the subtopics box anyway 172 15:23, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

To 172: It isn't superficial; to me it's quite fundamental, since according to our very constructive discussions in recent days the structure of the daughters is subject to review. I'm giving lots of things a lot of thought, hence my present absence from the World of Edit. I'm with Martin: let's worry about subtopic[k?]ing the series box when it's final - that way we keep subsidiary issues to a minimum while we're elaborating a satisfactory overall result. I'm not so concerned about the series box going into whatever detail it wants, as that itemisation of its detailed content remains premature at this point (clearly, since you're still developing proposed daughters, and I'd like this to develop further). As I've said repeatedly and you've concurred, the series structure is still up for revision (see my Asia point above): if we keep to essentials now, we'll get there all the faster. Graculus 17:00, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

As I've already articulated, the presence of subtopics has a function. Yes, the structures ang arrangement of the daughter articles will be revised. But we can easily change the contents of the boxes when that happens. If you don't want to be troubled with it, I'll be the one to revise the boxes when needed. But right now, the changes haven't been made. I promise to promptly change the boxes when necessary. 172 17:14, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thank you, 172, that's most agreeable, but on grounds of maximum improvement for least unnnecessary effort (on your part for the time being) I'd rather keep the boxes compact for now, which in no way prejudices their future expansion. Any comments on the "Imperialism in Asia" matter are welcomed (recognising fully that you're still working on it).Graculus 17:25, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'll expend the effort to maintain them. After all, it has to be a somewhat navigable series for now, despite the articles all being works in progress. BTW, I'm not sure what you're asking about Imperialism in Asia. 172 17:34, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

See above (feel free to delete heading). Graculus 17:51, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

First, regarding the division of Asia's regions, what would be best? Three daughter articles on Southeast Asia, East Asia, and South Asia? Or two, lumping Southeast Asia with either East Asia or South Asia?

The shift from Company rule to viceroy in 1858 is, by and large, the focus of the South Asia section currently in New Imperialism in Asia. I understand the problem that this poses. 1858 predates the article's periodization of "New Imperialism" (1871-1914), but the shift entailed is important in a New Imperialism series. Currently, the New Imperialism in Asia article lacks anything on Southeast Asia. A new section on French Indochina is a must.

The dividing line between the two articles (Imperialism in Asia and New Imperialism in Asia) is very unclear, posing another major problem. Perhaps we can redirect the Imperialism in Asia to a renamed article that stops its focus after New Imperialism. Right now, China's in both articles. In New Imperialism's article, the focus of the China section, to state it very simply, should be why China retained sovereignty, despite the era's drive toward new crown colonies, protectorates, annexations, etc. If we do this, the pre-New Imperialism article we can deal with the opening of China while the New Imperialism in Asia article can retain its existing content, which explains why China bucked the trend of New Imperialism. 172 18:16, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The creation of the Viceroyalty isn't NI proper: it's a rectification of an older anomaly occasioned by the Mutiny as well as being in some respects a precursor to subsequent approaches, which is why I think it belongs in a continuous article. The China issue similarly merits treatment as a whole, since British action raised issues whose attempted resolution would subsequently highlight crucial limitations in the New imperialist agenda. South-east should go with South Asia, with which historically, culturally and economically it has more in common - it can be hived off if there's more substance later. Graculus 18:47, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The events of 1857-8 in India are more of a precursor of New Imperialism, and the text presented it as that. I just thought that it had a place as backgrounding. But you're right; it should be moved to Imperialism in Asia in place of a sentence or two of backrounding with a link to an article dealing with the end of Company rule. In its place could be content relevant to the post-1870s era.

In addition, China should be treated as a whole in Imperialism in Asia, but the brief section on China currently in New Imperialism in Asia could stay since it deals specifically with the era of concern. Simply put, it clarifies why China wasn't carved up like Africa, which will be of interest to lay readers. Good call on Southeast Asia too. I was leaning toward a separate article, but it could go in a section on South and Southeast Asia.

Finally, what do you think of redirecting Imperialism in Asia to an article that stops its focus in the 1870s? 172 19:09, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I just moved the content on South Asia to Imperialism in Asia, which focuses on the British in India from 1600 to 1949. Now we'll have to work on a new, relevant section in this series. 172 19:23, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm stiill for geographical over chronological subdivision. South and East Asia are in my opinion two geographically and culturally distict subcontinents of the Eurasian landmass, each as entitled to continental rank as the other (and less populous) one, which we think of separately as Europe. I think South-east Asia should for the time being be treated as a part of South Asia (under that title, if it's created), since that's the present UN definition and accords with the the approach appropriate to the present topic. Graculus 19:39, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree. Lumping China and India into a single section was completely arbitrary. However, there should be an article dealing with "South and Southeast Asia." After all, most think of the subcontinent when the term "South Asia" is used, not Southeast Asia.

Geographical divisions of articles are certainly preferable. But how do we deal with South Asia, Southeast Asia, and East Asia specifically in this series? 172 19:54, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Separating South and South-east is fine by me if you think the latter can stand alone: I accept wholly your point about the narrower definition (my "middle South Asia", but not necessarily most people's).

For the geographical daughters, I see no problem: the core article can refer to the "Imperialism in ..." articles, which in their own right offer both long-term perspective and the related specifics, and can equally be linked to from elsewhere. Graculus 20:03, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Fair enough. Do you want to delete New Imperialism in Asia and lump Imperialism in Asia in the series? My only reservation is that many readers are going to be unaware of the defining characteristics of this era. 172 20:09, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The specific chronological relationship to any principally geographical links can be clarified in the central text, so I think that would work very well (presuming that you mean amalgamation rather than deleting your existing work). Graculus 20:20, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That's just what I was thinking. In that case, we'll have to finish moving the salvageable portions of New Imperialism in Asia to Imperialism in Asia. 172 20:23, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

New Draft

Don't panic everyone, it's just a draft, which I'm keen to discuss: some of it can come out, or other content can go in. I think it's consistent with what we've been discussing lately, but it's not set in stone. I've changed many of the sections about, renaming them to make some of the articles stand out on their own. I've made the British section more clearly country-specific and created a section for the US (others can follow if articles are to be created). I've put the theories at the end, where I think they'll be more readily understood after the factual outline, and I've moved the rivalries to after Asia & Africa so that some of the geographical and chronological groundwork will already be laid by the time the reader gets there. I've reworded and rearranged a lot within the sections in the hope of greater clarity. Comments are welcomed. Graculus 01:59, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

re "empire for its own sake" - do we know who coined this phrase? Be nice to have a reference... (that's as far as I got ;-))Martin

I tried but couldn't find its original source - it has been used, but not necessarily by notable contemporaries. Graculus 08:52, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

At some point we're going to be online concurrently, so I'll wait for that to happen so that we can discuss the recent changes. Although I am very enthusiastic about your changes, my subsequent edits focused on reconciling the main article with the daughters. Due to the existing content, it's a little impractical to have separate sections on Britain and the United States. Those sections would overlap excessively with those on imperial rivalry and the rise of New Imperialism. 172 05:19, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for the positive response, 172: I think in fact there has to be a section on Britain at least, to avoid the impression that the whole was a British-driven process: there are in effect two distinct British-related issues to be discussed here - (a) a past commercial hegemony which others wanted to challenge; and (b) Britain's response to growing adversity - and I think they need differentiating very sharply, hence the "Britain" heading.

It's almost as if there are in fact two New imperialisms, at least in their inception, one British and perhaps French, characterised by relative economic stagnation and hypertrophy of capital, and the other among the newly-industrialising nations, inspired by protection of "nascent industries" and maximisation of the market in which they might enjoy that protection. There are also concernes which transcend the division (settlement for Britain, Germany or Italy, but clearly not for the U.S.).

There may be alternative solutions, but at the moment I think at least two country boxes are going to be essential, to develop the differing national characteristics of the phenomenon: to me, as I've intimated before, the difference between the "old" and "new" imperialism is most real among the colonising lands (though its consequences were of course felt more immediately among the colonised), and its differing features among them should be brought out. Graculus 08:52, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think that it would be best to establish a separate section on France, rather than Britain. The existing content on the rise of the New Imperialism deals with a reactive Britain and the emerging newly industrialized nations (Germany, the United States, Japan, and Italy) fairly well, but does not adequately make the case that France doesn't fit in either of these categories. I'm not ruling out starting a separate daughter on Britain in the future, but right now one on France would be the most pressing. 172 09:02, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Covering British mainsprings here in so much more depth than the others could be misconstrued as implying that the British experience is somehow the norm and the others consequent or aberrant, which needs to be avoided: there's also the danger of the space issue raising its head again in the event that others wish to add appropriate content.

A solution might be to cover Britain and the U.S. (the two countries on which we have most content and which are likely to be of most immediate interest to English-speaking readers here) under lesser headings (ie the next level down in the hierarchy, with the three ='s) and in sub-daughter articles to link from the "Rise of ..." section. But we need a heading at least for Britain. Graculus 09:27, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

For practicality, we could lump the Germany, the United States, Italy, and Japan under the "emerging empires" section; the daughter "imperial rivarly" can be converted into "emmerging empires and imperial rivarly." France is more or less unique, so it could have its own daugher to be added in the coming days. The Netherlands is another one that certainly doesn't fall under the "emerging empires" category. Perhaps we can deal with the Dutch East Indies in the Imperialism in Asia article. 172 09:37, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The daughters' subsidiary arrangement can be finalised later, but we need precise differentiation in the core as to what's being addressed. If France is to have its own article, I think the U.S. is a must. To me Dutch action remains Old imperialism, and Indonesia definitely belongs in the existing Imperialism in Asia or any subsequent regional subdivision for the South or South-east. Graculus 10:02, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I meant that the Dutch East Indies was "old imperialism." I just wanted to clarify that it doesn't need a separate entry in this series. Regarding the other issue, while the United States can be lumped with the other emerging empires (Germany, Italy, and Japan), France has to stand on its own. My only position is that if we're going to create separate articles on individual powers, a French article is the most pressing. 172 10:08, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

BTW, we haven't addressed the problem of differing spellings. I've noticed that most of my "centers," "labors," and "industrializings" have been changed to be consistent with the non-American spellings more prevalently used in the articles. I'll have to change the rest sooner or later. 172 09:06, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Caught me - I confess, I spellchecked it. I suppose Old World spelling is approporiate given the focus, but perhaps a U.S. daughter should be spelled correctly to those it concerns. Graculus 09:27, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

For consistency I'll try to stick with the Old World spelling. 172 09:37, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)