Talk:New Imperialism/Archive 9
Moving talk to User talk:New Imperialism/archive 1
Moving more talk to User talk:New Imperialism/archive 2, lots of brouhaha, now settled down.
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)
there is a very good reason why 172 was accusing me of deleting 90% of his article. See: theories of imperialism. Vera Cruz
- I do not see the good reason. I think given the complexity of the topic and contributors knowledge of the topic, the article is going to be relatively long. Let's face it: many articles are short because most of us do not know enough about the topics. Perhaps at some point as Ortolan88 thinks, the article can and should be broken up -- but I do not think we are even close to that point. In the meantime, we need to be crystal clear about two very diffferent sources of length: amount of detail, versus poor organization. My recent comments have been aimed at making the article shorter, but not by cutting any content at all, but rather by trying to make the organization more logical, which will remove redudancies. Slrubenstein
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
"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
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.
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.
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?
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!))"
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.
Good work, Slrubenstein.
Why does Vera Cruz want to restore that redundant version?
- 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.
There is more to it than that. Vera Cruz
Vera Cruz is right! leave it with his version
Let users who have contributed to the article have some imput, such as Slrubenstein.
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
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.
I believe the section on "theories of imperialism" should be the last section, following all the history. In part, this is merely chronological -- the theories by and large were developed after the events. But it is also pedagogical: I do not think one needs to know the theories to follow the history, but I do believe one ought to know the history if one is to be able to understand and evaluate the theories. What do others think? Slrubenstein
I think we can probably move most of it to another page, such as theories of imperialism Vera Cruz
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
- I do agree with Vera Cruz's proposal concerning Theories of imperialism but I'd like toknow what Tannin and 172 think, before making such a major change. Slrubenstein
Given the unique abundance of literature on this subject in particular, the history and historiography are inseparable.
Besides, the section pertains to theories of New Imperialism, not imperialism in general.
- okay, but still -- I think it should be at the end of the argument for reasons I stated above. What do you think? Slrubenstein
My feeling is that a good, clear exposition usually has the structure:
- this is what happened
- this is why it happened
- this is the significance of what happened
Of course, the second and third of these can be very difficult to disentangle sometimes. I am inclined to think that a single article would be better, so long as there is a logical structure to it, but that splitting it into two related parts could be considered if the length becomes a problem. Tannin
- I think you are right about what is hard to untangle -- but in any event, I think your proposed (albeit general) structure makes excellent sense and should be relied on as a guide, Slrubenstein
this whole wait to see what other users think doesnt seem to be working very well...
- 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.
- You keep bringing this up yet the majority of the active participants in this discussion have made their preferences clear. Slrubenstein
splitting into two parts can be done, just like some books are in two parts
- can be, but should it be? I still agree with Tannin above. I do think that any general discussion of imperialism should be in a separate article (as you suggest), but that this article still needs to include discussion of the reasons for, and significance of, the New Imperialism, and that any theories that touch on these specific issues belongs in this article. Slrubenstein
- just hang on a tic, Vera, I'm working my way through the whole thing bit by bit. I will return to this shortly. Tannin
Tannin again. Some notes as I (belatedly) re-read the present article carefully, making minor grammatical changes as I go to clarify and simplify the language without (I trust) making any change to the substantive content.
- Introductory section is just fine as it stands. Should it also mention the participation of the two non-European colonial powers (the US and Japan) in the late 19th/early 20th Century land-grab? Vera Cruz raised this issue originally, and my feeling is that we should not arbitrarily restrict discussion to the European powers just because they happened to be European. What do others think?
- I agee with you and VC on this point Slrubenstein
- The Breakdown of Mercantilism and the Rise of Pax Britannica. First para repeats itself a bit. I'd like to streamline it so that it reads more smoothly but that would require more sweeping changes than our current gentlemans' agreement permits (as I interpret it). Also, on content rather than style, does it not under-stress the matter of externalities? Changes in the assessment of external costs seem to me to have been very important in the various international fashions for trade, informal empire, and formal empire over the years.
- can you put a draft here? I certainly am in favor of streamlining; the reason I suggest putting a draft here first is that it is easier for all of us to discuss/vote on one (significant) change at a time. As for adding information on externalities, in principle I agree with you, but this section is background only; a trully lengthy discussion of this topic should be in other articles. My suggestion: introduce only those external factors that are also relevant to the breakdown of PB and the rise of NI. Slrubenstein
- Second para is muddled. It does not make it clear why the continental European powers were inward-focussed. 172 is probably best equipped to deal with this one. (As an aside, the Concert of Europe ought to have a major article to itself.) Third para seems OK.
- Last para in this section reads: "In this sense, the movement toward aggressive national rivalry, the movement toward formal empire and imperial competition, had its roots in the breakdown of Pax Britannica." I should have thought that the movement toward aggressive national rivalry & formal empire & imperial competition was the breakdown of the Pax Britannica."
- I agree with you. For what it is worth, I think the larger issue is what we mean by a "cause." I think the last paragraph presents something more like what Aristotle called the material cause (or perhaps it is more like a formal cause), when today when we use the word "cause" or look for "roots" we are asking about efficient causes, or final causes. This is all the more reason to work with the general structure you proposed above, in which we first profide a historical account of what happened, and then review different explanations for why. Slrubenstein
- Back on-line at last! Alas, I have to do some real work. Yes, on a Sunday. (Remind me one day soon to write an appallingly POV article about the Howard Government, the Goods and Services Tax, and its effect on Australian small business people's ever-increasing regulatory workload, to the detriment of their well-being and health.) Tannin
I have not received one response regarding what is wrong with:
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.
- Okay, my main objection is to your presenting the above paragraph and the other one ("The collapse of the British and Spanish empires in the New World...") as laternatives. They are not, at all: what you label "A" deals with the decline of mercantilism, and the rise of PB. Your paragraph, labelled "B," introduces the decline of PB and the rise of NI. Any time you delete A and replace it with B I will revert, because B not only in no way addresses the issues covered by A, it does not belong in that section where A is located. They simply are not parallel.
- On the principle of chronological order = logical order when dealing with history, I have no objection in principle to the information in B being placed in the appropriate section (the decline of PB and the rise of NI). My main objection is that I blieve that information is already there. But I do have some issues with phrasing:
- "in spite of Britain’s centuries of naval superiority" is unnecessary, because Britain's naval superiority 20 or 50 or 100 or 150 or 200 or 300 years ago is not relevant, only Britain's naval superiority at the time (if you use the words "in spite of")
- "The decline of Pax Britannica, was made possible by developments such as the breakdown of the Concert of Europe" I am not sure if the breakdown of the Concert of Europe is a "cause" of the decline of PB, or a sign of the decline of PB. I suspect the latter makese more sense.
I do however like the last sentence.
- Does this answer your questions? Slrubenstein
Now first of all,
- "in spite of Britain’s centuries of naval superiority"
is used I think twice, unless he changed it, in 172s version, I have it in my version because he started reverting everything I did and I was trying to be agreeable.
- With all due respect, here you sound like you are taking things personally and are getting defensive, as if you were competing with 172. You asked what people thought of the two paragraphs, and I gave my answer -- all I was commenting on was the two paragraphs.
I don't think it's that bad since it does remind the reader that somehow Britian lost that total naval superiority,
- Okay, I agree with you that this point is important, but my objection to having it in this specific context stands. It is inappropriate in this particular paragraph. The general point you think it makes is I agree important and should be made in the article, but elsewhere.
this being akin to the US losing it's air superiority. The reason for this loss being found, naturally, in industrialization, as we can expect the spread of computer technology to have an impact on US air superiority.
So that objection isn't much of one, seeing as how I don't particularly care whether Britian's naval superiority is mentioned here, as Pax Britannica needs its own article.
- I am commenting not on the content but on the writing style. The only way the style of this article will ever improve is if we are capable of distinguishing betwen the two kinds of criticisms, and the two kinds of solutions.
I think the breakdown of the Concert of Europe is both a sign and a cause-the overriding and primary reason for this era, (and of course for World War I), in my opinion, is the spread and advancement of industrialization combined with capitalism.
- I do not care what you think -- or what 172 thinks, or what I think (so do not take this personally). We are writing an encyclopedia article which means we are writing about what other people think, and we must make attributions. There is considerable debate among scholars over NI, so the article says, I am sure some of this debate is over causes. The introductory paragraphs should present the scholarly consensus, and if the consensus of most historians is as you say that the breakdown of the Concert of Europe is a cause, well, then, I stand corrected and we can change the article appropriately. If there is debate, this issue should be covered in a section on theories of NI.
As for A and B being alternatives...They are alternatives-something has to come after the introduction, new imperialism?, part. Do we want to start talking away about Cobden and Smith and mercantilism and finance capitalism and... or should we ease into it with something along the lines of B...that is:
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.
- Well, for goodness sakes, how much clearer do I have to be? Yes, yes, yes, yes I think that right after the introduction we should start with the section on the decline of Mercantilism and the rise of PB, meaning paragraph A. I have said this before and so have others. It is a matter of a well-organized article (not content, but style) and I really thought I was clear: the two paragraphs refer to different time periods, and the one discussing the earlier time period should come before the one discussing the later time period.
I'd like to thank you for responding. Vera Cruz
- Any time! Slrubenstein
I did some smoothing out of the opening two sections. Here is my logic:
The preamble discusses the term (necessary, I think, given how much discussion we have had on the term itself)
The introduction introduces the phenomenon itself (what the term signifies).
This seems pretty logical to me; I think that to avoid clumsy phrases and redundancies, we should try to keep all discussion of terminology in one section, and all discussion of the phenomenon in other sections. As long as no one changes the first sentence, I also think it makes sense to open with a brief discussion of terminology as it provides good general context. Slrubenstein
I support Slrubenstein’s latest revisions. Other than the opening paragraphs though, the article hasn’t changed substantially since I first posted it. It’s now time to start writing the blank articles, such as the Concert of Europe.
I’ve read some criticisms of this article on other pages. None of the content is copyrighted. It’s not an undergraduate’s work. It’s been edited many times by many users, scattered around, and contains some random typos (I wrote the bulk of the article on the Wikipedia prompt screen; it wasn’t anything that I had had published). I find the accusations that it’s an undergraduate’s POVing mixed-in with textbook passages kind of amusing anyway. Some cannot stand to not condemn anything that I’ve touched, so they’ll say that the better parts are copyright violations.
I see no reason to have a discussion of the origins of the word imperialism here that is better placed on imperialism Vera Cruz
Vera Cruz:
I’m not the only one who feels that Ortolan88’s paragraph is necessary to understand what distinguishes this era of imperialism from any other. I suspect that you do too, and that you’re sabotaging this article.
Plz see imperialism if you are interested in the origins of the word. Vera Cruz
You are outnumbered once again, Vera Cruz. I feel more empowered to defend someone else’s contribution from your obsessive deleting than one of my own.
Ortolan88 already explained the importance of that paragraph. 172
As you can see above, Ortolan88 has not made any statements regarding this paragraph since my initial move of the text to imperialism. Vera Cruz
They're probably not online or something. They're also sick of you, with your dozens of unwanted, unacceptable "minor" edits to this article.
lol Vera Cruz
You're not the final word on this article, Vera Cruz. So far I think that Ortolan88's paragraph is essential for understanding what distinguishes this era of imperialism from others; you do as well, but you seem to want to sabotage the clarity of the article on the basis of a technicality.
Let's get Ortolan88's opinion since we have this disagreement.
So go call him or something? Why is it so essential to restate text from imperialism here, text which is not about this era, but rather a discussion of the origins of a word/phrase. Vera Cruz
the term, imperialism was used in reference to policies of the Roman Empire. In the 20th century, the term has been used to describe the policies of both the Soviet Union and the United States although analytically these differed greatly from each other...off the subect... Vera Cruz
I have a constructive proposition:
I will never edit this article again, which I started and largely wrote, if Vera Cruz stops working on it permanently. Let’s leave it to Ortolan88, Slrubenstein, Tannin, etc.
Other users: endorse this idea. I’m tired of having to obstruct the bulk of Vera Cruz’s asinine deletions.
Why should u get to work on an article and not me? Besides, Im not deleting something, Im moving it. Little difference there... Vera Cruz
No. I'm saying that I'll stop working on this article if you stop working on it. That simple.
Right, but you already worked on it and Im still waiting for my turn. Vera Cruz
Your "turn"?
Who the hell knows what you would do to this thing with your last "turn". LET'S BOTH STOP NOW! You're the person who deletes 90% of an article and calls it "minor".
I have a right to make edits to your golden prose. Vera Cruz
Wouldn't it be easier if we both stoped working on this article today, leaving it to Ortolan88, Slrubenstein, and Tannin?
Sure would. It'd be easier to just quit doing everything and sit around all day bloating in the sun. Vera Cruz
I will accept your deletion of that important paragraph (hopefully another user will restore it) if you promise that that one revert will be your last change to this article. If so, I will never touch this article again either.
Im glad to hear that you agree and I can continue to edit the rest of the article. Vera Cruz
- That isn't what 172 meant, Vera. Do you really have trouble understanding what people say, or are you being childish? -- Tarquin 23:35 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)
I understood what 172 meant, he meant, "You should never edit this article because I disagree with your edits." That is childish. Vera Cruz
- No, he didn't. he was suggesting that you and he BOTH stop working on this article, and let other Wikipedians try and work on the NPOV. I think it would be a good idea, at least for a few weeks. --- Tarquin 01:28 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)
We already tried that, very little was done on the article. I would think the proper course of action would be to discuss the article rather than engaging in petty flame wars as a means to settle disputes. Vera Cruz
Vera Cruz:
Tannin and Ortolan88 would be happy to work on this article once we have both stopped editing it. Those conversations are posted on my talk page. Please, refrain from editing this article once again. If and only if you do, I won’t touch it again.
I don't mind if you edit this article. I don't appreciate your attempts to prevent me from doing likewise. Vera Cruz
Lir, aka Vera Cruz:
You’ve driven away Ortolan88, Tannin, and Slrubenstein from this article already. As one user said, you’re already on borrowed time. Dismember this article, and those three users would be glad to revamp it once you’re banned again.
I haven't driven them away. Vera Cruz
Lir, aka Vera Cruz:
Oh, yes you did:
172, I don't think I can be much help. I cannot reason with VC once she takes it into her head to start "improving" an article with a thousand cuts and changes any more than you can. I don't mean that the task is difficult, I mean that the task, so far as I can tell, is impossible. It makes no real difference if there are dozens of other contributors bringing evidence and reasoned argument to the task: once VC has decided to "improve" an article it just becomes a mindless edit war until she either gets her way or makes a tactical withdrawl in order to concentrate on "improving" something else for a while. Sometimes, these really are improvements. I'm not sure if this is evidence of an intermittent desire to contribute useful information; a camouflage tactic for the real intent; or simply examples of the usual random changes which just happen to be useful ones.
The only two things you can do, so far as I can see, are (a) resign yourself to an eternity of filling up the Wiki database with endless reversions when you could be doing something productive, or (b) on VC's arrival, give up on whatever article she is infesting and go elsewhere.
Here in Australia there is a species of bird called the Noisy Miner, a type of honeyeater. When miners arrive in an area of forest, they aggressivily chase all other creatures out, even ones much bigger than themselves, and then settle down to eat the lerps. (Lerps are the sugary secretions of a leaf-sucking insect, they form little white spots on the eucalyptus leaves.) Unlike other lerp-eating birds, miners take the secretion but do not eat the insect itself. In consequence, the lerp psyllids multiply explosively. This provides the colony of noisy miners with ample food, but eventually destroys the trees that the lerps are parasitic on. The patch of forest dies and the miners move on to invade another area, leaving their former colony empty. Slowly, it begins to recover, other creatures are free to move back in, and life goes on.
The admins banned VC some time ago (under the name "Lir" and before I was here) but seem to have decided to ignore this renewed presence under another name. I have no idea why.
As I wrote on the mailing list (you can find it by clicking here, it would take only a week or so to turn New Imperialism into a truly excellent article which people from all sides of the political spectrum could agree with. But to do that we must be able to work together in a cooperative spirit. I cannot see any realistic possibility of that happening until VC moves on to another part of the Wiki forest. Tannin 23:41 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)
A PS: I really do recommend that you take one of those links to the mailing list above. (Or just click here.) You can read this month's messages there, and click "refresh" now and then to read the latest ones. If you want to contribute, you have to do it by email. (Yes, email lists are primitive and very user-unfriendly, but my guess is that this format is retained for a good reason, which I won't bore you with here.) If you do want to say something on the list at any time and find the procedure difficult to understand, just drop a note on my talk page and I'll walk you through it. Tannin
172, thanks for asking, but I just do not have the stomach for dealing with Vera Cruz. It is too upsetting. My best contribution is to go off to some other topic where I can be productive and hope that VC doesn't find me and decide to make a mess of that one too. It is the contention, the enraged response, the endless discussion, that feeds VC and I don't care to feed VC. I do wish you'd join us on the mailing list as suggested by several people above, including Jimbo Wales, who owns the server and originated the idea of the Wikipedia. I have just sent mail to the list pointing out that VC is Lir (as many others have) and that Lir is banned and so should be VC. I have defended you on that same list, perhaps not in ways you would personally care for, but vouching for your sincerity. Ortolan88