Talk:Imperialism/Archive 1

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

Archive 1

2003

It is totally wrong to have any article on any kind of imperialism, e.g. New Imperialism, without at least a paragraph's worth of comment and a link here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.81.49 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 18 January 2003

I agree. There is plenty of excess material on New Imperialism u should go cut some more off and bring it here. Vera Cruz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vera Cruz (talk • contribs) 20:22, 18 January 2003

---

Vera Cruz is bloodthirsty evidentially.

172 20:27, 18 January 2003

lol Vera Cruz 20:28, 18 January 2003

2004

There is no topic for the Japanese Imperialists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.15.15 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 10 November 2004

2005

"It is worth noting that Marx himself did not propound a theory of imperialism, and in contrast with later Marxist thinkers generally saw the colonialism of European powers as having a progressive aspect, rather than seeing it as the pillage of those countries in favour of the European centre countries."

I don't think that this is true. I currently have in front of me a copy of Marx's "The British Rule in India" which states that "the British in East India accepted from their predecessors the departments of finance and war, but they have neglected entirely that of public works". Marx earlier stated that in India and other Asian countries there were three government departments - interior (acquisition of capital internally), military (acquisition of capital externally) and public works (the irrigation that led to the development of civilisation and the necessity for central government). In the rest of the essay he essentially states that British imperialism in India led to the "oppression and neglect of agriculture", that it was "the British intruder who broke up the Indian hand-loom and destroyed the spinning-wheel" so as to export cotton and muslin from England to India. This is the basis of Lenin's theory of imperialism, monopoly capital and all that I can't be bothered going into right now.

Dafyddyoung 12:46, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If that's what Marx says, that's what he says. I've editted the article to try to allow for this. The prevailing wisdom is that Marx didn't have a theory of imperialism, however, so I've tried to isolate a different feature of his thought that separated him from theorists of imperialism.--XmarkX 06:24, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just found this observation very funny. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wk muriithi (talk • contribs) 02:43, 2 February 2005

Modern American imperialism

I wrote a piece for the imperialism topic about modern American imperialism and it was hastily removed?!? I'm not sure why? As the graphic at the top demonstrates, Western powers such as the British have been imperialist rulers of the world, why is it so radical to extrapolate it to the 21st Century and rightly call the U.S. the dominant imperialist power of our time? What other country has the power and gall to invade other countries at will like the U.S. has in recent years? None. The U.S. is the imperialist power in the world. Too bad the editors at Wikipedia want to censor an important topic of our time.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.178.222.53 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 17 June 2005

THIS IS BLATANT COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA - SUCH A WIDE TOPIC AS IMPERIALISM GETS TWO PARAGRAPHS - BUT LENIN GETS 2/3 OF THE ENTIRE ARTICLE. DELETE IT NOW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.109.206 (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Except that imperialism denotes the rule of other lands. The U.S. is the dominant power of our time (although China is on the rise), but please hesitate to denote the U.S. imperialist, as this philosophy has been more or less abandoned as of late. As far as the U.S.'s ability "to invade other countries at will" goes, that is a broad generalization. If the entire nation has the desire to go to war with another nation, one would think that there may be a reason for this. Please note the difference between war and imperialism. However, since you describe imperialism as "an important topic of our time," it would also be encouraged for you to read about the rise and fall of imperialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.91.243 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 9 February 2007

I believe the whole of this article is somewhat lacking, especially concerning 19th century imperialism, being almost erroneous in oversimplification, and I would like to propose some consideration of the following matters: It is adequately noted that the term itself seems to be especially connected to the British case, and also that 'imperialism' doesn't necessarily imply the existence of an empire - indeed, most Frenchmen in the late 19th century, after having done away with Napoleon III, would scoff at the notion of having an empire. To my knowledge, the British Empire is the only one in which a notion of empire was formed because of the existence of large holdings outside the United Kingdom proper. As no mention is made on the differences between the 19th century empire, even though they are all still held to have existed, I believe at least a few examples should be included in the article. Furthermore, calling the obtaining of control over extranational territory imperialism is somewhat oversimplified, as it would mean that any and all seizing of territory is imperialistic. While this might be true, it seems quite anachronistic in many cases in the ancient and medieval world in which territorial gain took place. The main difference between late 18th and 19th century imperialism and the obtaining of territory in earlier 'empires' seems to me the lack of annexation visible in the 19th century empires: control over the territory did not mean the inclusion of the gained territory in the political, administrative, and judicial system of the 'conquering' state. In many cases the defining aspect of empire were the differences between the territories over which sovereignty, or at least suzerainty, was claimed, and the differing rights of the inhabitants. Moreover, an important aspect of imperialism which is not mentioned was the obtaining of non-territorial concessions, such as forced exclusive trading rights and extraterritoriality of empire's citizens (such as was obtained, for example, in the foreign quarters in China). Note that the abovementioned deliberately concerns only political imperialism, as exact definitions of cultural imperialism are hard to come by, and the interplay between political/economical domination and cultural domination is an altogether hazy subject. --Santetjan 7 July 2005 18:08 (UTC)

All wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.113.31.209 (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph restored

I reverted an edit last night which removed the paragraph discussing Imperialism as an intellectual habit. If this paragraph does need to go, please leave a note here to explain why so the change won't be reverted again. This is generally a good idea when removing chunks of an article. At the least, please use an edit summary to explain.

Many thanks ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 08:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• I added several paragraphs to the article yesterday, discussing several aspects that contribute to imperialism; but, I look today and lo! It's all gone. Evidently, some "politically correct" person reverted it all back. Oh, well. He must be content to keep his 'small-minded' article, which only says what he wants it to say; excluding other viewpoints. I really hate it. It sucks. Of course, there's no "discussion" about it, at all. The "Nazi-editor" strikes again. ```` (Oct.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.24.95.218 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 30 October 2005

Modern imperialism

i dont see what russia or the cold war has to do with americans being imperialists. american imperialism seems independent of usa being the dominant power. in the 1800s, imperialism was out of control throughout africa and the world was very much multipolar with germans, belgians, english, dutch, and french all taking a chunk of africa. so, the introduction of usa as a sole dominant power seems irrelevant. russia and the cold war was mentioned several times in the modern imperialism paragraph of the article and i fail to see the significance of it having to do with american imperialism. i believe american imperialism is independent to russia's status. usa was as imperialist during the cold war as it is today. during the cold war, usa invaded korea and vietnam. today, without the cold war, usa is invading iraq and afganistan. things have obviously changed with russia but its the same old story with usa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doriandixon (talk • contribs) 08:23, 31 December 2005

Extended content

To the Person Sitting in Darkness By Mark Twain (New York: Anti-Imperialist League of New York, 1901). Extending the Blessings of Civilization to our Brother who Sits in Darkness has been a good trade and has paid well, on the whole; and there is money in it yet, if carefully worked -- but not enough, in my judgement, to make any considerable risk advisable. The People that Sit in Darkness are getting to be too scarce -- too scarce and too shy. And such darkness as is now left is really of but an indifferent quality, and not dark enough for the game. The most of those People that Sit in Darkness have been furnished with more light than was good for them or profitable for us. We have been injudicious. The Blessings-of-Civilization Trust, wisely and cautiously administered, is a Daisy. There is more money in it, more territory, more sovereignty, and other kinds of emolument, than there is in any other game that is played. But Christendom has been playing it badly of late years, and must certainly suffer by it, in my opinion. She has been so eager to get every stake that appeared on the green cloth, that the People who Sit in Darkness have noticed it -- they have noticed it, and have begun to show alarm. They have become suspicious of the Blessings of Civilization. More -- they have begun to examine them. This is not well. The Blessings of Civilization are all right, and a good commercial property; there could not be a better, in a dim light. In the right kind of a light, and at a proper distance, with the goods a little out of focus, they furnish this desirable exhibit to the Gentlemen who Sit in Darkness: LOVE, LAW AND ORDER, JUSTICE, LIBERTY, GENTLENESS, EQUALITY, CHRISTIANITY, HONORABLE DEALING, PROTECTION TO THE WEAK, MERCY, TEMPERANCE, EDUCATION, -- and so on. There. Is it good? Sir, it is pie. It will bring into camp any idiot that sits in darkness anywhere. But not if we adulterate it. It is proper to be emphatic upon that point. This brand is strictly for Export -- apparently. Apparently. Privately and confidentially, it is nothing of the kind. Privately and confidentially, it is merely an outside cover, gay and pretty and attractive, displaying the special patterns of our Civilization which we reserve for Home Consumption, while inside the bale is the Actual Thing that the Customer Sitting in Darkness buys with his blood and tears and land and liberty. That Actual Thing is, indeed, Civilization, but it is only for Export. Is there a difference between the two brands? In some of the details, yes. We all know that the Business is being ruined. The reason is not far to seek. It is because our Mr. McKinley, and Mr. Chamberlain, and the Kaiser, and the Czar and the French have been exporting the Actual Thing with the outside cover left off. This is bad for the Game. It shows that these new players of it are not sufficiently acquainted with it. It is a distress to look on and note the mismoves, they are so strange and so awkward. Mr. Chamberlain manufactures a war out of materials so inadequate and so fanciful that they make the boxes grieve and the gallery laugh, and he tries hard to persuade himself that it isn't purely a private raid for cash, but has a sort of dim, vague respectability about it somewhere, if he could only find the spot; and that, by and by, he can scour the flag clean again after he has finished dragging it through the mud, and make it shine and flash in the vault of heaven once more as it had shone and flashed there a thousand years in the world's respect until he laid his unfaithful hand upon it. It is bad play -- bad. For it exposes the Actual Thing to Them that Sit in Darkness, and they say: "What! Christian against Christian? And only for money? Is this a case of magnanimity, forbearance, love, gentleness, mercy, protection of the weak -- this strange and over-showy onslaught of an elephant upon a nest of field-mice, on the pretext that the mice had squeaked an insolence at him -- conduct which 'no self-respecting government could allow to pass unavenged?' as Mr. Chamberlain said. Was that a good pretext in a small case, when it had not been a good pretext in a large one? -- for only recently Russia had affronted the elephant three times and survived alive and unsmitten. Is this Civilization and Progress? Is it something better than we already possess? These harryings and burnings and desert-makings in the Transvaal -- is this an improvement on our darkness? Is it, perhaps, possible that there are two kinds of Civilization -- one for home consumption and one for the heathen market?" Then They that Sit in Darkness are troubled, and shake their heads; and they read this extract from a letter of a British private, recounting his exploits in one of Methuen's victories, some days before the affair of Magersfontein, and they are troubled again: We tore up the hill and into the intrenchments, and the Boers saw we had them; so they dropped their guns and went down on their knees and put up their hands clasped, and begged for mercy. And we gave it them -- with the long spoon. The long spoon is the bayonet. See Lloyd's Weekly, London, of those days. The same number -- and the same column -- contains some quite unconscious satire in the form of shocked and bitter upbraidings of the Boers for their brutalities and inhumanities! Next, to our heavy damage, the Kaiser went to playing the game without first mastering it. He lost a couple of missionaries in a riot in Shantung, and in his account he made an overcharge for them. China had to pay a hundred thousand dollars apiece for them, in money; twelve miles of territory, containing several millions of inhabitants and worth twenty million dollars; and to build a monument, and also a Christian church; whereas the people of China could have been depended upon to remember the missionaries without the help of these expensive memorials. This was all bad play. Bad, because it would not, and could not, and will not now or ever, deceive the Person Sitting in Darkness. He knows that it was an overcharge. He knows that a missionary is like any other man: he is worth merely what you can supply his place for, and no more. He is useful, but so is a doctor, so is a sheriff, so is an editor; but a just Emperor does not charge war-prices for such. A diligent, intelligent, but obscure missionary, and a diligent, intelligent country editor are worth much, and we know it; but they are not worth the earth. We esteem such an editor, and we are sorry to see him go; but, when he goes, we should consider twelve miles of territory, and a church, and a fortune, over-compensation for his loss. I mean, if he was a Chinese editor, and we had to settle for him. It is no proper figure for an editor or a missionary; one can get shop-worn kings for less. It was bad play on the Kaiser's part. It got this property, true; but it produced the Chinese revolt, the indignant uprising of China's traduced patriots, the Boxers. The results have been expensive to Germany, and to the other Disseminators of Progress and the Blessings of Civilization. The Kaiser's claim was paid, yet it was bad play, for it could not fail to have an evil effect upon Persons Sitting in Darkness in China. They would muse upon the event, and be likely to say: "Civilization is gracious and beautiful, for such is its reputation; but can we afford it? There are rich Chinamen, perhaps they could afford it; but this tax is not laid upon them, it is laid upon the peasants of Shantung; it is they that must pay this mighty sum, and their wages are but four cents a day. Is this a better civilization than ours, and holier and higher and nobler? Is not this rapacity? Is not this extortion? Would Germany charge America two hundred thousand dollars for two missionaries, and shake the mailed fist in her face, and send warships, and send soldiers, and say: 'Seize twelve miles of territory, worth twenty millions of dollars, as additional pay for the missionaries; and make those peasants build a monument to the missionaries, and a costly Christian church to remember them by?' And later would Germany say to her soldiers: 'March through America and slay, giving no quarter; make the German face there, as has been our Hun-face here, a terror for a thousand years; march through the Great Republic and slay, slay, slay, carving a road for our offended religion through its heart and bowels?' Would Germany do like this to America, to England, to France, to Russia? Or only to China the helpless -- imitating the elephant's assault upon the field-mice? Had we better invest in this Civilization -- this Civilization which called Napoleon a buccaneer for carrying off Venice's bronze horses, but which steals our ancient astronomical instruments from our walls, and goes looting like common bandits -- that is, all the alien soldiers except America's; and (Americans again excepted) storms frightened villages and cables the result to glad journals at home every day: 'Chinese losses, 450 killed; ours, one officer and two men wounded. Shall proceed against neighboring village to-morrow, where a massacre is reported.' Can we afford Civilization?" And, next, Russia must go and play the game injudiciously. She affronts England once or twice -- with the Person Sitting in Darkness observing and noting; by moral assistance of France and Germany, she robs Japan of her hard-earned spoil, all swimming in Chinese blood -- Port Arthur -- with the Person again observing and noting; then she seizes Manchuria, raids its villages, and chokes its great river with the swollen corpses of countless massacred peasants -- that astonished Person still observing and noting. And perhaps he is saying to himself: "It is yet another Civilized Power, with its banner of the Prince of Peace in one hand and its loot-basket and its butcher-knife in the other. Is there no salvation for us but to adopt Civilization and lift ourselves down to its level?" And by and by comes America, and our Master of the Game plays it badly -- plays it as Mr. Chamberlain was playing it in South Africa. It was a mistake to do that; also, it was one which was quite unlooked for in a Master who was playing it so well in Cuba. In Cuba, he was playing the usual and regular American game, and it was winning, for there is no way to beat it. The Master, contemplating Cuba, said: "Here is an oppressed and friendless little nation which is willing to fight to be free; we go partners, and put up the strength of seventy million sympathizers and the resources of the United States: play!" Nothing but Europe combined could call that hand: and Europe cannot combine on anything. There, in Cuba, he was following our great traditions in a way which made us very proud of him, and proud of the deep dissatisfaction which his play was provoking in Continental Europe. Moved by a high inspiration, he threw out those stirring words which proclaimed that forcible annexation would be "criminal aggression;" and in that utterance fired another "shot heard round the world." The memory of that fine saying will be outlived by the remembrance of no act of his but one -- that he forgot it within the twelvemonth, and its honorable gospel along with it. For, presently, came the Philippine temptation. It was strong; it was too strong, and he made that bad mistake: he played the European game, the Chamberlain game. It was a pity; it was a great pity, that error; that one grievous error, that irrevocable error. For it was the very place and time to play the American game again. And at no cost. Rich winnings to be gathered in, too; rich and permanent; indestructible; a fortune transmissible forever to the children of the flag. Not land, not money, not dominion -- no, something worth many times more than that dross: our share, the spectacle of a nation of long harassed and persecuted slaves set free through our influence; our posterity's share, the golden memory of that fair deed. The game was in our hands. If it had been played according to the American rules, Dewey would have sailed away from Manila as soon as he had destroyed the Spanish fleet -- after putting up a sign on shore guaranteeing foreign property and life against damage by the Filipinos, and warning the Powers that interference with the emancipated patriots would be regarded as an act unfriendly to the United States. The Powers cannot combine, in even a bad cause, and the sign would not have been molested. Dewey could have gone about his affairs elsewhere, and left the competent Filipino army to starve out the little Spanish garrison and send it home, and the Filipino citizens to set up the form of government they might prefer, and deal with the friars and their doubtful acquisitions according to Filipino ideas of fairness and justice -- ideas which have since been tested and found to be of as high an order as any that prevail in Europe or America. But we played the Chamberlain game, and lost the chance to add another Cuba and another honorable deed to our good record. The more we examine the mistake, the more clearly we perceive that it is going to be bad for the Business. The Person Sitting in Darkness is almost sure to say: "There is something curious about this -- curious and unaccountable. There must be two Americas: one that sets the captive free, and one that takes a once-captive's new freedom away from him, and picks a quarrel with him with nothing to found it on; then kills him to get his land." The truth is, the Person Sitting in Darkness is saying things like that; and for the sake of the Business we must persuade him to look at the Philippine matter in another and healthier way. We must arrange his opinions for him. I believe it can be done; for Mr. Chamberlain has arranged England's opinion of the South African matter, and done it most cleverly and successfully. He presented the facts -- some of the facts -- and showed those confiding people what the facts meant. He did it statistically, which is a good way. He used the formula: "Twice 2 are 14, and 2 from 9 leaves 35." Figures are effective; figures will convince the elect. Now, my plan is a still bolder one than Mr. Chamberlain's, though apparently a copy of it. Let us be franker than Mr. Chamberlain; let us audaciously present the whole of the facts, shirking none, then explain them according to Mr. Chamberlain's formula. This daring truthfulness will astonish and dazzle the Person Sitting in Darkness, and he will take the Explanation down before his mental vision has had time to get back into focus. Let us say to him: "Our case is simple. On the 1st of May, Dewey destroyed the Spanish fleet. This left the Archipelago in the hands of its proper and rightful owners, the Filipino nation. Their army numbered 30,000 men, and they were competent to whip out or starve out the little Spanish garrison; then the people could set up a government of their own devising. Our traditions required that Dewey should now set up his warning sign, and go away. But the Master of the Game happened to think of another plan -- the European plan. He acted upon it. This was, to send out an army -- ostensibly to help the native patriots put the finishing touch upon their long and plucky struggle for independence, but really to take their land away from them and keep it. That is, in the interest of Progress and Civilization. The plan developed, stage by stage, and quite satisfactorily. We entered into a military alliance with the trusting Filipinos, and they hemmed in Manila on the land side, and by their valuable help the place, with its garrison of 8,000 or 10,000 Spaniards, was captured -- a thing which we could not have accomplished unaided at that time. We got their help by -- by ingenuity. We knew they were fighting for their independence, and that they had been at it for two years. We knew they supposed that we also were fighting in their worthy cause -- just as we had helped the Cubans fight for Cuban independence -- and we allowed them to go on thinking so. Until Manila was ours and we could get along without them. Then we showed our hand. Of course, they were surprised -- that was natural; surprised and disappointed; disappointed and grieved. To them it looked un-American; uncharacteristic; foreign to our established traditions. And this was natural, too; for we were only playing the American Game in public -- in private it was the European. It was neatly done, very neatly, and it bewildered them. They could not understand it; for we had been so friendly -- so affectionate, even -- with those simple-minded patriots! We, our own selves, had brought back out of exile their leader, their hero, their hope, their Washington -- Aguinaldo; brought him in a warship, in high honor, under the sacred shelter and hospitality of the flag; brought him back and restored him to his people, and got their moving and eloquent gratitude for it. Yes, we had been so friendly to them, and had heartened them up in so many ways! We had lent them guns and ammunition; advised with them; exchanged pleasant courtesies with them; placed our sick and wounded in their kindly care; entrusted our Spanish prisoners to their humane and honest hands; fought shoulder to shoulder with them against "the common enemy" (our own phrase); praised their courage, praised their gallantry, praised their mercifulness, praised their fine and honorable conduct; borrowed their trenches, borrowed strong positions which they had previously captured from the Spaniard; petted them, lied to them -- officially proclaiming that our land and naval forces came to give them their freedom and displace the bad Spanish Government -- fooled them, used them until we needed them no longer; then derided the sucked orange and threw it away. We kept the positions which we had beguiled them of; by and by, we moved a force forward and overlapped patriot ground -- a clever thought, for we needed trouble, and this would produce it. A Filipino soldier, crossing the ground, where no one had a right to forbid him, was shot by our sentry. The badgered patriots resented this with arms, without waiting to know whether Aguinaldo, who was absent, would approve or not. Aguinaldo did not approve; but that availed nothing. What we wanted, in the interest of Progress and Civilization, was the Archipelago, unencumbered by patriots struggling for independence; and the War was what we needed. We clinched our opportunity. It is Mr. Chamberlain's case over again -- at least in its motive and intention; and we played the game as adroitly as he played it himself." At this point in our frank statement of fact to the Person Sitting in Darkness, we should throw in a little trade-taffy about the Blessings of Civilization -- for a change, and for the refreshment of his spirit -- then go on with our tale: "We and the patriots having captured Manila, Spain's ownership of the Archipelago and her sovereignty over it were at an end -- obliterated -- annihilated -- not a rag or shred of either remaining behind. It was then that we conceived the divinely humorous idea of buying both of these spectres from Spain! [It is quite safe to confess this to the Person Sitting in Darkness, since neither he nor any other sane person will believe it.] In buying those ghosts for twenty millions, we also contracted to take care of the friars and their accumulations. I think we also agreed to propagate leprosy and smallpox, but as to this there is doubt. But it is not important; persons afflicted with the friars do not mind the other diseases. "With our Treaty ratified, Manila subdued, and our Ghosts secured, we had no further use for Aguinaldo and the owners of the Archipelago. We forced a war, and we have been hunting America's guest and ally through the woods and swamps ever since." At this point in the tale, it will be well to boast a little of our war-work and our heroisms in the field, so as to make our performance look as fine as England's in South Africa; but I believe it will not be best to emphasize this too much. We must be cautious. Of course, we must read the war-telegrams to the Person, in order to keep up our frankness; but we can throw an air of humorousness over them, and that will modify their grim eloquence a little, and their rather indiscreet exhibitions of gory exultation. Before reading to him the following display heads of the dispatches of November 18, 1900, it will be well to practice on them in private first, so as to get the right tang of lightness and gaiety into them: "ADMINISTRATION WEARY OF PROTRACTED HOSTILITIES!" "REAL WAR AHEAD FOR FILIPINO REBELS!"* "WILL SHOW NO MERCY!" "KITCHENER'S PLAN ADOPTED!" Kitchener knows how to handle disagreeable people who are fighting for their homes and their liberties, and we must let on that we are merely imitating Kitchener, and have no national interest in the matter, further than to get ourselves admired by the Great Family of Nations, in which august company our Master of the Game has bought a place for us in the back row. Of course, we must not venture to ignore our General MacArthur's reports -- oh, why do they keep on printing those embarrassing things? -- we must drop them trippingly from the tongue and take the chances: During the last ten months our losses have been 268 killed and 750 wounded; Filipino loss, three thousand two hundred and twenty-seven killed, and 694 wounded. We must stand ready to grab the Person Sitting in Darkness, for he will swoon away at this confession, saying: "Good God, those 'niggers' spare their wounded, and the Americans massacre theirs!" We must bring him to, and coax him and coddle him, and assure him that the ways of Providence are best, and that it would not become us to find fault with them; and then, to show him that we are only imitators, not originators, we must read the following passage from the letter of an American soldier-lad in the Philippines to his mother, published in Public Opinion, of Decorah, Iowa, describing the finish of a victorious battle: "WE NEVER LEFT ONE ALIVE. IF ONE WAS WOUNDED, WE WOULD RUN OUR BAYONETS THROUGH HIM." Having now laid all the historical facts before the Person Sitting in Darkness, we should bring him to again, and explain them to him. We should say to him: "They look doubtful, but in reality they are not. There have been lies; yes, but they were told in a good cause. We have been treacherous; but that was only in order that real good might come out of apparent evil. True, we have crushed a deceived and confiding people; we have turned against the weak and the friendless who trusted us; we have stamped out a just and intelligent and well-ordered republic; we have stabbed an ally in the back and slapped the face of a guest; we have bought a Shadow from an enemy that hadn't it to sell; we have robbed a trusting friend of his land and his liberty; we have invited our clean young men to shoulder a discredited musket and do bandit's work under a flag which bandits have been accustomed to fear, not to follow; we have debauched America's honor and blackened her face before the world; but each detail was for the best. We know this. The Head of every State and Sovereignty in Christendom and ninety per cent. of every legislative body in Christendom, including our Congress and our fifty State Legislatures, are members not only of the church, but also of the Blessings-of-Civilization Trust. This world-girdling accumulation of trained morals, high principles, and justice, cannot do an unright thing, an unfair thing, an ungenerous thing, an unclean thing. It knows what it is about. Give yourself no uneasiness; it is all right." Now then, that will convince the Person. You will see. It will restore the Business. Also, it will elect the Master of the Game to the vacant place in the Trinity of our national gods; and there on their high thrones the Three will sit, age after age, in the people's sight, each bearing the Emblem of his service: Washington, the Sword of the Liberator; Lincoln, the Slave's Broken Chains; the Master, the Chains Repaired. It will give the Business a splendid new start. You will see. Everything is prosperous, now; everything is just as we should wish it. We have got the Archipelago, and we shall never give it up. Also, we have every reason to hope that we shall have an opportunity before very long to slip out of our Congressional contract with Cuba and give her something better in the place of it. It is a rich country, and many of us are already beginning to see that the contract was a sentimental mistake. But now -- right now -- is the best time to do some profitable rehabilitating work -- work that will set us up and make us comfortable, and discourage gossip. We cannot conceal from ourselves that, privately, we are a little troubled about our uniform. It is one of our prides; it is acquainted with honor; it is familiar with great deeds and noble; we love it, we revere it; and so this errand it is on makes us uneasy. And our flag -- another pride of ours, our chiefest! We have worshipped it so; and when we have seen it in far lands -- glimpsing it unexpectedly in that strange sky, waving its welcome and benediction to us -- we have caught our breath, and uncovered our heads, and couldn't speak, for a moment, for the thought of what it was to us and the great ideals it stood for. Indeed, we must do something about these things; we must not have the flag out there, and the uniform. They are not needed there; we can manage in some other way. England manages, as regards the uniform, and so can we. We have to send soldiers -- we can't get out of that -- but we can disguise them. It is the way England does in South Africa. Even Mr. Chamberlain himself takes pride in England's honorable uniform, and makes the army down there wear an ugly and odious and appropriate disguise, of yellow stuff such as quarantine flags are made of, and which are hoisted to warn the healthy away from unclean disease and repulsive death. This cloth is called khaki. We could adopt it. It is light, comfortable, grotesque, and deceives the enemy, for he cannot conceive of a soldier being concealed in it. And as for a flag for the Philippine Province, it is easily managed. We can have a special one -- our States do it: we can have just our usual flag, with the white stripes painted black and the stars replaced by the skull and cross-bones. And we do not need that Civil Commission out there. Having no powers, it has to invent them, and that kind of work cannot be effectively done by just anybody; an expert is required. Mr. Croker can be spared. We do not want the United States represented there, but only the Game. By help of these suggested amendments, Progress and Civilization in that country can have a boom, and it will take in the Persons who are Sitting in Darkness, and we can resume Business at the old stand. Mark Twain. "Rebels!" Mumble that funny word -- Don't let the Person catch it distinctly.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.193.140 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 14 January 2006

I don't know how to seperate this from the above post, which is really unduely long, and obviously consists of an enormous amount of copied (not in a plageristic sense) material that doesn't say much. I just wish to note, that, if we wish to talk about modern America as imperialist, we cannot make the ludicrous assertion that Russia is not currently pursuing some imperialist policies. Russia is currently interfering in the internal affairs of several Eastern European countries, perhaps most notably the Ukraine, and is using oil power to retain influence in Belorus. I'm not here to defend America, though I think that many American policies are decried overmuch, but I will not tolerate such ridiculous factual errors. When making a point, let us not make generalizations and assumptions, and then treat them as facts.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.143.78 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 21 March 2007

Etymology

Read Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe, (There is a Roots album with the same title) for a wider perspective of descriptions of English Policies.

This sentence seems quite a bit out of place. Why direct the reader to a book _in_ the main article? State the etymology, and leave the book as further reading/sources. And why the need to namedrop "Roots"? Shandolad 11:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot...forus (talk • contribs) Merge it 01:41, 30 March 2006

US the World's only Super Power?

This is arguable and totally not NPOV. In fact it sounds like propaganda.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.131.210 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 19 April 2006

i wouldnt readily call it non-relavent or non-neutral point of view, but information about other countries involvement with imperialism certainly seems important. that said, i dont see how it would be fair to label other countries with imperialist dealings without, at least, considering the US involvement in the matter. however it seems that the article should be rewritten to remove any suspicsion of NPOV. it IS important that wikipedia keep a NPOV, however consider all political POVs AlexOvShaolin 14:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The only NPOV-ish thing about that label is it's vagueness. It would be better to cite sources stating that the U.S. has a larger military budget than the rest of the world combined, or things like that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jwray (talk • contribs) 17:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Suggested addition to header

After "For the 1997 computer strategy game, see Imperialism (game)" I would suggest putting: " 'Imperialist' redirects here. For the weapon in Metroid Prime Hunters see Items in the Metroid series - Hunter Weapons. If not this, then maybe a disambiguation page, perhaps?
-dogman15 06:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Benign Influence?

"In the context of the behavior of the other nations of the world, the United States has been positively benign in its influence."

This statement is completely false and should be removed. The US influence was benign? HA! I dare anyone to support this claim. --Dio free 05:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It says "In the context of the behavior of the other nations of the world", which means, it has had a RELATIVELY benign influence. Compared to the influence that, say, Nazi Germany has had, the US IS positively benign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.76.114 (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Consider: after WWII and the cold war, there were really only three options for the world hegemon: Nazis, Soviets, or the US. Would you have preferred one of the other two? In comparison, the US was at least more benign than the others would have been. The US had nuclear supremacy for long enough that, had the US been a true imperial power, they could have nuked Moscow and Beijing and any other capital that did not agree with their worldview. The US did not do this. So, if a nation has the ability to dominate but not the will...are they truly imperialist? If so, what meaning does that word have any more? Does it just mean hegemon? Does it just mean "Whoever's got the biggest army"?

As for being benign: You have to admit that the global economy and trade that US influence has fostered has lifted more people out of poverty than any other force in history. Relative living standards are higher than ever in history. And on the benign question: Are you saying that US influence is malevolent?

Pcrh 16:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a silly argument. Saying that the US has been positively benign compared to the Nazis and Soviets is like saying that prostate cancer is positively benign in comparison to lung and brain cancers. None of them are benign, you just have a higher chance of survival when it comes to the US, although that is quickly changing. The Nazis and Soviets went away fairly quicky - American imperialism has been around since the United States' establishment. The Nazis saw a target and went to crush that target. When the Americans can't rule you politically or militarily, they rule you through her trans-national corporations.Coconuteire 01:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you know how us Americans are.. always forcing the rest of the world to see things our way, which is invariably the wrong way. God forbid we let women vote and drive cars. I'm definitely going to start a "trans-national corporation" that sells tinfoil hats and use it to rule a foreign country! 68.228.27.106 00:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

20,000 people were murdered in my country's right-wing military dictatorship 30 years ago because the US didn't want other Latin American countries to turn into "another Cuba", so the used forced disapearances and state terror to ensure that.

68.228.27.106 00:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I'm not sure if the "Mr. K" section is approprite to stay on this page, would anyone mind removing it due to the fact that I'm new to most of this (Wikipedia)and don't want to screw up the page? --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.153.83 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 9 January 2007

The Berlin Conference

There is absolutely nothing in this article on the Berlin Conference of 1885. In this conference, the European powers laid down the rules for the division of Africa. If any experienced user is willing to collaborate with me on adding this section, please contact me. IronLance532 04:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

link - magdoff

the extarnal link to the essay of comrade magdoff is broken..88.231.157.122 17:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Standardization for Imperialism (re. Lenin)

In this article, the Anti-imperialism article, and the Theories of New Imperialism article, I standardized the stuff about Lenin's Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. Darth Sidious 23:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Since all of the information about Lenin's theory of imperialism is already contained in the Theories of New Imperialism I think someone should remove the section about Lenin's theory from the general imperialism article and link to the Theories of New Imperialism article. --Jayson Virissimo 20:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Too much Lenin - NPOV

Half of this article is about Lenin's theory of imperialism, instead of encyclopedic facts about imperialism. That's clearly an NPOV violation. The history section completely ignores the multitude of pre-1500 empires. This article should get the cleanup tag until both of those issues are addressed. Jwray 17:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I would wholeheartedly agree with the above, it would be just about acceptable as an entry intitled "Lenin's Theories of Imperialism", but as a general entry for Imperialism i think it is not in the least bit informative or encyclopedic. It just seems like somebody gushing there own personal opinion on Imperialism, which is no good to anyone. This should be added as a section to Empire, or the whole lot re-worked and expanded, with a balanced inclusion of Lenin's theories of imperialism, alongside other theories.--Turkeyplucker 10:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me or is just blatantly false?

"Imperialism was developed in the early 19th century after the Industrial Revolution when the western nations began to take control of other non-industrialized nations and colonies. The "Age of Imperialism" usually refers to the Old Imperialism period starting from 1860, when major European states started colonizing the other continents. The term 'Imperialism' was initially coined in the mid to late 1500s[2] to reflect the policies of countries such as Britain and France's expansion into Africa, and the Americas."

Has anyone else besides me ever heard of Romans, Mongols, Ottomans, Assyrians, Persians, or even the Macedonian Alexander the Great? Clearly there were empires before the 19th century. Doesn't the English word "empire" come from the Latin word Imperium? --Jayson Virissimo 20:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right. This article needs massive revisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwray (talk • contribs) 20:05, 26 June 2007

I came to this talk page to ask this same question. Empires have been around for thousands of years and have included the Roman Empire, the Inca Empire, the Aztec Empire, and many others. The "Overview" section is really bad at present. But an even bigger point is that this article represents inadvisable content forking from the article Empire. This article could simply be made a redirect to Empire, which already discusses most of the same concepts, but does a better job. — Lumbercutter 21:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Types

Anyone interested in working on defining different types of imperialism for the article, i.e. French vs. British, economic vs. ideological vs. political motivations? This may balance the large focus on Lenin's theory. --Kenneth M Burke 16:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I would really appreciate if someone added to the article what he said and also an overview on imperialism over time, especially imperialism's importance in the first world war (Historically and geographically). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.164.67.143 (talk) 02:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply to: earlier mainly unsigned discussions in 2003

Actually afaik it is not. At least there's technical term/usage of the word imperialism in historic/social/economic sciences where it usually refers to the to major european powers, the US,Russia,Japan in the 19th and 20th century. The early colonial empires are usually not described/included in that term nor are empires in general. Also I'm not sure about the oxford entry dating the term imperialism to the 15oos, other encyclopedias state it was coined in the 19th century (to describe the temporary empires. sources:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/imperialism http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/modsbook34.html

http://www.bartelby.org/65/im/imperial.html

--Kmhkmh 23:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

merge with Empire

Redirect this article title to Empire and merge the content, because there is no clear distinction between what should be included in one article and what should be included in the other article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwray (talk • contribs) 23:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Absolutely correct. When you start thinking about how "Imperialism" could be kept separate from "Empire", and why that would be desirable, you realize that they are best covered in the same article. — Lumbercutter 13:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagre The only means for merging would be for pretending that the Imperialism concept does not exist. Imperialism is a political concept actually formed several decades ago in Latin America I think.--190.40.43.178 (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree one is an actual thing or humanly described territory (an empire) while the other describes an expansionist attitude towards the world and territories. Though clearly connected, the terms do not address the same things. They don't need to be merged. Peter morrell 07:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No, they are two distinctive concepts, a thing versus an idea. Dance With The Devil (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section should summarize information in the article. The addition of religeous and perhaps technological imperialism to the intro should be followed by at least a short section on those topics within the article body with links to respective sub-articles. Vsmith 14:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

United States

I can't believe United States it's not even mentioned in an economical imperialism section, it dominated economically (and continues to do it) 3rd wworld and europe(middle of 20th century). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.40.43.178 (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

does the meaning of imperial completely surpass you?, the USA not an empire and it doesn't have any form of monarchy, this is case the USA wanting to be an empire etc when it isnt, in the ruling sense the usa would need more of an aspect of control with eg marshal law, and as it is a Republic this is not the case. Alexsau1991 (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The USA because should at least be given a mention seeing the French empire was a republic too. 91.106.161.193 (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not very objetive as spanish version

There's a article on spanish wikipedia that is more objetive than this, this is not neutral point of view, an ther's not more information about imperialism than leny teory.

Sorry for my bad english, i am not a english-native speaker, please check the spanish version http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialismo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.170.46.38 (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Article Needs Complete Overhaul

When exactly was this article butchered? Currently the meat of the article consists of a discussion of Lenin's theory of imperialism, certainly important in any discussion of imperialism but shouldn't be only section. Why is China's policy in Africa included?, to characterize such as imperial is ridiculous and certainly original politically motivated research. I suggest we review other language articles, such as above as suggested of spanish version, and rewrite this article into something decent.--David Barba (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Perhaps a start would be reverting to an earlier, better version. It sounds like you're more familiar with the article than I am. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. For one thing--Scramble for Africa, British Empire, European imperialism in general...where is it all? Any article on imperialism should at least touch on these! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.152.128 (talk) 01:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the person above me. Lenin, while relevant on the theory of imperialism, is not the brunt. Africa, Asia, India, colonizing the New World, "the big game" between Britain and Russia. There should be more information than there is useless noise scattered all over the page. Complete overhaul or revert to an earlier version —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.33.163 (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

China LMAO!

I find it highly disengenuous for someone to link China's current economic policies in Africa as imperialist. The term is relatively understood to be a negative current form of ancient European barbarity. I can understand why detractors of China (and there are many) would suggest it has an imperialist philosphy in Africa. The argument however is patently childish. China has trade agreements with African countries, mutually agreed upon agreements that do not involve China breathing down their necks with MIG fighter jets. Incidentally, Americans do though the IMF, World Bank and any other real imperialist western policy initiative in Africa. I can only assume the China tab is politically motivated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.59.43 (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

While it appears to have been since removed, Chinese policies in Africa would qualify as Imperialism, especially if one counts the IMF/World bank as Imperialism. In the revised version I will be writing up at some point in the next few weeks China will be mentioned, both in ancient times and modern times. Yes even if this peeves Chinese Nationalists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.48.23 (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Lenin....

I think there definitely is too much stuff about Lenin here... and considering the fact that imperialism is a social policy I'd expect much more say on it... articles like this brings to mind the instability that is sometimes present in wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.8.47 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 20 April 2008

Agree 100%. Since you're the third and I'm the fourth person to be of this opinion, I'm moving the Lenin crap to the talk. Surely Roman, Chinese, Byzantine, Persian Emperors vies of Imperialism are far more relevent than one communist. - Bourbonist 16:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Lenin's theory of imperialism

European intellectuals have contributed to formal theories of imperialism. In Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916), V.I. Lenin said capitalism necessarily induced monopoly capitalism as imperialism to find new business and resources, representing the last and highest stage of capitalism.[1] The necessary expansion of capitalism beyond the boundaries of nation-states — a foundation of Leninism — was shared by Rosa Luxemburg (The Accumulation of Capital: A Contribution to an Economic Explanation of Imperialism[2]) and liberal philosopher Hannah Arendt.[3] Since then, Marxist scholars extended Lenin's theory to be synonymous with capitalist international trade and banking.[4] Although Karl Marx did not publish a theory of imperialism, he identified colonialism (cf. Das Kapital) as an aspect of the prehistory of the capitalist mode of production. Lenin's definition: "the highest stage of capitalism" addressed the time when monopoly finance capital was dominant, forcing nations and private corporations to compete to control the world's natural resources and markets. Marxist imperialism theory, and the related dependency theory, emphasise the economic relationships among countries (and within countries), rather than formal political and military relationships. Thus, imperialism is not necessarily direct formal control of one country by another, but the economic exploitation of one by another. This Marxism contrasts with the popular conception of imperialism, as directly-controlled colonial and neocolonial empires. Per Lenin, Imperialism is Capitalism, with five simultaneous features: (1) Concentration of production and capital led to the creation of national and multinational monopolies — not as in liberal economics, but as de facto power over their markets — while "free competition" remains the domain of local and niche markets: Free competition is the basic feature of capitalism, and of commodity production generally; monopoly is the exact opposite of free competition, but we have seen the latter being transformed into monopoly before our eyes, creating large-scale industry and forcing out small industry, replacing large-scale by still larger-scale industry, and carrying concentration of production and capital to the point where out of it has grown and is growing monopoly: cartels, syndicates and trusts, and merging with them, the capital of a dozen or so banks, which manipulate thousands of millions. At the same time the monopolies, which have grown out of free competition, do not eliminate the latter, but exist above it and alongside it, and thereby give rise to a number of very acute, intense antagonisms, frictions and conflicts. Monopoly is the transition from capitalism to a higher system. (Ch. VII) [Following Marx's value theory, Lenin saw monopoly capitalism limited by the law of falling profit, as the ratio of constant capital to variable capital increased. Per Marx, only living labour (variable capital) creates profit in the form of surplus-value. As the ratio of surplus value to the sum of constant and variable capital falls, so does the rate of profit on invested capital.] (2) Finance capital replaces industrial capital (the dominant capital), (reiterating Rudolf Hilferding's point in Finance Capital), as industrial capitalists rely more upon bank-generated finance capital. (3) Finance capital exportation replaces the exportation of goods (though they continue in production); (4) The economic division of the world, by multi-national enterprises via international cartels; and (5) The political division of the world by the great powers, wherein exporting finance capital to their colonies allows their exploitation for resources and continued investment. This superexploitation of poor countries allows the capitalist industrial nations to keep some of their own workers content with slightly higher living standards. (cf. labor aristocracy; globalization) Claiming to be Leninist, the U.S.S.R. proclaimed itself foremost enemy of imperialism, supporting armed, national independence or communist movements in the Third World[5][6] while simultaneously dominating Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Marxists and Maoists to the left of Trotsky, such as Tony Cliff, claim the Soviet Union was imperialist. Maoists claim it occurred after Khrushchev's ascension in 1956; Cliff says it occurred under Stalin in the 1940s (see Soviet occupations).[7] Harry Magdoff's Age of Imperialism (1954) discusses Marxism and imperialism. Lenin's theory of imperialism has been critiqued by many scholars. One problem with Lenin's theory concerns the measured volumes of trade and capital flow among European capitalist societies and between European capitalist societies and poor Third World societies. European capitalist systems since the nineteenth century have always done the vast bulk of their trading among themselves, with a relative sliver of trade and capital flow going out to non-developed societies in comparison with trade and capital flow within the great European systems. Lenin's theory also contradicts Marx's doctrine of the reserved army of the unemployed (i.e. the lumpen proletariat), which holds that capitalism, for systemic reasons, cannot generate enough capital to employ all those who want to work. Lenin failed to see the contradiction, between the claim that capitalism builds up so much capital that it must send the excess overseas to "exploit" less developed societies, and the claim that capitalism cannot generate enough capital to sustain full employment. The aforementioned contradiction can be seen as a distortion of Marxist-Leninist Theory. It is true that Marx uncovered systematic failures inherent to capitalism such as the inability of capitalism to provide work for all people. For instance, many modern Nations have an unemployment rate significantly greater than zero. However, Marx attributed such a failure to the dynamics of capitalist production. Capitalists, in general, own the means of production (e.g. factories) and make profit. What is important here is how the profit is re-invested into the capitalist system. Rather than pay their workers higher wages or hire a larger work force, capitalists spend a significant portion of their profits on technological development. For example, the modern assembly line relies heavily on machinery. These machines take away the jobs of human workers. At the same time, capitalists are able to churn out more products using such machinery. Capital, then, can be increased (at least for a short time). In terms of imperialism, Lenin's theory does not contradict Marx's analysis of capitalism. Both men believed in and witnessed the formation of monopolies. Both men also stressed the insatiable appetite of capitalism to search for new markets that can increase profit. Since the bottom line for monopolies is to increase profit, Lenin was right insofar as imperialism is caused by the search for new markets. Currently, Marxists view globalization as imperialism's latest incarnation. [citation needed]

Moved - Bourbonist 16:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The Lenin stuff is not 'crap' as you call it; it is a notable and important theory of imperialism. I think it should go back and maybe be trimmed down a bit. Someone also recently removed an item about US imperialism; this needs discussing IMO because it depends if you include in the definition of imperialism the 'seeking to dominate, finance and influence' lesser states; if so, then certainly China in Africa and US in many other places (e.g. caribbean and central america) are both certainly 'guilty' of that type of behaviour. If you restrict the definition solely to 'building an empire,' then clearly they are not guilty, but maybe a discussion on such topics might prove to be fruitful? thanks Peter morrell 18:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

China’s economic imperialism Removal

I have removed and copied the section below because it may prove useful in a future rewriting of the article. I removed the section for several reasons. 1) the section is presented as original research. It is a new contemporary historical/political phenomena, the subject of speculation and debate. It would be more appropriate to phrase as such, example: Many Marxists, American and Taiwanese political observers question whether China's growing ties with Africa constitute X because of Y. 2) Sino-African relations has been tacked onto many negative connotation articles such as Colonialism, Imperialism, ect. without regard to the larger POV biases and political posturing involved. Why does China's relation in Africa deserve its own section and not US and French relations for which a much more established neocolonialism literature exists and their material (political, military, and economic) involvement in Africa is clearly and currently much larger? Would a section titled Neocolonialism in Africa discussing all the actors, histories, and their relative importance not be much better? 3) Considering the current shape of the Imperialism article (see discussion above) I don't think we should be tacking on new sections, covering very specific and issue oriented topics, so quickly. An potentially monstrous article like Imperialism would be better organized as an overview of the (historical) characteristics of Imperialism, important theoretical frameworks, and short use of examples (historical and contemporary) pointing readers to other articles, of which Sino-African relations might be one of many. I believe -and I assume there are others who feel the same- this formate would be superior to a confused and hodgepodge approach of tacking together many smaller topic specific sections into a monstrous single and potentially endless article. So basically I am saying that if you want to add Sino-African relations to the article, we collectively need to rewrite the entire article and make it fit.

   ::Main article: Sino-African relations

In recent years, the People's Republic of China has built increasingly stronger ties with African nations.[17][18] China is currently Africa's third largest trading partner, after the United States and former colonial power France. As of August 2007, there were an estimated 750,000 Chinese nationals working or living for extended periods in different African countries.[19][20] China is picking up natural resources — oil, precious minerals — to feed its expanding economy and new markets for its burgeoning enterprises.[21][22] In 2006, two-way trade had increased to $50 billion.[23]

--David Barba (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality category

Is there a "piss poor articles" category? Mbarbier (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Article name

I have removed the tag at the top of the article stating "The name of this article may be improper for Wikipedia." and requesting page name move, as I see no such request, nor suggested better names, here on the talk page. (As the term "Imperialism" has been in common use at least since the late 19th century, the name does not seem obviously "improper" to me.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems a little weird

Currently, there is an effort to broaden the definition of "imperialism" so it applies to any instance of a greater power acting or being perceived to act at the expense of a lesser power. Including 'perception' in the definition makes it circular, solipsistic, and subjective. Under this broader definition, 'imperialism' not only describes colonial, territorial policies;but also describes economic dominance and influence.

This paragraph seems pretty pointless to me. It doesn't cite any sources at all; I've never heard anyone define imperialism in as simplistic terms as a greater power acting at the expense of a lesser power, and I certainly have never heard of anyone defining imperialism as the perception of imperialism. Since the last sentence seems to want to expand the definition of what it has just argued against, I think it's just a straw man argument against considering economic domination as a type of imperialism.

76.185.10.189 (talk) 08:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed call for citations

To clarify the distinction, the French colonies in North America treated the native races with great diplomacy, whereas the British colonies early on began treating native Americans chauvinistically, as savages and lesser creatures.

This sentence from the introductory section had a call for citations; I removed them as, arguably, the information is common knowledge. Despite the ego hit a Briton may take, the French are known for their fair treatment of the natives, and the British for their abuses, in general. Sixwordsofadvice (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Such bald assertions are not NPOV and most certainly do require a reliable citation for them to remain. Otherwise the statements should be removed as blatantly POV OR. my ten cents on this. Peter morrell 12:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Such evidence would be a useful addition. I was always taught (I'm a Brit) that both sides used the Indians (as they were then known) for their own purposes, and the Indians tried to do the same with the Brits and the French, during the French and Indian Wars in particular. So I would be interested in seeing evidence to the contrary. "Common knowledge" doesn't cut it. Common knowledge is often wrong, or common within a single political area; but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia for the billion or so people in the world who can speak English. Simhedges (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Article deficient

In my view this article is pretty hopeless because it has nothing in it about economic imperialism, and the activities of the US in Central america, Russia in its former colonies or China in Africa. These are important omissions and just a few good, modern examples of imperialistic activity. And as for the Lenin stuff, it should have been trimmed yes, removed no. thanks Peter morrell 07:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This article needs major revisions

1) In the second section you have the paragraph:

Imperialism is found in the ancient histories of the Assyrian Empire, Roman Empire, Greece, the Persian Empire, the Ottoman Empire (see Ottoman wars in Europe), ancient Egypt, India, the Aztec empire, British Empire, Genghis Khan, and other areas.

I don't think the British Empire qualifies as "ancient".

2) The first and third paragraphs directly contradict each other on the origion of "imperalism" One states it was coined in the mid 16th century (which I am kind of skeptical of-but have no sources). the other states it was coined in the mid 19th. I can't say I know, but that needs to be cleared up.

3) We should make a section discussing the various types of empires (i.e. classical empires( Athens, Alexander, Rome), Gunpowder empires (Muhgal india, Ottoman turkey) modern empires (i.e. Europe).

I am going to make a name tomorrow to do some real work on this article. Does anyoene else have some thoughts? Theeagleman (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Also to add:

The "see also" needs reworking too. It wreaks of [POV]. It should either 1) be limited to related theories 2) various empires Theeagleman (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree it needs revising and am happy to help in that task as time permits. Peter morrell 17:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The above formerly unsigned ones were by me.

Now first we need to figure out the articles goals? Should it discuss historical and modern examples of imperialism? Or should it just discuss the various philosophies around them, with a "see also" linking to historical empires.

Theeagleman (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It should address ALL the aspects you mention IMO; however as my home PC is on the blink right now it limits my access and so I can't do much right now other than support and applaud your own efforts. Hopefully that will suffice, thanks Peter morrell 10:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I am just not familiar with Wiki rules/methods etc. so I figured having the help of a more experienced editor would help. Can you recommend anyone else? Theeagleman (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

well, I have a good admin friend who can check our edits. Scrupulously fair and even handed in all matters, neutral, detached, clever guy and friendly. Need I go on? so go ahead and edit, thanks Peter morrell 20:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

wow lmao!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where is USA?

I'm surprised (and also scared) USA is not even cited on this article. Is widely recognized that United States exercises cultural, military and economic dominance over the World! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.251.192 (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

BOO! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.37.202.123 (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

STFU Neckbeard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.115.100 (talk) 07:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay im gathering the meaning of Imperialism has suppast you - Imperial is something that relates to a monarch ie a King, Queen or an Emperor, that is why Nazi Germany (for egsample) was never actually classed as an empire. The USA exercisses some millitary dominacnce over the rest of the world, the USA exerxises no cultural domenece over every where as all your culture is that of an eveloved europian collany, and as you should (yet i doubt you do) know that the Europian Union has an economy £2 trillion GBP higher than that of the USA, with also this power (or niavity with people like you) it is no wondered why the USA is not worldly respected and disliked/hated even amongest its closest allies (ie UK, France, Canada). The consept of Amerian Empire is heavily disputed as the USA is a republic which is quite littarly the opersite of an Empire which this artical is about. Alexsau1991 (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Another expert on the USA who doesn't know what he's talking about. Two tril? look again. Also, I don't like being called "people like you" by people like you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.37.202.123 (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The French empire was also a republic during the 1st 2nd and 3rd republics but was undoubtedly an empire. 91.106.161.193 (talk) 10:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

imperialism does not mean that!

for those people who don't know what imperialism means, it does not mean what is said in the article!!! Imperialism, in fact, was the practice adopted by the Europeans, the US and Japan since the 16th century to World War 2, in which an imperialist nation takes control over another nation, exploits it, and forces them to sell their raw material to the nation so as to feed their industries! I am surprised that a practice that shook the balance of world economy was mentioned in such a tiny article! Is it because they are ashamed that they adopted such practices or because that they do not wish to mention it? I won't be surprised if this article is removed real soon. I am planning to edit this page completely and show the people what imperialism really is!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Suhailaurora (talk • contribs) 07:36, 23 June 2009

Merge Hegemony into Imperialism

The current status of Imperialism is deficient. Hegemony is better developed. But the former name is obviously better.

Support. For at least the reasons above. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. Imperialism is an interstate phenomenon (though see development theorists for its impact). Hegemony is generally depicted an an intrastate phenomena since Gramsci. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Who coined the term imperialism?

There should be at least one sentence saying who coined the term and when. 136.160.154.123 (talk) 04:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Archive 1

1. In Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism
2. See The Accumulation of Capital, 1913.
3. See Hannah Arendt, op.cit.
4. Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism
5. Soviet Union - Central and South America
6. Profile: Mengistu Haile Mariam, BBC
7. Soviet imperialism