Saturday, January 31, 2009

Tired of Your Neighbors? Just Take Over the World! (783-93)

The European imperialist urge first emerged in 1869 with the opening of the Suez Canal. Over 100 miles long and connecting the Mediterranean and Red Sea, the Suez Canal not only opened up an easier trade route with then-Bombay; the canal was tangible evidence of the Europe's increasing financial, political, and commercial involvement outside of the mainland. Egypt, through which the canal cuts, was a semi-autonomous Ottoman state steeped in debt and political hardship. It was not long after the opening of the foreign-funded Suez Canal that European interests (namely Britain) decided to intervene before the Suez Canal itself was at risk of damage from internal conflict. Thus, "new imperialism" was born. Unlike "formal imperialism," also known as "colonialism," new/informal imperialism refers to a more subtle exercise of power in which a stronger state allows a weaker state to maintain its independence despite a reduction in the latter's sovereignty (789). Such was the nature of British rule in Egypt, and although imperialism itself was not new to the European powers practicing it, this 19th century practice allowed for the advent of a second empire built on the back of industrialization, liberal revolutions, and the establishment of nation-states. The imperialist powers in Europe took a very utilitarian view of their international intervention; with just a little external push, these non-European countries would surely improve, and thus the international community would also benefit. The result of such utilitarian and interventionist thinking was the spread of informal rule of which Britain was the champion.

Imperialism was not without its opponents, however, the most influential of which were the social critic J.A. Hobson and the Marxist Vladimir Lenin. Hobson equated imperialism with capitalism and the financial monopolies to indirect rule. In Hobson's view, the bankers were as key to imperialism and governments; he observed that once Britain established power outside of its borders, London became the banking center of the world. Naturally, the Marxists were opposed to this unapologetic spread of capitalism. Lenin, as acutely aware of the economics of imperialism as Hobson, argued that imperialism was a product of the "internal contradictions" of a capitalist economy (790). However, non-European markets proved to be too poor to meet European needs, a fact which negates the economically based criticisms of Hobson and Lenin. Advocates of imperialism saw it as more essentially rooted in nationalism and cultural improvement, pioneering a 19th century sense of European supremacy which only hinted by Romantic exoticism. The various motivations for new imperialism worked with each other in such a way that the geographic and cultural landscape of the world would be forever changed; thus, the international community began the long process of globalization which would establish some powers, diminish others, and integrate races.

1 comment:

  1. The European imperialist urge first emerged in 1869 with the opening of the Suez Canal… However, non-European markets proved to be too poor to meet European needs, a fact which negates the economically based criticisms of Hobson and Lenin.
    http://ditchpostmodernism.blogspot.com/2009/01/tired-of-your-neighbors-just-take-over.html
    On the first point, I see you speak a little later of the “new” imperialism. I wonder, what do you make of France getting into Algeria after 1838, to start bringing that territory under its control? Would you classify this as new or old imperialism? Also, “negates” is a pretty strong word. Just because many colonies were a bust financially, shows that the rosy calculations were wrong. But these calculations have some weight, don’t they in determining the reasons why some things were don in the first place? Or, do you see them as nothing more than ad hoc rationales? Further, not all colonies were a bust—India was a great source of revenue and labour—check out Curzon’s comments on p797.

    http://ditchpostmodernism.blogspot.com/2009/01/repetition-repeated-another-week-end.html
    http://ditchpostmodernism.blogspot.com/2009/01/at-risk-at-risk-of-repetition.html
    Nice summary of what we did in class, but what were your fellow voyagers doing? Its OK to link to their work…

    Without the two strongest women of the era, no one advocated powerful representation of women as Napoleon drew up his Codes. In the Codes, women were expected by law to occupy a very specific role in the private sphere. Thus, the revolutionary spirit that allowed women to come into the public sphere was dissipated, the remaining women repressed. … in England, the utilitarian Mill was an uncommon male ally, publicizing his belief that the education of women would embody "the greatest good for the greatest number." However, Parliament was wary of working class men voting, let alone an entire "domestic" population.
    http://ditchpostmodernism.blogspot.com/2009/01/blame-it-on-napoleon.html
    Two observations. First, I agree that the feminist drive lost two advocates, and a third in Condorcet as well, but I also remember that an early hotbed of radicalism lay with the market wives, who helped engineer Louis XVI return from Versailles. What about them? Why didn’t someone else emerge? What role did the whole recoiling from the Terror play? The militarization of France? I think the question needs a little more analysis. The second part—yes—the impetus for women’s voting rights comes after male rights are granted… Your conversation with DC was interesting to say the least!

    Therefore, the competition between them (although often violent) accommodated Italian diversity in such a way that the need to unify was universal.
    http://ditchpostmodernism.blogspot.com/2009/01/in-case-you-thought-politics-were-fake.html
    So you are saying that this was a typically Italian solution to this problem!

    This is where we could start getting into an argument about modern vs. contemporary. I disagree that the term "modern" is empty when separated from the modernist movement. Not every age is modern in the scope of history, nor does modernist doctrine make this claim
    http://ditchpostmodernism.blogspot.com/2009/01/further-contemplations-of-modernity.html
    http://ditchpostmodernism.blogspot.com/2009/01/modern-vs-modernist.html
    This is meaty-- It is- not so easy to define. The Modern means many things to many people. It is the age we live in, right now. Baudelaire said that back in 1850s …Modernism is the name given to movements in art, architecture, poetry, and literature. Modernism is also a cluster of beliefs that gel together at an historical time- from roughly 1860-1930 … An age that first articulates in mature form the notion of the Modern. The key notion is the presence of an idea—progress. The Modern era (as we understand it) is also one that has other characteristics—perspectivism for example.
    Great conversation, thank you.

    ReplyDelete