What is new about the new imperialism?
147686
imperialism   n. \n1.The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations. \n2.The system, policies, or practices of such a government. \nimperialism, broadly, the extension of rule or influence by one government, nation, or society over another. \n\nI suspect you are referring to the acting on mercantilist the European nations in the 18th cent. attempted to regulate the trade of their colonies in the interests of the mother country.  Following is more detail.\nEvidence of the existence of empires dates back to the dawn of written history in Egypt and in Mesopotamia, where local rulers extended their realms by conquering other states and holding them, when possible, in a state of subjection or semisubjection. An early, highly organized empire was that of Assyria, which was succeeded by the even more integrated Persian Empire. Ancient imperialism reached its climax under the long-enduring Roman Empire, the eastern part of which lasted until late into the Middle Ages as the Byzantine Empire. In Western Europe no true empire arose to replace Rome; the Holy Roman Empire, despite the aspirations of its rulers, was little more than a confederation of princely states. However, imperialism remained an important historical force elsewhere. In the Middle East and North Africa the Arabs and later the Turks built large empires. Farther east, besides the huge, if unstable, empires of the nomadic Mongols and others arising out of Central Asia, there were long-lasting and complex imperial organizations exemplified by various Chinese dynasties.\nClassic Imperialism \nImperialism was reborn in the West with the emergence of the modern nation-state and the age of exploration and discovery. It is to this modern type of empire building that the term imperialism is quite often restricted. Colonies were established not only in more or less sparsely inhabited places where there were few or no highly integrated native states (e.g., North America and Africa) but also in lands where ancient civilizations and states existed (e.g., India, Malaya, Indonesia, and the Inca lands of South America). The emigration of European settlers to people the Western Hemisphere and Africa, known as colonization, was marked by the same attitude of assumed superiority on the part of the newcomers toward the native populations that prevailed where the Europeans merely took over control without large-scale settlements.\nFrom the 15th to the 17th cent. the Portuguese and the Dutch built trading empires in Africa and the East for the exploitation of the resources and commerce with lands already developed. The Spanish and Portuguese established important colonies in the New World in the 16th and 17th cents., hoping to exploit the mineral wealth of the lands they conquered. The British and French imperialists became the foremost exemplars of colonial settlement in Africa and the East. Acting on mercantilist principles, the European nations in the 18th cent. attempted to regulate the trade of their colonies in the interests of the mother country. Later, the increase of manufactures in the Industrial Revolution introduced a new form of imperialism, as industrial nations scrambled both for markets and for raw materials.\nThe eastward spread of Russia after the 16th cent. and the westward spread of the United States may also be termed imperialistic, although the United States did not actually acquire colonial possessions until the Spanish-American War. In the late 19th cent. Italy, Germany, and Japan also developed imperial ambitions; these nations, like the older colonial powers, were moved by a variety of aims, including commercial penetration, military glory, and diplomatic advantage.\nAt its best, European imperialism brought economic expansion and new standards of official administration and public health to subject countries; at its worst, it meant brutal exploitation and dehu
168280
From what I remember from American history, though perhaps my memory fails, he was a very expansionistic president and he would send U.S. troops to places they shouldn't really have been. Perhaps he was the first president to give the impression of the U.S. as a sort of "bully" in this aspect, and even to day the U.S. has problems sending their troops where they don't belong. Overall though, he was one of America's finest presidents I beleive. Hey, nobody's perfect.\n\nYes, I did a quick check and that's right. He called it "New Imperialism."
524663
Structuring a nation's foreign policy to acquire and develop colonies is a strategy of building an empire.  This is imperialism.\n\nWhen a number of empires aggregate themselves into unnecessary alliances, a great and needless conflict can erupt over a petty incident.  This is how the First World War started in 1914.  The first post argues that this is a crime caused by imperialism.  But foreign alliances of this sort are apart from intra-national colony building, which is imperialism proper.\n\nMy feeling is that the dangerous element in imperialism is that petty governments can develop oppressive colonies.  France, Belgium, Germany and the United States were ineffective and cruel imperial powers.  The arrogant and corrupt French mismanagement of Indo-China is a prime example of imperialism creating a world "hot spot" of trouble that ultimately haunted the United States.  The Belgium imperial government of the Congo sponsored a genocide campaign.  Imperial Russia under the Romonov's oppressed all their people and, coupled with an unpopular participation in an alliance during the First World War, were toppled as a government.  The Soviets oppressed and expanded this empire, ultimately were toppled as a government, and the south Asian republics that exist today are unstable and potential dangerous to peace on that continent.\n\nThe best argument for imperialism as a good movement was, of course, the British Empire.  After harrassing their American colonies into a successful revolt, the British never made a mistake of that magnitude again.  Unlike the other colonial powers, the British led with a light hand (one one person in 800 in colonial India was actually British) and were the world leaders in modernizing and industrializing their colonies.  To this day, compare a map of the railroads in India to those of the surrounding countries to see their emphasis upon colonia infrastruture.\n\nThe great dream of the ultimate British imperialist, Cecil Rhodes, was not merely all of the eastern part of Africa being placed under British rule, but the development and expansion of the empire to eventually re-incorpoate the United States into Great Britain (!) and become the world's government, with a benefit being no multi-power international conflict and therefore no more war.\n\nIt is hard to claim that the British Empire was a negative influence on the world.  The main complaint, and it is a well founded one, is that the British Empire warped and grossly changed the native cultures of the peoples it ruled.  It was an empire of forced modernization.\n\nThe greatest feat of the British Empire goes unheralded and largely unrecognied.  Britain's flag was planted on one quarter of the world's population.  The British were the first genuinely international currency and international banking system.  Nor is this just a prelude to the internationalism that has become the standard model of growth since 1945.\n\nThe other major empires folded or made deals with Hitler, except for the United Sttes (still an imperial power in the 1930's with the Philippines as a territory).  Hitler made  a deal with the Soviets and successfully invaded Belgium and France.  But he failed to invade England.\n\nThe English had a vastly superior intelligence system (another benefit of its empire, especially the Canadian intelligence masters) and the British had an imperial banking system which they properly used to bankrupt themselves in order to stop the Nazis.\n\nThe British Empire did not alone defeat the Nazis, but it achieved a stalemate, an accomplishment which saved the world from tyranny once its former territory, the United States, finally came into the fray.  So, at its very best, one of the empires made the world a safer place.\n\nThe cost was the dissolution of the empire itself.  This was a heavy price, but defeat at the hands of Hitler was unthinkable.\n\nThe smaller, crueler, more oppressive empires created dangers which
537806
http://www.answers.com/topic/history-of-united-states-overseas-expansion\nor\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism_in_Asia
129768
Protection of shipping/trade routes.  Imperialism was beginning to come to an end.  The small island nations that would become territorties or puppet regimes of the U.S. were used as docking/filling stations for the Navy and commericial ships of the U.s.
395057
New comers are; Angola, Ghana, Trinidad, Tobago, Ukraine, Togo and Cote d'Ivoire
203431
Late 1800's, under McKinely or TRoosevelt, it was when America was expanding for more marketes, especially in South America and the Philipines. Alot of people regard this as America's "Imperialist" stage
550855
Most wars involve some variation of "I WANT what you have and I think I can get away with TAKING it" which is Imperialism. \n\nNationalism is the spin-doctoring brow-beating that ENABLES Imperialism\n\nNow do your OWN research for your take-home essay question as to WHY Hitler, Hirohito, Stalin, Mussolini, Churchill, Roosevelt (and the people who put them in power) roll the dice with OUR lives.
41916
The Installation of Celulose processing plants and a difference of oppinion with argentina, which has got us a virtual economic blockage from them to us.\n\nThe economic development, current but permanent.\n\nThe closage of a cooperative of credit and savings, known as cofac and the funding of a new enterprise coming from international investors and the ashes of cofac.
626971
The modern British empire is the legacy of liberal democracy, spread of English as the lingua franca (hat tip previous poster) and legal code. Imagine if we were living under the Napoleonic code - you couldn't scratch yourself if there wasn't a law saying you were allowed.
159423
If you mean "neo-colonialism", I have heard this term used to describe Japan's actions during WWII.  Neo-colonialism means, literally, "new colonialism".  In other words, the formation of colonies in the modern day.  During (and before) WWII, Japan conquered parts of China, Korea, and other Asian countries, effectively making them Japanese colonies.
158646
Hope this is not too late\n\nIt's fascinating - went from an imperial government to republic, lots of corruption, then to communist, famine, cultural revolution, then a little bit capital with the opening of the economy, more corrupt, and now the country is pretty stable.\n\nMillions upon millions of people died, values changed, people became selfless (when the govt promoted a man called Lei Feng) and now adays it's every man for himself no matter what happens to everyone else.
969672
1. I presume that you do really mean African imperialism, which includes such empires as the Ashanti Empire, the Dahomey Empire, Great Zimbabwe etc. \n\n2. In which case, these are some of the "bad things":\na) slave labour of captured prisoners-of-war;\nb) punitive taxation of conquered tribes;\nc) forcing attractive women to be concubines;\nd) ruthless suppression of dissent.\n\n3. If you had meant European imperialism in Africa, then your question was very poorly drafted.
991177
I see your logic and there is some truth to what you are saying.  The patterns are there, but i would HIGHLY recommend you read the Book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by geographer Jared Diamond.  It is incredible and discusses these topics and more.  Like why were Europeans able to conquer the new world and colonize Africa, and the biological reasons, such as introduced species.  Its a thick read, but i believe it will offer you a solid base to draw some conclusions to your statements above.  Best of luck!\n\nAnd by the way these countries are now at war because they were colonies (google the berlin conference of 1834 , thats when they drew up arbitrary lines in africa and divided it up amonst eupean countries) and when the imperial powers gave them independence all infrastructure and government was removed and that has left these people in a power struggle ever since. The last colonie in africa gained independence in 1984.  these are recent struggles.  Apartheid just ended in S.Africa.
639591
The attraction for Imperial Powers was the trade of spices. Also the immense variety of textile sector was the other. There was a well established trade network in South Asia long before The Europeans arrival. The first phase of colonialism was not a direct imperialism but some sort of a commercial penetration. \nEast India Company (EIC) has to be examined carefully in order to get thee real sense of Imperialism in Indie. It was at the beginning, a commercial office which needed the permission of local political powers in India to work. The company transformed its being into Imperialism by signing an agreement which granted tax collection monopoly for the EIC. Gradually, EIC moved into a government by collecting taxes and then holding an army. By the end of the 18th century, the Mughal Emperor began to receive pension from EIC. Also, the British interest grew from political and commercial to intellectual. It was the era of Enlightenment and for the first time the British was interested in Hindu culture and language. The Imperialism now was changing its shape. The 'civilising mission' of it became more visible in India. \nBy thee mid 19th, local powers began to establish resistance against this civilising activities. This rebellion resulted in Queen Victoria's new modern notion of Imperialism in 1858. India became a part of the British common wealth.
1159039
Neither, it reflects nothing but arrogance and Imperialism from the most corrupt administration in history. They (Bush) may like to spin it as both, but as evidenced by the current clusterfu*k of world events, we know better, that's the short answer. :)
275409
What else is new? It's the same shit different American asshole President. Why are you even surprised? \n\nPolictics=money+power+the people in charge lying to why America even gives cares about the Middle East/Oil\n\nPolictis=Bull shit!