[CUFCDan]

Doing a past paper and this comes up.

I know the simple answer: it was economic, formal annexation, which gained its deeper meaning of colonialism from around 1850 with the annexation of Africa (Hobsbawm). This was originally proposed by the Hobson analysis (1902) and Lenin (1916). It has been discredited.

Other than that, I can't think of a direct way to answer the question without veering off into more 'what was the motivation behind the New Imperialism?' I certainly couldn't write for an hour or 45 minutes on the topic and stay suitably on the subject.

I ask because Imperialism is one of my key topics to revise. I know the historiographical debate inside and out and a lot of stats for it. But for it to come up in this form and for me not to get it would be a shame.

Any ideas?

[AdvanceAndVanquish]

With this question, it is perfectly valid to argue that the idea of a New Imperialism is an illusion, and that there was nothing which really made it new.

[CUFCDan]

(Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
With this question, it is perfectly valid to argue that the idea of a New Imperialism is an illusion, and that there was nothing which really made it new.

Good point. That would fill up some space.

It's a question I would probably avoid if it came up.

Cool research topic by the way.

[AdvanceAndVanquish]

(Original post by CUFCDan)

Cool research topic by the way.

Cheers! It's good fun. Spent a lot of time at the National Archives going through Colonial Office correspondence, and at Rhodes House which naturally has a lot of stuff, although I'm down to the crunch in terms of actually getting it written.

[CUFCDan]

(Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
Cheers! It's good fun. Spent a lot of time at the National Archives going through Colonial Office correspondence, and at Rhodes House which naturally has a lot of stuff, although I'm down to the crunch in terms of actually getting it written.

Always wanted to go the archives and stuff. Never been somewhere like that. Would be good if they had online records.

[TieMeUp]

Agh, I'd just come to the end of writing my response and I closed the window! Nm, I'll write another.

(Original post by CUFCDan)
Doing a past paper and this comes up.

I know the simple answer: it was economic, formal annexation, which gained its deeper meaning of colonialism from around 1850 with the annexation of Africa (Hobsbawm). This was originally proposed by the Hobson analysis (1902) and Lenin (1916). It has been discredited.

Hobson and Lenin are not great sources in this regard; their goal was to conscript history to put a particular economic system in the dock. Economic liberalism was certainly something that flavoured these events, but I'm not sure it was entirely crucial, more a retroactive explanation (both for liberals and Hobson) for the success of empire.

It seems to me that technology, industrialisation, greater and more effective organisation, changes in the strategic environment and even bad luck have greater responsibility (in the case of the American Revolution; a British victory would have probably stalled any need for a British and French Second Empire.. in Asia at least)

What was new about it? Everything. The participants and objectives were different, the means were entirely different, it accompanied an enormous shift in the European state of affairs and an important shift in Britain's global status and approach to foreign policy.

Okay, so start at the beginning; the Seven Years War, American revolution and westward expansion of the United States. European powers are pushed out of North America. Britain and France direct their colonial policy eastwards to attempt to mitigate the loss of the North American colonies.

So, what was different? Participants, for one. The old participants like the Netherlands, the Portuguese and the Spanish bow out, for the most part, while retaining control of what they've managed to preserve. New players like Germany, Japan, Russia, the Scandinavian countries, Belgium etc create their own colonial policy.

What else was different was methods; almost everything shifted after the loss of the colonies. Expansion became Eastward oriented, it became based on maritime power and sea lines of communication rather than armies, it marks the emergence of Britain as (the first) global superpower, you see nominal suzerainty and relations with non-English states rather than colonisation and direct rule.

You also see a notable change in Britain's foreign policy orientation to a policy created around the necessities of commerce, based around the needs of commerce and the protection of sea lines of communication, rather than religion, continental politics and the fortunes of various European states.

I think Britain's empire transformed from something coarse and unapologetically violent to something perhaps a little finer, that was in line with Britain's national and foreign policy interests, that captured the mood of the time (economic liberalism, parliamentary democracy, science and industry, etc). Its ideas were more refined, it had an ideological and moral underpinning that befitted such a costly enterprise. It moved past bayonets and cannon shot and started fighting for its interests with spies, trade routes, technology and philosophy.

In coarse terms, what was different was the world. The New Imperialism is both a symptom, and an enabling factor (insofar as it allowed Europe to expand to Africa and Asia), of everything that was occurring at the time in terms of technology, economic theory, political developments, changing priorities etc.

[TieMeUp]

(Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
With this question, it is perfectly valid to argue that the idea of a New Imperialism is an illusion, and that there was nothing which really made it new.

Except for almost everything that in fact made it qualitatively different from previous forms of economic and political exploitation. Britain did not keep large standing armies in its overseas possessions, it had far more effective tools like economic influence, cultural clout and technological and philosophical sophistication.

Everything changed for Britain after the loss of the American colonies, and all the changes you see in Britain's military posture and foreign policy is that it has transformed to a global economic, political and technological superpower, but not necessarily a military one.

Hence splendid isolation, the Rule Britannia spirit (as an exhortation; that a well-equipped Navy is the guardian of liberty... as it prevents European invasions, it protects you from both continental tyranny and Republican/armed insurrection etc, all the shifts in colonial, military and foreign policy away from direct confrontation and to more subtle and effective means.

It seems rather clear to me that *everything* during the period of New Imperialism, when you compare it with the old, is qualitatively, epochally different.

[AdvanceAndVanquish]

(Original post by TieMeUp)
Except for almost everything that in fact made it qualitatively different from previous forms of economic and political exploitation. Britain did not keep large standing armies in its overseas possessions, it had far more effective tools like economic influence, cultural clout and technological and philosophical sophistication.

Everything changed for Britain after the loss of the American colonies, and all the changes you see in Britain's military posture and foreign policy is that it has transformed to a global economic, political and technological superpower, but not necessarily a military one.

Hence splendid isolation, the Rule Britannia spirit (as an exhortation; that a well-equipped Navy is the guardian of liberty... as it prevents European invasions, it protects you from both continental tyranny and Republican/armed insurrection as you can keep the army as small as a few thousand), all the shifts in colonial, military and foreign policy away from direct confrontation except where Britain's fundamental interests were threatened and it had a good chance of military victory.

It seems rather clear to me that *everything* during the period of New Imperialism, when you compare it with the old, is qualitatively, epochally different.

I think you may both have slightly missed the point of this comment, and indeed this thread, as well as confused the concept of New Imperialism with that of Second British Empire. I'm personally slightly confused about your reference to the lack of standing armies, in light of the continued existence of the Indian Army and the development of an African one, although that's sort of a side point.

[TieMeUp]

(Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
I think you may both have slightly missed the point of this comment, and indeed this thread, as well as confused the concept of New Imperialism with that of Second British Empire

Your sense of pedantry is misplaced; they are indeed essentially the same thing. It's as if the OP had referred to Communism, and when I expressed an opinion you said "no not communism the political movement, communism as an economic-political theory". Specifically, the explanation for the existence of colonial policy as resulting from the capitalist profit motive. This is backwards, and overly simplistic, but it's certainly an improvement on nationalism or the supernatural as an explanation.

The "New" in New Imperialism wasn't referring to the fact that what was new was Hobson's formulation; the New was referring to the fact that the method, the manner, the flavour, of exploitation, was new. When colonialism shifted from a bayonet and cannon shot, letter-of-marque colonial settlement programme to a system of global markets, political agreements and defence arrangements, it was indeed new and something fit for the kind of purpose we're talking about (the transmission of wealth, raw materials, information, influence etc rather than people, slaves, for resettlement and pre-industrial times)

I'm personally slightly confused about your reference to the lack of standing armies, in light of the continued existence of the Indian Army and the development of an African one, although that's sort of a side point

With re to standing armies, yes; there were colonial defence forces, composed primarily of locals. To take economic and political control of a country, and then further convince its inhabitants to fight in your army, to uphold your suzerainty, is a feat indeed. It's an indication of how British colonial policy operated generally, moving away from coarse policies and methods to finer ones that involved convincing, pressuring, influencing and threatening, and controlled violence only in limited circumstances. This is what is "new". Everything that I discussed in my post was about how it was differentiated from the old (non market based policy with different means and objectives)

As to an actual standing army, Britain's was tiny in comparison to France and Germany and the rest of Europe. A cadre of ten or fifteen thousand, as opposed to standing armies that went from hundreds of thousands to million +. This was understood and intended; it was part of the splendid isolation from European affairs, it removed the temptation, it was part of the general spirit of the time in English-speaking colonies and countries that large standing armies were a
menace to liberty, so even the Indian Army had a strength of about 100,000+ on a population base of hundreds of millions.

The existence of local militias and armed forces, the cadre and militia system in Britain, the emphasis on a common system of imperial defence, particularly among the English-speaking countries, this is how Britain managed the drawbacks associated with only keeping a cadre force that would act as the core of a wartime army, rather than keeping a full standing army (this is what a standing army is).

Regarding the point of the thread, I felt I should emphasise that developments in the political economy and developments in colonial policy were synergistic (though clearly a better explanation than nationalism). Anyway, as circuitous and expansive as I am, at least there's a bit of substance in my post.

You remind me of law students who read what people say about cases, what the textbooks summarise them as saying, rather than actually reading the cases themselves. Their train of thought never extends to principles, issues, causes, an original formulation of opinion; it's regurgitated whole and dumped onto the table like a dead cat. Very helpful and incisive.

[TieMeUp]

If you actually want to read it, AdvanceandVanquish, you can find it here. It will take you about five minutes, and I think you'll get a grasp of the kind of things that made the imperialism new.

http://www.panarchy.org/hobson/imperialism.1902.html

it is perfectly valid to argue that the idea of a New Imperialism is an illusion

You would encourage someone to stand on rhetorical ground that will fall apart at the first stress? Clearly there was something new about it, it's measurable and people understood it at the time, during Hobson's time, and they understand now.

Encouraging someone to take up a position that is not only wrong and basically an exercise in sophistry is bad advice, and academically ill-advised considering that you would have to exhibit Cicero-like rhetorical skills to earn the forgiveness of the person marking it for being wrong as well as arrogant.

OP; if you want to understand what is new in Imperialism, it's a short document. If the question is what was new about Hobson's contribution, that's a ten word answer.

He was probably the first to formulate the "soft power" nature of global empire and colonialism; that it was transmitted along trade routes and by influence and persuasion, and designed to serve British and common commercial interests. Hobson may have been the first to formulate and quantify a kind of commercial, soft power "imperialism" as opposed to a kind of unalloyed Roma-style imperialism characterised by settlers, dispossession, violence and slavery.

If your OP is related to Hobson and the text itself, I think you might be engaging in overkill to go to the Rhodes Foundation or foreign office archives for revision when Imperialism is a few thousand words. I digress; I think AdvanceAndVanquish's advice is ill-judged and risky.

Forbearing to take the obvious choice is often the wrong answer, not the clever answer to a trick question. Hobson coming to the wrong conclusion w/ re to the role of capital doesn't mean that what he published is not original or contains.

[AdvanceAndVanquish]

Cheers for the link, snide comments, and rambling, overblown rhetoric. If I've the time, I may go back over Hobson again, although I suspect we're actually talking about different phenomena that have both been referred to as 'new imperialism,' a term which, in the context of Africa (my particular specialty) can refer to the period after 1880, for example, in John Darwin's 'Imperialism and the Victorians: The Dynamics of Territorial Expansion' where it is used to refer to this period in reference to the Robinson and Gallagher debate about the reasons for formal versus informal imperial control, Darwin in this case argung, convincingly to my mind, for continuity in imperial methods and motivations between the mid and late Victorian periods. Note the OP's reference to formal annexation and Africa.
So to conclude, don't really appreciate the attitude, but it's good to have more people on here interested in this stuff.

[TieMeUp]

(Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
Cheers for the link, snide comments, and rambling, overblown rhetoric

Apologies for the comments that were uncalled for. I felt you were being disagreeably dismissive, and unforgivably so to reasonable post that was actually pretty much on the money in terms of the issues it addressed and the characteristics Hobson lists as defining ones very early in the pamphlet.

With re to my words, they're my own idiosyncrasy and preference. You don't need to worry that I'm dressing up linguistically to impress you.

If I've the time, I may go back over Hobson again, although I suspect we're actually talking about different phenomena that have both been referred to as 'new imperialism,' a term which, in the context of Africa (my particular specialty) can refer to the period after 1880, for example, in John Darwin's 'Imperialism and the Victorians: The Dynamics of Territorial Expansion' where it is used to refer to this period in reference to the Robinson and Gallagher debate about the reasons for formal versus informal imperial control, Darwin in this case argung, convincingly to my mind, for continuity in imperial methods and motivations between the mid and late Victorian periods.

I might be going out on a limb, but I see Africa as having circumstances that meant that it didn't have many of the characteristics of this new form of market imperialism.

I think that despite Hobson mentioning Africa as part of the New Imperialism (along with Asia), sub-Saharan Africa didn't actually have the characteristics Hobson lists, it seems more like a curiosity and unique case rather than conforming to the general flavour of the second wave of European imperialism, and to market-based imperialism generally. When you compare it to, say, Britain's dealings in China and India, it seems that they are far more candidates for being representative of what imperialism was. Dealings with locals, the lack of large-scale European settlement, political understandings that fall short of sovereignty, etc

You also have a more primitive, acquisitive MO on the part of the imperial powers. Belgium particularly, seemed to revert to the old-style imperialism of direct political control, slavery and the exploitation of low-value commodities.

Note the OP's reference to formal annexation and Africa.

My take would actually be that Africa is discernibly part of a different phenomenon, or at least has unique characteristics that don't conform to Hobson's definition; organised around the transmission of capital and the protection of commerce, not tied to settlement, etc.

I'd certainly be interested to see the OP's take on that; I think he/she is going in the wrong direction with Africa in terms of what distinguishes Hobsons analysis from others, and what makes Hobsons imperialism, new, unique, whatever word you want to use.

Despite the late 19th century rush for African colonies, imperialism was not a new phenomenon in Africa and Europeans continued on with few substantive modifications. It still involved a considerable degree of European settlement and conflict over home rule, the imposition of a racial class system and coercive labour practices that bordered on slavery.

In fact, Hobson points out that settlement is not a defining feature of colonial policy after 1870, and excepting Transvaal and the Orange River colony, it is unlikely to be so. In the chapter following, Hobson talks about imperialism as a means by which Europeans force open markets, and China and India are provided as axiomatic examples. Africa did not really conform to this model of suzerainty, limited settlement, the sale of goods and the protection of trade routes. What makes the New Imperialism unique, are characteristics that were often absent in the African wave of colonisation and conquest in the late 19th cent.

So to conclude, don't really appreciate the attitude, but it's good to have more people on here interested in this stuff.

Yeah, sorry about that. I saw your dismissal of my post as a red rag, and as I thought I'd actually come reasonably close to describing what defines Hobson's imperialism, I wanted to put a bit of pepper on the gloves. You have my apologies.

[TieMeUp]

(Original post by CUFCDan)
Doing a past paper and this comes up.

I know the simple answer: it was economic, formal annexation, which gained its deeper meaning of colonialism from around 1850 with the annexation of Africa (Hobsbawm). This was originally proposed by the Hobson analysis (1902) and Lenin (1916). It has been discredited.

Other than that, I can't think of a direct way to answer the question without veering off into more 'what was the motivation behind the New Imperialism?' I certainly couldn't write for an hour or 45 minutes on the topic and stay suitably on the subject.

I ask because Imperialism is one of my key topics to revise. I know the historiographical debate inside and out and a lot of stats for it. But for it to come up in this form and for me not to get it would be a shame.

Any ideas?

I was just wondering if you could clarify your OP? I'm a bit confused whether it's the publication, or the facts and events it discusses, that is the scope for your revision?

In relation to your comment about annexation... It seems to me that all of the analysis and criticism since seems to move "new imperialism" to something even more defined by trade, maritime power, trade routes, political informality, very much an "informal empire" (I don't want to say of free trade because the corn laws and opium wars put paid to that idea).

Even Hobson himself places a very strong emphasis on commerce, diplomacy and trade protection and specifically warns his readers away from associating new imperialism with European settlement. So I'm wondering if you see things as being more "formal", state-centric, than has been concluded in recent years?