Gayblack Canadian Man

Foreign Policy Analysis
Imperialism | Wikipedia audio article

Imperialism | Wikipedia audio article


Imperialism is a state policy, practice, or
advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition
or by gaining political and economic control of other areas. Because it always involves
the use of power, whether military force or some subtler form, imperialism has often been
considered morally reprehensible, and the term is frequently employed in international
propaganda to denounce and discredit an opponent’s foreign policy.
It is different from new imperialism, as the term imperialism is usually applied to the
colonization of the Americas between the 15th and 19th centuries, as opposed to the expansion
of Western Powers and Japan during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. However, both
are examples of imperialism.==Etymology and usage==
The word imperialism originated from the Latin word imperium, which means supreme power.
It first became common with its current sense in Great Britain, during the 1870s and was
used with a negative connotation. Previously the word imperialism had been used to describe
to what was perceived as Napoleon III’s attempts of obtaining political support through foreign
military interventions. The term was and is mainly applied to Western (and Japanese) political
and economic dominance, especially in Asia and Africa, in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Its precise meaning continues to be debated by scholars. Some writers, such as Edward
Said, use the term more broadly to describe any system of domination and subordination
organised with an imperial center and a periphery. This definition encompasses both nominal empires
and neocolonialism.==Colonialism vs. imperialism==”The word ’empire’ comes from the Latin word
imperium; for which the closest modern English equivalent would perhaps be ‘sovereignty’,
or simply ‘rule'”. The greatest distinction of an empire is through the amount of land
that a nation has conquered and expanded. Political power grows from conquering land;
however, cultural and economic aspects flourish through sea and trade routes. A distinction
about empires is “that although political empires were built mostly by expansion overland,
economic and cultural influences spread at least as much by sea”. Some of the main aspects
of trade that went overseas consisted of animals and plant products. European empires in Asia
and Africa “have come to be seen as the classic forms of imperialism: and indeed most books
on the subject confine themselves to the European seaborne empires”. European expansion caused
the world to be divided by how developed and developing nation are portrayed through the
world systems theory. The two main regions are the core and the periphery. The core consists
of high areas of income and profit; the periphery is on the opposing side of the spectrum consisting
of areas of low income and profit. These critical theories of Geo-politics have led to increased
discussion of the meaning and impact of imperialism on the modern post-colonial world. The Russian
leader Lenin suggested that “imperialism was the highest form of capitalism, claiming that
imperialism developed after colonialism, and was distinguished from colonialism by monopoly
capitalism”. This idea from Lenin stresses how important new political world order has
become in our modern era. Geopolitics now focuses on states becoming major economic
players in the market; some states today are viewed as empires due to their political and
economic authority over other nations. The term “imperialism” is often conflated
with “colonialism”; however, many scholars have argued that each have their own distinct
definition. Imperialism and colonialism have been used in order to describe one’s perceived
superiority, domination and influence upon a person or group of people. Robert Young
writes that while imperialism operates from the center, is a state policy and is developed
for ideological as well as financial reasons, colonialism is simply the development for
settlement or commercial intentions. However, colonialism still includes invasion. Colonialism
in modern usage also tends to imply a degree of geographic separation between the colony
and the imperial power. Particularly, Edward Said distinguishes the difference between
imperialism and colonialism by stating; “imperialism involved ‘the practice, the theory and the
attitudes of a dominating metropolitan center ruling a distant territory’, while colonialism
refers to the ‘implanting of settlements on a distant territory.’ Contiguous land empires
such as the Russian or Ottoman have traditionally been excluded from discussions of colonialism,
though this is beginning to change, since it is accepted that they also sent populations
into the territories they ruled. Thus it can be said that imperialism includes some form
of colonialism, but colonialism itself does not automatically imply imperialism, as it
lacks a political focus.Imperialism and colonialism both dictate the political and economic advantage
over a land and the indigenous populations they control, yet scholars sometimes find
it difficult to illustrate the difference between the two. Although imperialism and
colonialism focus on the suppression of an other, if colonialism refers to the process
of a country taking physical control of another, imperialism refers to the political and monetary
dominance, either formally or informally. Colonialism is seen to be the architect deciding
how to start dominating areas and then imperialism can be seen as creating the idea behind conquest
cooperating with colonialism. Colonialism is when the imperial nation begins a conquest
over an area and then eventually is able to rule over the areas the previous nation had
controlled. Colonialism’s core meaning is the exploitation of the valuable assets and
supplies of the nation that was conquered and the conquering nation then gaining the
benefits from the spoils of the war. The meaning of imperialism is to create an empire, by
conquering the other state’s lands and therefore increasing its own dominance. Colonialism
is the builder and preserver of the colonial possessions in an area by a population coming
from a foreign region. Colonialism can completely change the existing social structure, physical
structure and economics of an area; it is not unusual that the characteristics of the
conquering peoples are inherited by the conquered indigenous populations. Few colonies remain
remote from their mother country. Thus, most will eventually establish a separate nationality
or remain under complete control of their mother colony.==Justification==Stephen Howe, while generally hostile to empires,
has summarized the beneficial effects of the main empires: At least some of the great modern empires
– the British, French, Austro-Hungarian, Russian, and even the Ottoman – have virtues
that have been too readily forgotten. They provided stability, security, and legal order
for their subjects. They constrained, and at their best, tried to transcend, the potentially
savage ethnic or religious antagonisms among the peoples. And the aristocracies which ruled
most of them were often far more liberal, humane, and cosmopolitan than their supposedly
ever more democratic successors. A controversial aspect of imperialism is the
defense and justification of empire-building based on seemingly rational grounds. In ancient
China, tianxia denoted the lands, space, and area divinely appointed to the Emperor by
universal and well-defined principles of order. The center of this land was directly apportioned
to the Imperial court, forming the center of a world view that centered on the Imperial
court and went concentrically outward to major and minor officials and then the common citizens,
tributary states, and finally ending with the fringe “barbarians”. Tianxia’s idea of
hierarchy gave Chinese a privileged position and was justified through the promise of order
and peace. J. A. Hobson identifies this justification on general grounds as: “It is desirable that
the earth should be peopled, governed, and developed, as far as possible, by the races
which can do this work best, i.e. by the races of highest ‘social efficiency'”. Many others
argued that imperialism is justified for several different reasons. Friedrich Ratzel believed
that in order for a state to survive, imperialism was needed. Halford Mackinder felt that Great
Britain needed to be one of the greatest imperialists and therefore justified imperialism. The purportedly
scientific nature of “Social Darwinism” and a theory of races formed a supposedly rational
justification for imperialism. Under this doctrine, the French politician Jules Ferry
could declare in 1883 that “Superior races have a right, because they have a duty. They
have the duty to civilize the inferior races.” The rhetoric of colonizers being racially
superior appears to have achieved its purpose, for example throughout Latin America “whiteness”
is still prized today and various forms of blanqueamiento (whitening) are common.
The Royal Geographical Society of London and other geographical societies in Europe had
great influence and were able to fund travelers who would come back with tales of their discoveries.
These societies also served as a space for travellers to share these stories. Political
geographers such as Friedrich Ratzel of Germany and Halford Mackinder of Britain also supported
imperialism. Ratzel believed expansion was necessary for a state’s survival while Mackinder
supported Britain’s imperial expansion; these two arguments dominated the discipline for
decades.Geographical theories such as environmental determinism also suggested that tropical environments
created uncivilized people in need of European guidance. For instance, American geographer
Ellen Churchill Semple argued that even though human beings originated in the tropics they
were only able to become fully human in the temperate zone. Tropicality can be paralleled
with Edward Said’s Orientalism as the west’s construction of the east as the “other”. According
to Said, orientalism allowed Europe to establish itself as the superior and the norm, which
justified its dominance over the essentialized Orient.Technology and economic efficiency
were often improved in territories subjected to imperialism through the building of roads,
other infrastructure and introduction of new technologies.
The principles of imperialism are often generalizable to the policies and practices of the British
Empire “during the last generation, and proceeds rather by diagnosis than by historical description”.
British imperialism in some sparsely-inhabited regions appears to have applied a principle
now termed Terra nullius (Latin expression which stems from Roman law meaning ’empty
land’). The country of Australia serves as a case study in relation to British settlement
and colonial rule of the continent in the eighteenth century, that was arguably premised
on terra nullius, as its settlers considered it unused by its original inhabitants.===Orientalism and imaginative geography
===Imperial control, territorial and cultural,
is justified through discourses about the imperialists’ understanding of different spaces.
Conceptually, imagined geographies explain the limitations of the imperialist understanding
of the societies (human reality) of the different spaces inhabited by the non–European Other.In
Orientalism (1978), Edward Said said that the West developed the concept of The Orient—an
imagined geography of the Eastern world—which functions as an essentializing discourse that
represents neither the ethnic diversity nor the social reality of the Eastern world. That
by reducing the East into cultural essences, the imperial discourse uses place-based identities
to create cultural difference and psychologic distance between “We, the West” and “They,
the East” and between “Here, in the West” and “There, in the East”.That cultural differentiation
was especially noticeable in the books and paintings of early Oriental studies, the European
examinations of the Orient, which misrepresented the East as irrational and backward, the opposite
of the rational and progressive West. Defining the East as a negative vision of the Western
world, as its inferior, not only increased the sense-of-self of the West, but also was
a way of ordering the East, and making it known to the West, so that it could be dominated
and controlled. Therefore, Orientalism was the ideological justification of early Western
imperialism—a body of knowledge and ideas that rationalized social, cultural, political,
and economic control of other, non-white peoples.===Cartography===One of the main tools used by imperialists
was cartography. Cartography is “the art, science and technology of making maps” but
this definition is problematic. It implies that maps are objective representations of
the world when in reality they serve very political means. For Harley, maps serve as
an example of Foucault’s power and knowledge concept.
To better illustrate this idea, Bassett focuses his analysis of the role of nineteenth-century
maps during the “scramble for Africa”. He states that maps “contributed to empire by
promoting, assisting, and legitimizing the extension of French and British power into
West Africa”. During his analysis of nineteenth-century cartographic techniques, he highlights the
use of blank space to denote unknown or unexplored territory. This provided incentives for imperial
and colonial powers to obtain “information to fill in blank spaces on contemporary maps”.Although
cartographic processes advanced through imperialism, further analysis of their progress reveals
many biases linked to eurocentrism. According to Bassett, “[n]ineteenth-century explorers
commonly requested Africans to sketch maps of unknown areas on the ground. Many of those
maps were highly regarded for their accuracy” but were not printed in Europe unless Europeans
verified them. Imperialism in ancient times is clear in the
history of China and in the history of western Asia and the Mediterranean—an unending succession
of empires. The tyrannical empire of the Assyrians was replaced (6th–4th century BCE) by that
of the Persians, in strong contrast to the Assyrian in its liberal treatment of subjected
peoples, assuring it long duration. It eventually gave way to the imperialism of Greece. When
Greek imperialism reached an apex under Alexander the Great(356–323 BCE), a union of the eastern
Mediterranean with western Asia was achieved. But the cosmopolis, in which all citizens
of the world would live harmoniously together in equality, remained a dream of Alexander.
It was partially realized when the Romans built their empire from Britain to Egypt.
Cultural imperialism is an extremely fuzzy concept, pointing to the supposed influence
of one dominant culture over others, i.e. a form of soft power, which changes the moral,
cultural, and societal worldview of the subordinate country. In some ways, this is such an expansion
of the concept of imperialism as to be meaningless. This is more than just “foreign” music, television
or film becoming popular with young people, but that popular culture changing their own
expectations of life and their desire for their own country to become more like the
foreign country depicted. For example, depictions of opulent American lifestyles in the soap
opera Dallas during the Cold War changed the expectations of Romanians; a more recent example
is the influence of smuggled South Korean drama series in North Korea. The importance
of soft power is not lost on authoritarian regimes, fighting such influence with bans
on foreign popular culture, control of the internet and unauthorised satellite dishes
etc. Nor is such a usage of culture recent, as part of Roman imperialism local elites
would be exposed to the benefits and luxuries of Roman culture and lifestyle, with the aim
that they would then become willing participants. Imperialism has been subject to moral or immoral
censure by its critics, and thus the term is frequently used in international propaganda
as a pejorative for expansionist and aggressive foreign policy.===Age of Imperialism===The Age of Imperialism, a time period beginning
around 1760, saw European industrializing nations, engaging in the process of colonizing,
influencing, and annexing other parts of the world. 19th century episodes included the
“Scramble for Africa.” In the 1970s British historians John Gallagher
(1919–1980) and Ronald Robinson (1920–1999) argued that European leaders rejected the
notion that “imperialism” required formal, legal control by one government over a colonial
region. Much more important was informal control of independent areas. According to Wm. Roger
Louis, “In their view, historians have been mesmerized by formal empire and maps of the
world with regions colored red. The bulk of British emigration, trade, and capital went
to areas outside the formal British Empire. Key to their thinking is the idea of empire
‘informally if possible and formally if necessary.'” Oron Hale says that Gallagher and Robinson
looked at the British involvement in Africa where they “found few capitalists, less capital,
and not much pressure from the alleged traditional promoters of colonial expansion. Cabinet decisions
to annex or not to annex were made, usually on the basis of political or geopolitical
considerations.”Looking at the main empires from 1875–1914, historians estimate a mixed
record in terms of profitability. At first planners expected that colonies would provide
an excellent captive market for manufactured items. Apart from India, this was seldom true.
By the 1890s, imperialists saw the economic benefit primarily in the production of inexpensive
raw materials to feed the domestic manufacturing sector. Overall, Great Britain did very well
in terms of profits from India, but not from most of the rest of its empire. The Netherlands
did very well in the East Indies. Germany and Italy got very little trade or raw materials
from their empires. France did slightly better. The Belgian Congo was notoriously profitable
when it was a capitalistic rubber plantation owned and operated by King Leopold II as a
private enterprise. However, scandal after scandal regarding very badly mistreated labour
led the international community to force the government of Belgium to take it over in 1908,
and it became much less profitable. The Philippines cost the United States much more than expected
because of military action against rebels.Because of the resources made available by imperialism,
the world’s economy grew significantly and became much more interconnected in the decades
before World War I, making the many imperial powers rich and prosperous.Europe’s expansion
into territorial imperialism was largely focused on economic growth by collecting resources
from colonies, in combination with assuming political control by military and political
means. The colonization of India in the mid-18th century offers an example of this focus: there,
the “British exploited the political weakness of the Mughal state, and, while military activity
was important at various times, the economic and administrative incorporation of local
elites was also of crucial significance” for the establishment of control over the subcontinent’s
resources, markets, and manpower. Although a substantial number of colonies had been
designed to provide economic profit and to ship resources to home ports in the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries, Fieldhousesuggests that in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries
in places such as Africa and Asia, this idea is not necessarily valid: Modern empires were not artificially constructed
economic machines. The second expansion of Europe was a complex historical process in
which political, social and emotional forces in Europe and on the periphery were more influential
than calculated imperialism. Individual colonies might serve an economic purpose; collectively
no empire had any definable function, economic or otherwise. Empires represented only a particular
phase in the ever-changing relationship of Europe with the rest of the world: analogies
with industrial systems or investment in real estate were simply misleading. During this time, European merchants had the
ability to “roam the high seas and appropriate surpluses from around the world (sometimes
peaceably, sometimes violently) and to concentrate them in Europe”. European expansion greatly accelerated in
the 19th century. To obtain raw materials, Europe expanded imports from other countries
and from the colonies. European industrialists sought raw materials such as dyes, cotton,
vegetable oils, and metal ores from overseas. Concurrently, industrialization was quickly
making Europe the center of manufacturing and economic growth, driving resource needs.Communication
became much more advanced during European expansion. With the invention of railroads
and telegraphs, it became easier to communicate with other countries and to extend the administrative
control of a home nation over its colonies. Steam railroads and steam-driven ocean shipping
made possible the fast, cheap transport of massive amounts of goods to and from colonies.Along
with advancements in communication, Europe also continued to advance in military technology.
European chemists made new explosives that made artillery much more deadly. By the 1880s,
the machine gun had become a reliable battlefield weapon. This technology gave European armies
an advantage over their opponents, as armies in less-developed countries were still fighting
with arrows, swords, and leather shields (e.g. the Zulus in Southern Africa during the Anglo-Zulu
War of 1879).==Theories of imperialism==
Anglophone academic studies often base their theories regarding imperialism on the British
experience of Empire. The term imperialism was originally introduced into English in
its present sense in the late 1870s by opponents of the allegedly aggressive and ostentatious
imperial policies of British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. Supporters of “imperialism”
such as Joseph Chamberlain quickly appropriated the concept. For some, imperialism designated
a policy of idealism and philanthropy; others alleged that it was characterized by political
self-interest, and a growing number associated it with capitalist greed.
John A. Hobson, A leading English Liberal, developed a highly influential interpretation
of Imperialism: A Study (1902) that expanded on his belief that free enterprise capitalism
had a negative impact on the majority of the population. In Imperialism he argued that
the financing of overseas empires drained money that was needed at home. It was invested
abroad because lower wages paid the workers overseas made for higher profits and higher
rates of return, compared to domestic wages. So although domestic wages remained higher,
they did not grow nearly as fast as they might have otherwise. Exporting capital, he concluded,
put a lid on the growth of domestic wages in the domestic standard of living. . By the
1970s, historians such as David K. Fieldhouse and Oron Hale could argue that “the Hobsonian
foundation has been almost completely demolished.” The British experience failed to support it.
However, European Socialists picked up Hobson’s ideas and made it into their own theory of
imperialism, most notably in Lenin’s Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916). Lenin
portrayed Imperialism as the closure of the world market and the end of capitalist free-competition
that arose from the need for capitalist economies to constantly expand investment, material
resources and manpower in such a way that necessitated colonial expansion. Later Marxist
theoreticians echo this conception of imperialism as a structural feature of capitalism. which
explained the World War as the battle between imperialists for control of external markets.
Lenin’s treatise became a standard textbook that flourished until the Collapse of communism
in 1989–91.Some theoreticians on the non-Communist left have emphasized the structural or systemic
character of “imperialism”. Such writers have expanded the period associated with the term
so that it now designates neither a policy, nor a short space of decades in the late 19th
century, but a world system extending over a period of centuries, often going back to
Christopher Columbus and, in some accounts, to the Crusades. As the application of the
term has expanded, its meaning has shifted along five distinct but often parallel axes:
the moral, the economic, the systemic, the cultural, and the temporal. Those changes
reflect—among other shifts in sensibility—a growing unease, even great distaste, with
the pervasiveness of such power, specifically, Western power.Historians and political theorists
have long debated the correlation between capitalism, class and imperialism. Much of
the debate was pioneered by such theorists as J. A. Hobson (1858–1940), Joseph Schumpeter
(1883–1950), Thorstein Veblen (1857–1929), and Norman Angell (1872–1967). While these
non-Marxist writers were at their most prolific before World War I, they remained active in
the interwar years. Their combined work informed the study of imperialism and its impact on
Europe, as well as contributing to reflections on the rise of the military-political complex
in the United States from the 1950s. Hobson argued that domestic social reforms could
cure the international disease of imperialism by removing its economic foundation. Hobson
theorized that state intervention through taxation could boost broader consumption,
create wealth, and encourage a peaceful, tolerant, multipolar world order.Walter Rodney, in his
1972 classic How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, proposes the idea that imperialism is a phase
of capitalism “in which Western European capitalist countries, the U.S.A., and Japan established
political, economic, military and cultural hegemony over other parts of the world which
were initially at a lower level and therefore could not resist domination.” As a result,
Imperialism “for many years embraced the whole world – one part being the exploiters and
the other the exploited, one part being dominated and the other acting as overlords, one part
making policy and the other being dependent.”==
Environmental determinism==The concept of environmental determinism served
as a moral justification for the domination of certain territories and peoples. The environmental
determinist school of thought held that the environment in which certain people lived
determined those persons’ behaviours; and this validated their domination. For example,
the Western world saw people living in tropical environments as “less civilized”, therefore
justifying colonial control as a civilizing mission. Across the three major waves of European
colonialism (the first in the Americas, the second in Asia and the last in Africa), environmental
determinism served to place categorically indigenous people in a racial hierarchy. This
takes two forms, orientalism and tropicality. Some geographic scholars under colonizing
empires divided the world into climatic zones. These scholars believed that Northern Europe
and the Mid-Atlantic temperate climate produced a hard-working, moral, and upstanding human
being. In contrast, tropical climates allegedly yielded lazy attitudes, sexual promiscuity,
exotic culture, and moral degeneracy. The people of these climates were believed to
be in need of guidance and intervention from a European empire to aid in the governing
of a more evolved social structure; they were seen as incapable of such a feat. Similarly,
orientalism could promote a view of a people based on their geographical location.==Imperialism by country=====Britain===Britain’s imperialist ambitions can be seen
as early as the sixteenth century. In 1599 the British East India Company was established
and was chartered by Queen Elizabeth in the following year. With the establishment of
trading posts in India, the British were able to maintain strength relative to other empires
such as the Portuguese who already had set up trading posts in India. In 1767 political
activity caused exploitation of the East India Company causing the plundering of the local
economy, almost bringing the company into bankruptcy. By the year 1670 Britain’s imperialist
ambitions were well off as she had colonies in Virginia, Massachusetts, Bermuda, Honduras,
Antigua, Barbados, Jamaica and Nova Scotia.Due to the vast imperialist ambitions of European
countries, Britain had several clashes with France. This competition was evident in the
colonization of what is now known as Canada. John Cabot claimed Newfoundland for the British
while the French established colonies along the St. Lawrence River and claiming it as
“New France”. Britain continued to expand by colonizing countries such as New Zealand
and Australia, both of which were not empty land as they had their own locals and cultures.
Britain’s nationalistic movements were evident with the creation of the commonwealth countries
where there was a shared nature of national identity.The “First” British Empire was based
on mercantilism, and involved colonies and holdings primarily in North America, the Caribbean,
and India. Its growth was reversed by the loss of the American colonies in 1776. Britain
made compensating gains in India, Australia, and in constructing an informal economic empire
through control of trade and finance in Latin America after the independence of Spanish
and Portuguese colonies in about 1820. By the 1840s, Britain had adopted a highly successful
policy of free trade that gave it dominance in the trade of much of the world. After losing
its first Empire to the Americans, Britain then turned its attention towards Asia, Africa,
and the Pacific. Following the defeat of Napoleonic France in 1815, Britain enjoyed a century
of almost unchallenged dominance and expanded its imperial holdings around the globe. Unchallenged
at sea, British dominance was later described as Pax Britannica (“British Peace”), a period
of relative peace in Europe and the world (1815–1914) during which the British Empire
became the global hegemon and adopted the role of global policeman. In the early 19th century, the Industrial
Revolution began to transform Britain; by the time of the Great Exhibition in 1851 the
country was described as the “workshop of the world”. The British Empire expanded to
include India, large parts of Africa and many other territories throughout the world. Alongside
the formal control it exerted over its own colonies, British dominance of much of world
trade meant that it effectively controlled the economies of many regions, such as Asia
and Latin America. Domestically, political attitudes favoured free trade and laissez-faire
policies and a gradual widening of the voting franchise. During this century, the population
increased at a dramatic rate, accompanied by rapid urbanisation, causing significant
social and economic stresses. To seek new markets and sources of raw materials, the
Conservative Party under Disraeli launched a period of imperialist expansion in Egypt,
South Africa, and elsewhere. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand became self-governing dominions.A
resurgence came in the late 19th century with the Scramble for Africa and major additions
in Asia and the Middle East. The British spirit of imperialism was expressed by Joseph Chamberlain
and Lord Rosebury, and implemented in Africa by Cecil Rhodes. The pseudo-sciences of Social
Darwinism and theories of race formed an ideological underpinning during this time. Other influential
spokesmen included Lord Cromer, Lord Curzon, General Kitchener, Lord Milner, and the writer
Rudyard Kipling. The British Empire was the largest Empire that the world has ever seen
both in terms of landmass and population. Its power, both military and economic, remained
unmatched. After the First Boer War, the South African Republic and Orange Free State were
recognized by Britain but eventually re-annexed after the Second Boer War.
World War II had weakened Britain’s position in the world, especially financially. Decolonization
movements proliferated throughout the Cold War, resulting in Indian independence and
the establishment of independent states throughout Africa. British imperialism continued for
a few years, notably with its involvement in the Iranian coup d’état of 1953 and in
Egypt during the Suez Crisis in 1956. However, with the United States and Soviet Union emerging
from World War II as the sole superpowers, Britain’s role as a worldwide power declined
significantly.===China===Ancient China has been one of the world’s
oldest empires that still exist. Due to its long history of being imperialist expansion,
China has been seen by its neighboring countries as a threat due to large population, giant
economy, large military force as well as its territorial evolution in most of history of
China. Starting with the unification of China under
the Qin Dynasty, later Chinese dynasties continued to follow its form of expansions. The most
successful Chinese imperial dynasties are Tang and Qing Dynasty, due to its expansions.===France===During the 16th century, the French colonization
of the Americas began with the creation of New France. It was followed by French East
India Company’s trading posts in Africa and Asia in the 17th century. France had its “First
colonial empire” from 1534 until 1814, including New France (Canada, Acadia, Newfoundland and
Louisiana), French West Indies (Saint-Domingue, Guadeloupe, Martinique), French Guiana, Senegal
(Gorée), Mascarene Islands (Mauritius Island, Réunion) and French India.
Its “Second colonial empire” began with the conquest of Algiers in 1830 and came for the
most part to an end with the granting of independence to Algeria in 1962. The French imperial history
was marked by numerous wars, large and small, and also by significant help to France itself
from the colonials in the world wars. France took control of Algeria in 1830 but began
in earnest to rebuild its worldwide empire after 1850, concentrating chiefly in North
and West Africa (French North Africa, French West Africa, French Equatorial Africa), as
well as South-East Asia (French Indochina), with other conquests in the South Pacific
(New Caledonia, French Polynesia). French Republicans, at first hostile to empire,
only became supportive when Germany started to build her own colonial empire. As it developed,
the new empire took on roles of trade with France, supplying raw materials and purchasing
manufactured items, as well as lending prestige to the motherland and spreading French civilization
and language as well as Catholicism. It also provided crucial manpower in both World Wars.
It became a moral justification to lift the world up to French standards by bringing Christianity
and French culture. In 1884 the leading exponent of colonialism, Jules Ferry declared France
had a civilising mission: “The higher races have a right over the lower races, they have
a duty to civilize the inferior”. Full citizenship rights – assimilation – were offered,
although in reality assimilation was always on the distant horizon. Contrasting from Britain,
France sent small numbers of settlers to its colonies, with the only notable exception
of Algeria, where French settlers nevertheless always remained a small minority.
In the 19th and 20th centuries, the French colonial empire was the second-largest colonial
empire in the world behind the British Empire, extending over 12,347,000 km2 (4,767,000 sq.
miles) at its height in the 1920s and 1930s. France controlled nearly 1/10th of the Earth’s
land area, with a population of 110 million people on the eve of World War II (5% of the
world’s population at the time).In World War II, Charles de Gaulle and the Free French
used the overseas colonies as bases from which they fought to liberate France. However, after
1945 anti-colonial movements began to challenge the Empire. France fought and lost a bitter
war in Vietnam in the 1950s. Whereas they won the war in Algeria, de Gaulle decided
to grant Algeria independence anyway in 1962. French settlers and many local supporters
relocated to France. Nearly all of France’s colonies gained independence by 1960, but
France retained great financial and diplomatic influence. It has repeatedly sent troops to
assist its former colonies in Africa in suppressing insurrections and coups d’état.===Germany===German participation in imperialism was negligible
until the late 19th century. Prussia unified the other states into the second German Empire
in 1871. Its Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck (1862–90), long opposed colonial acquisitions,
arguing that the burden of obtaining, maintaining, and defending such possessions would outweigh
any potential benefits. He felt that colonies did not pay for themselves, that the German
bureaucratic system would not work well in the tropics and the diplomatic disputes over
colonies would distract Germany from its central interest, Europe itself.However, public opinion
and elite opinion in Germany demanded colonies for reasons of international prestige, so
Bismarck was forced to oblige. In 1883–84 Germany began to build a colonial empire in
Africa and the South Pacific. The establishment of the German colonial empire started with
German New Guinea in 1884.German colonies included the present territories of in Africa:
Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi, Namibia, Cameroon, Ghana and Togo; in Oceania: New Guinea, Solomon
islands, Nauru, Marshall Islands, Mariana Islands, Caroline Islands and Samoa; and in
Asia: Tsingtao, Chefoo and the Jiaozhou Bay. By the Treaty of Versailles, all German colonies
were lost after World War I.===Japan===For over 200 years, Japan remained isolated
from the rest of the world, staying in a feudal system. However, in the 1850s military pressure
by the United States and other world powers forced Japan to open itself to the world markets,
ending the period of isolation. A period of conflicts and revolutions unleashed in the
uncertainty of the new period, ending in 1867 with the reunification of the political power
in only one leader: the Japanese Emperor. Everything was ready for Japan to embrace
the Industrial Revolution. However, from the start the Japanese didn’t look too enthusiastic
on relying on other countries to obtain industrial manufactures and remaining forever an underdeveloped
nation, key to this understanding is the traditional Japanese psyche of self-sustainability that
made them survive isolated for centuries. Thus, Japan initiated a process of modernization
through central planning and a firm direction of the government. This became one of the
fastest modernization processes in world history: in a matter of few decades it went through
the full technological evolution that took centuries in Europe. Japan’s late industrialization
example became a leading case for underdeveloped countries that suffered from European rule.
By the early 1900s, Japan was a naval power that could hold its own against an established
European power like Russia. Without much natural resources and territory
to sustain the increasing Japanese population that industrialization brought, Japan turned
to imperialism and expansionism as a way to compensate for its lackings and also to strengthen
itself, the national motto “Fukoku kyōhei” (富国強兵, “Enrich the state, strengthen
the military”) as a sign of this attitude. Also the mentioned typical self-sustaining
mentality of the Japanese was a cause of this change in foreign policy.
And Japan was eager to take every opportunity. In 1869 they took advantage of the defeat
of the rebels of the Republic of Ezo to incorporate definitely the island of Hokkaido to Japan.
For centuries, Japan viewed the Ryukyu Islands as one of its provinces. In 1871 the Mudan
incident happened: cannibal Taiwanese aborigines murdered 54 Ryūkyūan sailors that had their
ship shipwrecked. At that time the Ryukyu Islands were claimed by both Qing China and
Japan, and the Japanese interpreted the incident as an attack on their citizens. They took
steps to bring the islands in their jurisdiction: in 1872 the Japanese Ryukyu Domain was declared,
and in 1874 a retaliatory incursion to Taiwan was sent, which was a success. The success
of this expedition emboldened the Japanese: not even the Americans could defeat the Taiwanese
cannibals in the Formosa Expedition of 1867. Very few gave it much thought at the time,
but this was the first move in the Japanese expansionism series. Japan occupied Taiwan
for the rest of 1874 and then left owing to Chinese pressures, but in 1879 it finally
annexed the Ryukyu Islands. In 1875 Qing China sent a 300-men force to subdue the Taiwanese
cannibals, but unlike the Japanese the Chinese were routed, ambushed and 250 of their men
were killed; the failure of this expedition exposed once more the failure of Qing China
to exert effective control in Taiwan, and acted as another incentive for the Japanese
to annex Taiwan. Eventually, the spoils for winning the First Sino-Japanese War in 1894
included Taiwan. In 1875 Japan took its first operation against
Joseon Korea, another territory that for centuries it coveted; the Ganghwa Island incident made
Korea open to international trade. Korea was annexed in 1910. As a result of winning the
Russo-Japanese War in 1905, Japan took part of Sakhalin Island from Russia. Precisely,
the victory against the Russian Empire shook the world: never before an Asian nation defeated
a European power, and in Japan it was seen as a feat. Japan’s victory against Russia
would act as an antecedent for Asian countries in the fight against the Western powers for
Decolonization. During World War I, Japan took German-leased territories in China’s
Shandong Province, as well as the Mariana, Caroline, and Marshall Islands, and kept the
islands as League of nations mandates. At first, Japan was in good standing with the
victorious Allied powers of World War I, but different discrepancies and dissatisfaction
with the rewards of the treaties cooled the relations with them, for example American
pressure forced it to return the Shandong area. By the ’30s, economic depression, urgency
of resources and a growing distrust in the Allied powers made Japan lean to a hardened
militaristic stance. Through the decade, it would grow closer to Germany and Italy, forming
together the Axis alliance. In 1931 Japan took Manchuria from China. International reactions
condemned this move, but Japan’s already strong skepticism against Allied nations meant that
it nevertheless carried on. During the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937,
Japan’s military invaded central China. By now, relations with the Allied powers were
at the bottom, and an international boycott against Japan to deprive it of natural resources
was enforced. Thus a military move to gain access to them was needed, and so Japan attacked
Pearl Harbor, bringing the United States to World War II. Using its superior technological
advances in naval aviation and its modern doctrines of amphibious and naval warfare,
Japan achieved one of the fastest maritime expansions in history, by the end of the Pacific
War, Japan had conquered much of East Asia and the Pacific, including the east of China,
Hong Kong, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Myanmar, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, Indonesia,
part of New Guinea and many islands of the Pacific Ocean. Just as Japan’s late industrialization
success and victory against the Russian Empire was seen as an example among underdeveloped
Asia-Pacific nations, the Japanese took advantage of this and promoted among its conquered the
goal to jointly create an anti-European “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”. This plan
helped the Japanese gain support from native populations during its conquests. However,
the United States were benefited by the long-term, war of attrition and over time the massive
output of their industrial muscle, together with improvements in their military doctrines,
turned the war in their favor. Japan’s defeat in 1945 meant that its imperial gains, along
with the proposed Pan-Asian sphere, were lost altogether, but this anti-European experience
was one of the leading antecedents in the Decolonization movements in East Asia and
the Pacific in the second half of the 20th century.===Ottoman Empire===The Ottoman Empire was an imperial state that
lasted from 1299 to 1922. In 1453, Mehmed the Conqueror besieged the capital of the
Byzantine Empire, resulting in the Fall of Constantinople after 1,500 years of Roman
rule. Thereafter, making it the capital of the empire. During the 16th and 17th centuries,
in particular at the height of its power under the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent, the
Ottoman Empire was a powerful multinational, multilingual empire, which invaded and colonized
much of Southeast Europe, Western Asia, the Caucasus, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa.
Its repeated invasions, and brutal treatment of Slavs led to the great migration of the
Serbs to escape prosecution. At the beginning of the 17th century the empire contained 32
provinces and numerous vassal states. Some of these were later absorbed into the empire,
while others were granted various types of autonomy during the course of centuries.With
Constantinople as its capital and control of lands around the Mediterranean basin, the
Ottoman Empire was at the center of interactions between the Eastern and Western worlds for
six centuries. Following a long period of military setbacks against European powers,
the Ottoman Empire gradually declined into the late nineteenth century. The empire allied
with Germany in the early 20th century, with the imperial ambition of recovering its lost
territories, but it dissolved in the aftermath of its defeat in the First World War. The
residue was the new state of Turkey in the Ottoman Anatolian heartland, as well as the
creation of modern Balkan and Middle Eastern states, thus ending Turkish colonial ambitions.===Imperial Russia and the Soviet Union===By the 18th century, the Russian Empire extended
its control to the Pacific, forming a common border with the Qing Empire. This took place
in a large number of military invasions of the lands east, west, and south of it. The
Polish–Russian War of 1792 took place after Polish nobility from the Polish–Lithuanian
Commonwealth wrote the Constitution of May 3, 1791. The war resulted in eastern Poland
being conquered by Imperial Russia as a colony until 1918. The southern campaigns involved
a series of Russo-Persian Wars, which began with the Persian Expedition of 1796, resulting
in the acquisition of Georgia (country) as a protectorate. Between 1800 and 1864, Imperial
armies invaded south in the Russian conquest of the Caucasus, the Murid War, and the Russo-Circassian
War. This last conflict led to the ethnic cleansing of Circassians from their lands.
The Russian conquest of Siberia over the Khanate of Sibir took place in the 16th and 17th centuries,
and resulted in the slaughter of various indigenous tribes by Russians, including the Daur, the
Koryaks, the Itelmens, Mansi people and the Chukchi. The Russian colonization of Central
and Eastern Europe and Siberia and treatment of the resident indigenous peoples has been
compared to European colonization of the Americas, with similar negative impacts on the indigenous
Siberians as upon the indigenous peoples of the Americas. The extermination of indigenous
Siberian tribes was so complete that a relatively small population of only 180,000 are said
to exist today. The Russian Empire exploited and suppressed Cossacks hosts during this
period, before turning them into the special military estate Sosloviye in the late 18th
century. Cossacks were then used in Imperial Russian campaigns against other tribes.Bolshevik
leaders had effectively reestablished a polity with roughly the same extent as that empire
by 1921, however with an internationalist ideology: Lenin in particular asserted the
right to limited self-determination for national minorities within the new territory. Beginning
in 1923, the policy of “Indigenization” [korenizatsiya] was intended to support non-Russians develop
their national cultures within a socialist framework. Never formally revoked, it stopped
being implemented after 1932. After World War II, the Soviet Union installed socialist
regimes modeled on those it had installed in 1919–20 in the old Russian Empire, in
areas its forces occupied in Eastern Europe. The Soviet Union and the People’s Republic
of China supported post–World War II communist movements in foreign nations and colonies
to advance their own interests, but were not always successful.Trotsky, and others, believed
that the revolution could only succeed in Russia as part of a world revolution. Lenin
wrote extensively on the matter and famously declared that Imperialism was the highest
stage of capitalism. However, after Lenin’s death, Joseph Stalin established ‘socialism
in one country’ for the Soviet Union, creating the model for subsequent inward looking Stalinist
states and purging the early Internationalist elements. The internationalist tendencies
of the early revolution would be abandoned until they returned in the framework of a
client state in competition with the Americans during the Cold War. In the after Stalin period
in the late 1950s, the new political leader Nikita Khrushchev put pressure on the Soviet-American
relations starting a new wave of anti-imperialist propaganda. In his speech on the UN conference
in 1960, he announced the continuation of the war on imperialism, stating that soon
the people of different countries will come together and overthrow their imperialist leaders.
Although the Soviet Union declared itself anti-imperialist, critics argue that it exhibited
traits common to historic empires. Some scholars hold that the Soviet Union was a hybrid entity
containing elements common to both multinational empires and nation states. Some also argued
that the USSR practiced colonialism as did other imperial powers and was carrying on
the old Russian tradition of expansion and control. Mao Zedong once argued that the Soviet
Union had itself become an imperialist power while maintaining a socialist façade. Moreover,
the ideas of imperialism were widely spread in action on the higher levels of government.
Some Marxists within the Russian Federation and later the USSR, like Sultan Galiev and
Vasyl Shakhrai, considered the Soviet regime a renewed version of the Russian imperialism
and colonialism.===United States===A former colony itself, the early United States
expressed its opposition to Imperialism, at least in a form distinct from its own Manifest
Destiny, through policies such as the Monroe Doctrine. However, beginning in the late 19th
and early 20th century, policies such as Theodore Roosevelt’s interventionism in Central America
and Woodrow Wilson’s mission to “make the world safe for democracy” changed all this.
They were often backed by military force, but were more often effected from behind the
scenes. This is consistent with the general notion of hegemony and imperium of historical
empires. In 1898, Americans who opposed imperialism created the Anti-Imperialist League to oppose
the US annexation of the Philippines and Cuba. One year later, a war erupted in the Philippines
causing business, labor and government leaders in the US to condemn America’s occupation
in the Philippines as they also denounced them for causing the deaths of many Filipinos.
American foreign policy was denounced as a “racket” by Smedley Butler, a former American
general who had become a spokesman for the far left.At the start of World War II, President
Franklin D. Roosevelt was opposed to European colonialism, especially in India. He pulled
back when Britain’s Winston Churchill demanded that victory in the war be the first priority.
Roosevelt expected that the United Nations would take up the problem of decolonization.Some
have described the internal strife between various people groups as a form of imperialism
or colonialism. This internal form is distinct from informal U.S. imperialism in the form
of political and financial hegemony. This internal form of imperialism is also distinct
from the United States’ formation of “colonies” abroad. Through the treatment of its indigenous
peoples during westward expansion, the United States took on the form of an imperial power
prior to any attempts at external imperialism. This internal form of empire has been referred
to as “internal colonialism”. Participation in the African slave trade and the subsequent
treatment of its 12 to 15 million Africans is viewed by some to be a more modern extension
of America’s “internal colonialism”. However, this internal colonialism faced resistance,
as external colonialism did, but the anti-colonial presence was far less prominent due to the
nearly complete dominance that the United States was able to assert over both indigenous
peoples and African-Americans. In his lecture on April 16, 2003, Edward Said made a bold
statement on modern imperialism in the United States, whom he described as using aggressive
means of attack towards the contemporary Orient, “due to their backward living, lack of democracy
and the violation of women’s rights. The western world forgets during this process
of converting the other that enlightenment and democracy are concepts that not all will
agree upon”.===Spain===
Spanish imperialism in the colonial era corresponds with the rise and decline of the Spanish Empire,
conventionally recognized as emerging in 1402 with the conquest of the Canary Islands and
fully dissolving by 1975 with the loss of Spanish Sahara. Following the successes of
exploratory maritime voyages conducted during the Age of Discovery, such as those undertaken
by Christopher Columbus, Spain committed considerable financial and military resources towards developing
a robust navy capable of conducting large-scale, transatlantic expeditionary operations in
order to establish and solidify a firm imperial presence across portions of North America,
South America, and the geographic regions comprising the Caribbean basin. Concomitant
with Spanish endorsement and sponsorship of transatlantic expeditionary voyages was the
deployment of Conquistadors, which further expanded Spanish imperial boundaries through
the acquisition and development of territories and colonies.====Imperialism in the Caribbean basin====
In congruence with the colonialist activities of competing European imperial powers throughout
the 15th – 19th centuries, the Spanish were equally engrossed in extending geopolitical
power. The Caribbean basin functioned as a key geographic focal point for advancing Spanish
imperialism. Similar to the strategic prioritization Spain placed towards achieving victory in
the conquests of the Aztec Empire and Inca Empire, Spain placed equal strategic emphasis
on expanding the nation’s imperial footprint within the Caribbean basin. Echoing the prevailing ideological perspectives
regarding colonialism and imperialism embraced by Spain’s European rivals during the colonial
era, including the English, French, and the Dutch, the Spanish utilized colonialism as
a means of expanding imperial geopolitical borders and securing the defense of maritime
trade routes in the Caribbean basin. While leveraging colonialism in the same geographic
operating theater as its imperial rivals, Spain maintained distinct imperial objectives
and instituted a unique form of colonialism in support of its imperial agenda. Spain placed
significant strategic emphasis on the acquisition, extraction, and exportation of precious metals
(primarily gold and silver). A second objective was the evangelization of subjugated indigenous
populations residing in mineral-rich and strategically favorable locations. Notable examples of these
indigenous groups include the Taίno populations inhabiting Puerto Rico and segments of Cuba.
Compulsory labor and slavery were widely institutionalized across Spanish-occupied territories and colonies,
with an initial emphasis on directing labor towards mining activity and related methods
of procuring semi-precious metals. The emergence of the Encomienda system during the 16th – 17th
centuries in occupied colonies within the Caribbean basin reflects a gradual shift in
imperial prioritization, increasingly focusing on large-scale production and exportation
of agricultural commodities.====Scholarly debate and controversy====
The scope and scale of Spanish participation in imperialism within the Caribbean basin
remains a subject of scholarly debate among historians. A fundamental source of contention
stems from the inadvertent conflation of theoretical conceptions of imperialism and colonialism.
Furthermore, significant variation exists in the definition and interpretation of these
terms as expounded by historians, anthropologists, philosophers, and political scientists.
Among historians, there is substantial support in favor of approaching imperialism as a conceptual
theory emerging during the 18th – 19th centuries, particularly within Britain, propagated by
key exponents such as Joseph Chamberlain and Benjamin Disraeli. In accordance with this
theoretical perspective, the activities of the Spanish in the Caribbean are not components
of a preeminent, ideologically-driven form of imperialism. Rather, these activities are
more accurately classified as representing a form of colonialism.
Further divergence among historians can be attributed to varying theoretical perspectives
regarding imperialism that are proposed by emerging academic schools of thought. Noteworthy
examples include cultural imperialism, whereby proponents such as John Downing and Annabelle
Sreberny-Modammadi define imperialism as “…the conquest and control of one country by a more
powerful one.” Cultural imperialism signifies the dimensions of the process that go beyond
economic exploitation or military force.” Moreover, colonialism is understood as “…the
form of imperialism in which the government of the colony is run directly by foreigners.”In
spite of diverging perspectives and the absence of a unilateral scholarly consensus regarding
imperialism among historians, within the context of Spanish expansion in the Caribbean basin
during the colonial era, imperialism can be interpreted as an overarching ideological
agenda that is perpetuated through the institution of colonialism. In this context, colonialism
functions as an instrument designed to achieve specific imperialist objectives.===Venezuela=======Republic of Venezuela====
Venezuela has had a history of expansionist actions to add to its territory and regional
influence. In the 20th century, Venezuela’s national interests included obtaining the
Guayana Esequiba and maritime territory in the Caribbean. Due to these interests, Guyana
and Trinidad and Tobago feared Venezuelan expansionist actions due to its authority
in the Caribbean and its actions regarding the Guayana Esequiba.On 12 November 1962 the
Venezuelan foreign relations minister, Marcos Falcón Briceño, denounced the validity of
the 1899 Arbitral Award of Paris, which was favourable to the United Kingdom, in the United
Nations General Assembly Fourth Committee after the Mallet-Prevost Memorandum was published,
arguing that Venezuela considered the Award null due to “acts contrary to the good faith”
by the British government and the members of the Award’s tribunal. Such complaints led
to the 1966 Geneva Agreement shortly after Guyana’s independence and to the renewal of
Venezuela’s claim to two-thirds of Guyana’s western territory, known as the Guayana Esequiba.According
to Guyana, the 1969 Rupununi Uprising was a plot by Venezuela to reclaim a portion of
the Esequiba territory and that the Venezuelan government had armed rebels. Valerie Hart,
who had led the uprising, had met with Venezuelan ministers at the time and was granted Venezuelan
citizenship by birth. The Peoples Temple Agricultural Project’s location, better known as Jonestown,
also stood not far from the disputed Guyana–Venezuela border, with Guyanese officials hoping that
the presence of American citizens would deter a potential military incursion.During the
administration of Venezuelan president Luis Herrera Campins, Venezuela attempted to benefit
on the geopolitical stage by utilizing oil politics and pursued territorial expansion.
In the 1980s, Guyana encouraged the purchase of defense bonds with Guyanese President Forbes
Burnham stating “Every bond we buy is a nail in the coffin of Venezuelan imperialism and
aggression” during a speech on 1 May 1982. Days later on 10 May 1982, Venezuelan troops
entered Guyana by crossing the Cuyuni River and were intercepted by Guyanese troops who
fired gunshots into the air, with the Venezuelan troops later leaving hours after the confrontation.
The Guyanese government would continue to repel Venezuelan intervention, arresting some
of their own officials stating they were working for the Venezuelan government.Following the
election of Jaime Lusinchi as President of Venezuela in 1984, the country faced economic
difficulties and Venezuela’s influence in the region waned. The support of Guyana by
their larger neighbor Brazil also helped deter Venezuela from making further territorial
claims.====Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela====
During the tenure of President Hugo Chávez, it was stated that Venezuela’s “imperialism”
was beginning in Latin America, with Venezuela attempting to establish “a sort of hegemony”
over smaller nations in the region. Venezuela’s geopolitical ambitions grew as oil profits
increased with much of the country’s foreign policy involving oil politics. Critics described
the presidencies of Bolivia’s Evo Morales and Ecuador’s Rafael Correa as results of
“Venezuelan imperialism”.In 2001, Current History stated that Chávez began “tensions
with his neighbors [and] reopened the old Venezuelan claim to half of Guyana’s territory
and insulted Colombian President Andrés Pastrana Arango by verbally supporting [FARC] fighting
against his Colombian government”, noting allegations that Chávez offered “substantial
assistance to radical elements in the hemisphere, raising questions about Venezuelan expansionism”.
The United States Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Peter F. Romero
stated in 2001 that “Bolivarian propaganda” used by Chávez and then-Secretary of Defense
José Vicente Rangel was not only just rhetoric, but that there were “indications that the
government of Chávez has supported violent indigenous movements in Bolivia, and in the
case of Ecuador, military coup members” with both officials being described as “professional
agitators”.The Independent Institute described Chávez as a “populist caudillo [that] has
embarked on an adventure of continental expansionism” and that at the time “Venezuela’s expansionism
… seems unstoppable because of the economic power crude oil has brought that country”.
Noam Chomsky described Chávez’s oil subsidies to Caribbean and South American countries
as “buying influence, undoubtedly” and called Venezuela’s social programs in neighboring
countries as “just another example of Venezuelan imperialism”. The Caribbean Community feared
“Venezuelan expansionism especially the Hugo Chavez variety” when the Bolivarian Navy of
Venezuela established a base on Isla Aves, stating that Venezuela would attempt to expand
its exclusive economic zone further into Caribbean waters.Under the administration of President
Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela’s foreign policy grew even more aggressive as the country faced
a socioeconomic crisis. On 11 May 2015, Guyana announced the discovery of promising oil deposits,
though days later the Maduro government decreed that they controlled much of Guyana’s maritime
territory distancing all the way into Suriname waters. The decree was reversed shortly afterwards.
Former Venezuelan general and high-level official Pedro Carreño stated on 9 July 2018 that
if the United States were to attack Venezuela, the Venezuelan military would immediately
fire on targets in Colombia. Carreño stated that Venezuelan Sukhoi fighter jets would
destroy the seven bridges crossing the Magdalena River in order to virtually divide Colombia
in two. A month later on 12 August 2018, former Foreign Minister of Venezuela, Roy Chaderton,
stated that Venezuelans are “more civilized” than Colombians and that he was “part of the
Pedro Carreño command” of the Bolivarian government, believing that Venezuelan troops
must conquer Colombia and “reach the Pacific, because at last and finally we liberate the
countries whose coasts are bathed by the Pacific Ocean … I believe that we … have military
superiority”.==See also====References====Further reading==
Abernethy, David P. The Dynamics of Global Dominance: European Overseas Empires, 1425–1980
(Yale UP, 2000), political science approach. online review
Ankerl, Guy. Coexisting Contemporary Civilizations: Arabo-Muslim, Bharatai, Chinese, and Western,
Geneva, INU PRESS, 2000, ISBN 2-88155-004-5. Bayly, C. A. ed. Atlas of the British Empire
(1989). survey by scholars; heavily illustrated Brendon, Piers. “A Moral Audit of the British
Empire”. History Today, (Oct 2007), Vol. 57 Issue 10, pp. 44–47, online at EBSCO
Brendon, Piers. The Decline and Fall of the British Empire, 1781–1997 (2008), ISBN 978-0307270283,
wide-ranging survey Bickers, Robert and Christian Henriot, New
Frontiers: Imperialism’s New Communities in East Asia, 1842–1953, Manchester, Manchester
University Press, 2000, ISBN 0-7190-5604-7 Blanken, Leo. Rational Empires: Institutional
Incentives and Imperial Expansion, University Of Chicago Press, 2012
Bush, Barbara. Imperialism and Postcolonialism (History: Concepts, Theories and Practice),
Longmans, 2006, ISBN 0-582-50583-6 Comer, Earl of. Ancient and Modern Imperialism,
John Murray, 1910. Darwin, John. After Tamerlane: The Rise and
Fall of Global Empires, 1400–2000, Penguin Books, 2008.
Davies, Stephen (2008). “Imperialism”. In Hamowy, Ronald. The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism.
The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; Cato Institute. pp. 237–39.
doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n146. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024.
Fay, Richard B. and Daniel Gaido (ed. and trans.), Discovering Imperialism: Social Democracy
to World War I. Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2012.
Niall Ferguson, Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World, Penguin Books, 2004, ISBN 0-14-100754-0
Michael Hardt and Toni Negri, Empire, Harvard University Press, 2000, ISBN 0-674-00671-2
E. J. Hobsbawm, The Age of Empire, 1875–1914, Abacus Books, 1989, ISBN 0-349-10598-7
E. J. Hobsbawm, On Empire: America, War, and Global Supremacy, Pantheon Books, 2008, ISBN
0-375-42537-3 J. A. Hobson, Imperialism: A Study, Cosimo
Classics, 2005, ISBN 1-59605-250-3 Hodge, Carl Cavanagh. Encyclopedia of the
Age of Imperialism, 1800–1914 (2 vol. 2007), online
Howe, Stephen Howe, ed., The New Imperial Histories Reader (2009) online review.
James, Paul; Nairn, Tom (2006). Globalization and Violence, Vol. 1: Globalizing Empires,
Old and New. London: Sage Publications. Kumar, Krishan. Visions of Empire: How Five
Imperial Regimes Shaped the World (2017). Gabriel Kuhn, Oppressor and Oppressed Nations:
Sketching a Taxonomy of Imperialism, Kersplebedeb, June 2017.
Lawrence, Adria K. Imperial Rule and the Politics of Nationalism: Anti-Colonial Protest in the
French Empire (Cambridge UP, 2013) online reviews
Monypenny, William Flavelle (1905). “The Imperial Ideal”. The Empire and the century. London:
John Murray. pp. 5–28. Moon, Parker T. Imperialism and world politics
(1926); 583pp; Wide-ranging historical survey; online
Ness, Immanuel and Zak Cope, eds. The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism
(2 vol 2015), 1456pp Page, Melvin E. et al. eds. Colonialism: An
International Social, Cultural, and Political Encyclopedia (2 vol 2003)
Thomas Pakenham. The Scramble for Africa: White Man’s Conquest of the Dark Continent
from 1876–1912 (1992), ISBN 978-0380719990 Petringa, Maria, Brazza, A Life for Africa,
Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, 2006. ISBN 978-1-4259-1198-0 Rothermund, Dietmar. Memories of Post-Imperial
Nations: The Aftermath of Decolonization, 1945–2013 (2015), ISBN 1107102294; Compares
the impact on Great Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Portugal, Italy and Japan
Edward Said, Culture and Imperialism, Vintage Books, 1998, ISBN 0-09-996750-2
Smith, Simon C. British Imperialism 1750–1970, Cambridge University Press, 1998, ISBN 0-521-59930-X
Stuchtey, Benedikt. Colonialism and Imperialism, 1450–1950, European History Online, Mainz:
Institute of European History, 2011. U.S. Tariff Commission. Colonial tariff policies
(1922), worldwide; 922pp Winslow, E.M. “Marxian, Liberal, and Sociological
Theories of Imperialism,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 39, no. 6 (Dec. 1931), pp. 713–58.
In JSTOR Xypolia, Ilia (August 2016). “Divide et Impera:
Vertical and Horizontal Dimensions of British Imperialism”. Critique. 44 (3): 221–231.
doi:10.1080/03017605.2016.1199629. hdl:2164/9956.===Primary sources===
V. I. Lenin, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, International Publishers, New
York, 1997, ISBN 0-7178-0098-9 Rosa Luxemburg, The Accumulation of Capital:
A Contribution to an Economic Explanation of Imperialism==
External links==J.A Hobson, Imperialism a Study 1902.
The Paradox of Imperialism by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. November 2006.
Imperialism Quotations State, Imperialism and Capitalism by Joseph
Schumpeter Economic Imperialism by A.J.P.Taylor
Imperialism Entry in the Columbia Encyclopedia (Bartleby)
[1] Imperialism by Emile Perreau-Saussine The Nation-State, Core and Periphery: A Brief
sketch of Imperialism in the 20th century. Mehmet Akif Okur, Rethinking Empire After
9/11: Towards A New Ontological Image of World Order, Perceptions, Journal of International
Affairs, Volume XII, Winter 2007, pp. 61–93 Imperialism 101, Against Empire By Michael
Parenti Published by City Lights Books, 1995, ISBN 0-87286-298-4, ISBN 978-0-87286-298-2,
217 pages

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *