MORE Globalization!

Globalization was further hastened during the 19th century from a sudden explosion of state-sponsored education all across Europe, which led to a much higher literacy rate than before. According to our text book, 85% of Europe was literate by 1900, compared to 50% in 1850; with this higher number, came massive profits for media and advertising, which were obviously less useful industries before. The mass of new readers meant a higher demand for newspapers, and to supply this demand mass media included ads in their papers, which allowed the papers to be produced more cheaply. With newspapers available and affordable to the general public, spreading ideas across all of Europe became easy. The entire educated world was now connected through media, which led further to the globalization of the economy.

The First Stages of Globalization

Though the direct effects of imperialism are often balked at, the relationships established during this period led to the modern world, which is undeniably interconnected in understanding and respect. The puppet governments and foreign outposts that appeared in colonized lands were often cruel and considerably barbaric in their drives to control natural resources and make profit. The Belgians felt no pity for the thousands of suffering Congolese, because they were greatly profiting from the rubber business. The entire western world struck out at China after the Boxer Rebellion, in which they justly struck out against the British who had ruined much of their culture during the Opium Wars. After the rebellion, all of Europe banded together, imposing indemnities and new trade concessions. Though this may be considered barbaric today, it established the first stage of the global economy and brought the world much closer together.

¿¡Regressive progress!?

Lenin's argument about imperialism being the anticapitalism is very convincing. The way that countries and individuals, such as Leopold II of Belgium, established companies and outposts in foreign countries was monopolistic--selfish and ultimately doomed to fail. To me the whole process of New Imperialism is a step backwards in time and progress. Europe had acted so fairly after the enlightenment; slavery was abhorred, and democracy and free trade were praised. Now however, the Europeans seem to have lost their sense of rationale. The monopolies that were created in hopes of benefitting select European countries led to a dissapearance of competition, as those who could employ the cheapest labour boxed out the rest. The carnage that took place in the Congo has always befuddled me, even when compared to other mass tradgedies; it shocked me further to realize that this event took place after such a progressive period.

New?

Old Imperialism is defined by "God, gold, and glory." European powers first colonized the Americas in order to find natural resources, the most coveted of which was gold. Since early colonization Europe has practiced the economic theory of mercantilism, they exploited as much of the natural resources as possible, to solely benefit the home country. Once the Europeans saw the large populations of "uncivilized" heathen peoples they felt compelled to Christianize the savages. Both of these goals served one purpose, to heighten the reputation, wealth, and therefore power of an Empire. Arguably, New Imperialism is a new form of imperialism, but in reality it has the same motivations and many of the same techniques as old imperialism did. The idea that Cecil Rhodes had to make Britain self-sufficient was simply a formal version of mercantilism. The Europeans are now interested in much more than gold, but the idea is the same. The difference is that because of the industrial revolution European technology boomed quickly, making ground shattering advancements in weapons and transportation, and therefore making exploitation easier, and more profitable than it had ever been. As it was in old imperialism local populations had to be dealt with. Slavery and forced labor, which had been widely used until this point became very controversial for New Imperialism. There was still the lasting ambition of old imperialism to civilize local populations, and as it was done before, missionaries flooded Africa just as they had done the Americas over a century ago.