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.

response to JED

In response to the post by JED on January 26

Though his intentions may have been masked by the seemingly liberal emancipation of serfs, Alexander II did not emancipate the serfs in order to gain their support. This may very well have been an outcome, and if it was, it’s a double win. I thought that Cas’s argument that Alexander II liberated the serfs in order to exploit them further was very insightful. Although characteristically cynical of him, this remark stuck with me. Alexander II liberated the serfs so that he could use them industrially. He became aware that his nation suffered because it was so far behind the rest of Europe industrially. However, to build industry, he needed workers in the cities. Abolishing serfdom, and making it so that the serfs’ land was worthless drove the serfs into the cities where they became part of the industrial machine.

A Necessary War

The Crimean War, which lasted only two years, 1854-1856, was an unintentional, and very useful, practice run for World War I. Because there hadn’t been a major European war since 1815 there had been many advances in warfare without a change in the actual conduct of war. The fighting style practiced was similar to the Napoleonic era, and proved useless against advances such as artillery and rifles, which could be devastating from a distance. These advances in weaponry could easily mow down charging soldiers, and trenches were dug as a result. This war, though devastating, was a good thing for Europe, otherwise the new technology would have been tested first during World War I. If the Europeans had made the types of mistakes during World War I that they made during the Crimean War, such as the British “charge of the Light Brigade,” the war would have been immeasurably more catastrophic.

The Crimean War also gave the major powers in Europe practice in nation building. They put together the disputed territories of Moldavia and Walachia to form Romania. After World War I, when "self determination of peoples" was an even bigger issue, they ended up creating many new nations including Bulgaria and Yugoslavia.

Machiavelli vs Bismarck

Otto von Bismarck reminds me of Machiavelli. Bismarck’s position as the minister-president was similar to that of Machiavelli’s role in the Florentine government; effectively ruling the state under their sovereign’s authority. Like Machiavelli, Bismarck was ingenious and manipulative. His belief that the end justifies the means is evident in the way that he was able to unify Germany. He weakened Austria by exploiting the Hapsburgs’ economic disadvantages as well as their internal ethnic conflicts. However, the most Machiavellian thing that he did was when he provoked the French so that Britain would not intervene. After meeting with the French to discuss the Spanish thrown Bismarck made it seem as though Germany had been snubbed by France, and angered them by suggesting such. He escalated the conflict until France declared war. He was willing to risk fighting a war with France in order to boost nationalism in the remaining independent German states in hopes that they would want to join the cause of the North German Confederation. After the French were defeated, Bismarck organized the remaining German states into an empire with William I as emperor, or Kaiser.
Mission Accomplished.