Scribd
Upload
22 views2 pages

Canton First Opium War

An article.

Uploaded by

MJ Botor
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
22 views2 pages

Canton First Opium War

An article.

Uploaded by

MJ Botor
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

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".[28]

British assault on Canton during the First Opium War,


May 1841
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 centre of
manufacturing and economic growth, driving resource needs.[29]
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.[29]
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).[29] Some
exceptions of armies that managed to get nearly on par with the European expeditions
and standards include the Ethiopian armies at the Battle of Adwa, and the
Japanese Imperial Army of Japan, but these still relied heavily on weapons imported
from Europe and often on European military advisors.

This cartoon reflects the view of Judge


magazine regarding America's imperial ambitions following McKinley's quick victory in
the Spanish–American War of 1898.[30]
Theories of imperialism
[edit]
Main article: 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.
Historians and political theorists have long debated the correlation between capitalism,
class and imperialism. Much of the debate was pioneered by such theorists as John 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.
In Imperialism: A Study (1902), Hobson developed a highly influential interpretation of
imperialism 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 of lower wages paid to 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. Hobson theorized that domestic social reforms could cure
the international disease of imperialism by removing its economic foundation, while
state intervention through taxation could boost broader consumption, create wealth, and
encourage a peaceful, tolerant, multipolar world order.[31][32]
By the 1970s, historians such as David K. Fieldhouse[33] and Oron Hale could argue that
"the Hobsonian foundation has been almost completely demolished."[23]: 5–6 It was not
businessmen and bankers but politicians who went with the stream of the masses. The
modern imperialism was primarily a political product caused by the national mass
hysteria rather than by the much-abused capitalists.[34] The British experience failed to
support it. Similarly, American Historian David Landes claims that businessmen were
less enthusiastic about colonialism than statesmen and adventurers.[35]

You might also like