Talk:Imperialism in Asia

Made a few changes

• added Japan to the list of imperial nations
• Tibet wasn't annexed by Britain after the fall of the Qing. The situation was much more complex.
• China wasn't turned into a colony after the Boxer Rebellion, and this wasn't the last of the Chinese struggle against imperialism. Most Chinese historians argue that World War II was an anti-imperialist war, and there aren't too many people who would disagree

There are some NPOV problems with the article. Notably the notion of a strong Europe carving up an weak and helpless China ia much too historical simplistic for two reasons:

• first of all, China was remarkably successful at fighting back, especially at the diplomatic level
• it doesn't take into account at all China's actions in Central Asia

---

Since you know a lot about this sort of thing, more so than I do, look at my other page: Colonization of Africa. --Jzcool

---

Started rewriting China section to reflect current consensus among economic historians. Basically, Britain's actions in China were based on the belief that China was a market for manufactured goods, but just because the British believed something doesn't make it true.

One of the curious things is that if you go into many rural Chinese villages today, you still see people with looms sewing textiles for export.

This article reflects the current consensus among economic historians?

The whole section on China is filled with broad-brush simplistic statements that are hard to back up (like those about the Middle Kingdom, Chinese arrogance) and is distinctly 'point of view'. There is also some surmise about why China did not fully succumb to the Western powers that is not totally convincing, at least in the superficial sense, given that India was also a large, advanced civilisation but did succumb to British rule.

Bathrobe 05:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Japan won the powers' abandonment of extra-territoriality?

Sorry, don't understand this:

In 1899 Japan won the powers' abandonment of extra-territoriality,

Can it be rephrased/ammended?... -- Viajero 20:32, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

The background section needs to express how inured much of Asia was to the traditional idea of imperial control by outside ethnicities from a distant center: Persian, Mongol, Mughal. Perhaps those are 'okay' empires because they weren't European. "Asia" is awfully general: is imperialism in Indo-China, South Asia, the Silk Road and the steppes really all part of one story? Or is the common thread actually a theme of exploitation? User:Wetman

---

I'm changing the name of the damsel representing France from Lady Liberty to Marianne. The article is much more detailed on this specific "lady liberty". --Gabbe 09:58, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

Background reasons

The list of many reasons why Asia fell prey to imperialism includes the terse statement:

… governments tended to be unrepresentative…

Every other reason listed gives a concise explanation of why each factor would affect imperialism, but this one just hangs there as if "representative government" is self-evidently an adequate protection against foreign rule. (Unless, of course, it's supposed to mean the opposite — that unrepresentative governments are prone to and effective at imperialist rule. The statement is open to both contradictory interpretations.) This "reason" should either be clarified and explained (if possible) or deleted. -- Jeff Q 23:40, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Imperialism in China

I have removed the following explanation of the Ricardian concept because it is wrong:

China was thought to be self-sufficient. So the Ricardian concept of comparative advantage, on which the nineteenth-century notions of international trade between nearly equal partners were based was unacceptable to them. Instead of accepting foreign goods, they only accepted foreign silver, of which the Mexican Peso became the standard form of currency.

China didn't import European goods, because Chinese goods were cheaper if the quality was the same due to cheaper labor. This is easy to understand in the Ricardian viewpoint; Europeans had too much silver to compete with the world in labor cost, and it was most economical for them to export silver and import labor-intensive goods. Unlike other nations, China had a lot of things to sell, such as tea, silk, and china. - TAKASUGI Shinji 04:45, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)