Week 4, Thursday: Imperialism I

Question 1

1. What is “new imperial history” and how does it differ from more traditional
   scholarship on empires?

Answer 1

New Imperial History is an academic approach that re-evaluates the study of empires by focusing on the complexities and varied experiences of both the colonizers and the colonized. Here are the key differences from traditional scholarship:

Focus on Multiple Perspectives: Traditional imperial history often emphasizes the actions and policies of imperial powers, whereas new imperial history includes the voices and experiences of the colonized, exploring their resistance and agency.

Interdisciplinary Approach: New imperial history draws from cultural studies, social history, and postcolonial theory, analyzing not just political and military aspects but also cultural, economic, and social dimensions of imperialism.

Global Context: It situates empires within a broader global framework, examining transnational connections and influences rather than isolating empires in national narratives.

Decentralization of Power: New imperial history recognizes the contested nature of imperial authority and the roles of local actors, emphasizing the complexities of power dynamics and cultural exchanges.

In summary, new imperial history offers a more nuanced, multifaceted understanding of empires, moving beyond traditional narratives of dominance and control.

Question 2

2. How does the so-called “hub-and-spoke” or “core-and-periphery” model explain the
   workings of empires?
   What is some of the main criticism that historians have voiced on this model?
   What alternative model has been developed?

Answer 2

The “hub-and-spoke” or “core-and-periphery” model explains empires as having a central power (the hub or core) that exerts control over its colonies or territories (the spokes or peripheries). This model highlights:

Centralized Control: The core nation (e.g., Britain, France) dominates political and economic decisions, extracting resources and wealth from the periphery.
Dependency: Peripheral regions rely on the core for economic stability, often exporting raw materials while importing finished goods.
Unequal Development: Economic growth and technological advancement are concentrated in the core, leading to disparities between the core and periphery.
Criticisms of the Model:
Historians have critiqued the hub-and-spoke model for several reasons:

Oversimplification: It reduces complex relationships to a simplistic linear structure, failing to account for the interactions and influences between various regions.
Neglect of Local Agency: It often overlooks the roles of local actors, resistance movements, and the ways in which peripheral regions could exert influence on core nations.
Static Nature: The model tends to depict relationships as fixed, ignoring the dynamic nature of imperial interactions and the potential for change over time.
Alternative Model:
An alternative model is the “network model,” which emphasizes:

Complex Interconnections: It recognizes the fluid and multifaceted relationships between different regions, highlighting how ideas, goods, and people flow in various directions.
Cultural Exchange: This model accounts for the cultural exchanges and interactions between the core and periphery, acknowledging the contributions of colonized societies to the imperial experience.
Multiple Centers: It allows for the possibility of multiple centers of power and influence, reflecting a more decentralized understanding of empires and their operations.
Overall, these alternative frameworks provide a richer, more nuanced understanding of imperial dynamics beyond the limitations of the core-periphery model.

Question 3

3. Explain the importance of resistance in understanding the workings of empires. Give a
   concrete example to illustrate your answer.
   How were empires intertwined with the notion of masculinity?
   20

Question 4

4. In your view, can we speak of a modern or new imperialism that was different from
   earlier efforts? Provide concrete arguments and evidence.

Question 5

6. What is new imperialism? What is the difference with the old imperialism?

Question 6

7. What are the causes of the new imperialism?

Question 7

8. What arguments were put forward by European and American imperialists in favor of
   their imperialist ambitions? How did critics respond?