Talk:Western imperialism in Asia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Made a few changes[edit]

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

NPOV problems[edit]

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

This thing is NPOV?24.10.102.46 20:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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)

Perhaps the article should be changed to Imperialism in East Asia, with the references to the Middle East moved somewhere else. I really can't see the subjugation of Palestine fitting in with the Boxer Rebellion. --Sumple 03:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Background reasons[edit]

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)[reply]

Imperialism in China[edit]

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)

Anon edits[edit]

I removed the text here, which was just added by an anon. Overall, it's good, coinciding with a certain perspective in academic development theory, particularly the World Systems appraoch (with the periphery-core distinction being laid out). However, there is a large contingent of editors on Wikipedia unfamilar with some of the neo-Marxist perspectives in academia like World Systems, and they will mistake some of the terms used for Communist agitprop... So I'm going to remove the text for now, but hopefully get around to rewriting it once I get around to completing the article. 172 07:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Empires before Europeans"[edit]

Who is completing that section? --Sumple 03:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese imperialism[edit]

This article has yet to mention China as the dominant imperialist power in East Asia for the 2000 years before European contact. DHN 10:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article is somewhat lacking in information on indigenous Asia empires, but why single out China in that regard? Countless Asian empires existed through East, Central, Southeast, and South Asia. A few I can think of include the Mughal empire, the Majapahit empire, the Timurid empire, the Mongol empire, and so on. China is hardly unique as an empire except for its longetivity. --Yuje 01:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because it wasn't. Lao Wai 12:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at Sinocentrism. DHN 18:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh huh. Putting a rude word on a phenomenon does not make it true. In what possible sense can China be described as 1. dominant or 2. an Imperial power in East Asia? How many times did China invade Japan? Lao Wai 10:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about Japan, but China invaded Vietnam at least 4 separate times in the past 2000 years. Most East Asian countries had to pay lip service to the Chinese Empire, being considered tributaries. See Foreign relations of imperial China and List of tributaries of imperial China. DHN 23:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention, Tibet.--Jondel 04:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So 4 invasions in 2000 years? I figure the US has invaded Mexico about that many times in 200. How does this make China and Imperialist nation? Most East Asian countries did not have to pay lip service to China. China asked them to nicely. And most of them did. Find me an example of China using force to make any of them do so. China has only ruled Tibet outright since 1950. It has only ruled Tibet in conjunction with the religious authorities under the control of non-Chinese dynasties like the Yuan and the Qing. How does this make it the leading Imperialist power in East Asia or even an Imperial power at all? Lao Wai 12:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I say "4 invasions", I meant "4 successful invasions". The Chinese have used forces against Vietnam for who-knows how many times, such that the central theme of Vietnamese history is resistance against Chinese invasions. If you don't count the attempted invasions of Japan, Korea, and Vietnam by the Yuan dynasty, as well as the Qing invasion of Korea (they were two of the longest Chinese dynasties even if they're not ethnically Han) you can see the the Ming military conquests and Goguryeo-Sui Wars. How did China asked other countries to become its suzerain "nicely"? By having a huge army and constantly threatening to use its superior forces to invade? Hmm...I wonder why there's such things as the "Imperial" examination, "Emperor" of China, etc. if China doesn't see itself as an empire. DHN 17:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Originally there was no Vietnam. The Qin conquered the region and if the Vietnamese were there, there is very little evidence of it. Until 939 it was part of China. The Chinese did not, obviously, invade it in this period. Since 939 it has been independent. Now the Tang did try to keep it, the Yuan did try to conquer it, and the Ming tried as well. But none of these were successful. In the modern period Vietnamese nationalists and Communists have re-written Vietnamese history as a 1000 years struggle against China, but that is a tendentious nationalist discourse alien to traditional Vietnam. I do not count the Mongol invasions. The Qing did not invade Korea. The Yuan is, actually, the shortest of the major dynasties (1279-1368). The Ming military conquests? You mean they drove the Mongols out of China and kept part of the territory, but not all? And invaded Vietnam once? Doesn't sound like Imperialism to me. You are reaching back to the Sui to find a conflict with Korea? Want to bet America has invaded Mexico more times than China has invaded Korea? China, especially Ming China, did not have a huge army nor is there any evidence that the weak and incompetent army they had was a threat to anyone. When Altan Khan besieged Beijing in 1550 the soldiers knelt outside the Imperial Palace and wept and wailed and begged not to be sent to fight. China paid them vast sums of money to recognise a theoretical Chinese supremacy. You cannot blame China for a lack of imagination among Western translators. Lao Wai 18:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Calling Vietnamese nationalism a modern development is simply false. The Annals of Dai Viet (written between the 13th and 18th centuries) are full of descriptions of Chinese invasions and exhortations of resistance. Tran Hung Dao rallied his troops against the Yuans with a memorable document, Ly Thuong Kiet wrote the first "declaration of independence" (surprise surprise, against China). Le Loi, Nguyen Hue were and are still highly revered for their victories against the Ming and Qing. The revolts of people such as the Trung Sisters and Trieu Thi Trinh are well-known among the people for thousands of years; they didn't just appear out of nowhere. You can read about these here: [1]. DHN 19:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well obviously nationalism is a modern development in Vietnam like it is in the rest of the world. Of course the Vietnamese have a good history to go back and look at and re-present as if it was a story of nationalist resistance, but that is simply tendentious. Calling what was produced a "declaration of independence" simply proves the point - modern re-packaging of traditional Vietnam. Sure there are lots of folk tales about the Trung sisters. But the fact remains that Classical Chinese remained the official language, and the language of most high culture, the Vietnamese were happy to be tribute givers, and the Vietnamese were willing to ask China for help when in need (against the French for instance). Relations have been bad at times, but they have been good at other times. Lao Wai 20:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, Lao Wai, that's what imperialism has always been like: often political repression but also often social and economic improvements (aqueducts, railroads, electricity, etc.). Of course China was an imperial power!!! Do you know nothing about the hundreds of thousands killed in Mongolia, East Turkestan and Tibet in the 20th century alone? They didn't just "ask" them nicely. Sheesh, what did you learn in school, nationalist b.s.? And America invaded Mexico, what, twice? Once in the Mexican-American War, again to intervene in the Mexican Revolution. I think China has invaded Korea more than that many times.--68.11.45.124 22:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am not making the "what have the Romans done for us" argument but a different one. Vietnam was never a colony of China. It was part of China. The Vietnamese were happy enough with that for a long time. And then they were not. But at no point did they see this as a colonial or imperial type arrangement until the Twentieth century. The modern history of China is a separate issue and I could give you an argument on that too. I suspect that the US invaded Mexico at least four times. Notice that whenever Korea has been threatened by a foreign power they have asked for Chinese help, and got it, without apparently any fear the Chinese would stay - not against the Japanese in the 16th century and again in the 19th, not against the Americans in the 1950s. Odd if they intepreted that as would-be imperialism. Lao Wai 09:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South Asia[edit]

The first line of the article states: "Western imperialism in Asia traces its roots back to the late 15th century with a series of voyages that sought a sea passage to South Asia in the hope of establishing direct trade between Europe and Asia in spices." My suggestion is to change South Asia to India..as South Asia in this context is clearly wrong, a trader in the 15th century would not have comprehended the term south asia.gunslotsofguns 11:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insurgent, resistance fighter, soldier[edit]

There's a photo of dead Filipino soldiers during the Filipino-American war. It was originally labelled as "Filipino insurgents" but I changed this to "Filipino resistance fighters". Is this neutral or should I have just used "Filipino soldiers" instead? --Edward Sandstig 17:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good edit. I might have inserted the word "insurgent" myself, probably under the influence of too much recent news media. Filipino resistance fighters is fine. I wouldn't use the term "soldiers" because the fighters we're referring to are non-state actors. 172 | Talk 21:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
header 1 header 2 header 3
row 1, cell 1 row 1, cell 2 row 1, cell 3
row 2, cell 1 row 2, cell 2 row 2, cell 3


Xinjiang does not mean new territory[edit]

  • The real meaning is territoty returned to China. (Xinjinag, also called Chinese Turkistan, was a parts of Han Dynasty.) 198.155.145.86 01:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Xinjiang literally means (xin) new, (jiang) boundary. Roadrunner (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asian imperialism[edit]

No mention of how China came to be the largest empire by population in the entire world? Readin (talk) 07:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Until this is addressed I've put a bias tag on the article. Readin (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added some sentences to address balance issues. Please check for NPOV since I am *highly* biased on this issue. Roadrunner (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Western Imperialism in Asia?[edit]

Since this article seems to be largely a survey of Western imperialism in Asia, perhaps it should be renamed to reflect its own content. Either that, or its content should be radically expanded to include the home-grown varieties which long preceded Western penetration. 89.240.197.164 (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Japanese Imperialism was widespread and dominant preceding WWII. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.36.23 (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has objected to moving this to Western Imperialism in Asia, so I'll do it as soon as I learn how. The newly titled article can then be improved with reference to how Western Imperialism was made possible in Mandala (Southeast Asian history):

The concept of a mandala counteracts modern tendencies to look for unified political power, i.e., the power of large kingdoms and nation states of later history, an inadvertent byproduct of 15th-century advances in map-making technologies[1][2].

Reflist
  1. ^ "How Maps Made the World". Wilson Quarterly. Summer 2011. Retrieved 28 July 2011. Source: 'Mapping the Sovereign State: Technology, Authority, and Systemic Change' by Jordan Branch, in International Organization, Volume 65, Issue 1, Winter 2011
  2. ^ Branch, Jordan Nathaniel (2011). "Mapping the Sovereign State: Cartographic Technology, Political Authority, and Systemic Change" (Ph.D.). Publication Number 3469226. University of California, Berkeley. pp. 1–36. doi:10.1017/S0020818310000299. Retrieved March 5, 2012. Abstract: How did modern territorial states come to replace earlier forms of organization, defined by a wide variety of territorial and non-territorial forms of authority? Answering this question can help to explain both where our international political system came from and where it might be going.... {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

--13:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Assesment for projects[edit]

Lack of intext citations prevents this from being anything other than start - despite the volume of text - inadequate referencing is an issue SatuSuro 10:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also[edit]

--Pawyilee (talk) 15:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed where?[edit]

No {{citation needed}} tags appear anywhere in the article, so removed the overweening {{Refimprove|date=February 2010}} hat. —Pawyilee (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a {{More footnotes}} on account of the article of this size on a controversial subject only containing 5 citations. I believe it is customary to use such general maintenance templates when the need for citations is this massive, instead of drowning an article in inline "Citation needed"-tags which hampers readability. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I consider inline links to relevant articles as equivalent to inline citations. I won't live long enough to check every article so linked to see just how they support or refute material in paragraphs where such are embedded. — Except piecemeal. The lead ended by referring to "speculation today" which may change tomorrow. Rather than trying to ring up one of today's speculators, I made this change:

...speculation today about the possible re-emergence of modern India and China as superpowers potential superpowers.

As of today the latter article has 109 references. How many if any would you like to see included inline here? (Obama's failure to attend last week's APEC conference is so yesterday that it does not merit mention, though pundits 50 years from today might consider it the beginning of the end of Western imperialism in Asia.) While I have your attention, I'll ask you to Ctrl+F first mention of Burma, and see how many inline citations from those articles you want inline here. Don't expect me to do it. DIY. —Pawyilee (talk) 12:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote template test[edit]

I'm trying to add footnotes containing observations of Edmund Roberts (diplomat) who witnessed events in his Embassy to the Eastern courts of Cochin-China, Siam, and Muscat : in the U. S. sloop-of-war Peacock ... during the years 1832-3-4 Can't get {{#tag:ref||group="nb"|name=""}} to work on Talk page. Will try main page before I give up. —Pawyilee (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Successfully added separate Footnote, Reference and Further reading sections yesterday, then today added ...Portuguese influence in Asia was gradually eclipsed.[nb 1]. Trouble is we now have what is a footnote in reference section. Citation section might sub for any of the above, but I don't know how to format an article that way. Took me long enough just to get footnote with nested reference to work. A more knowledgeable editor may object that the footnote is simply copied from the reference, which in generally not done even for text out of copyright. If you're that knowledgeable, re-word it yourself. The source is online as a googlebook PDF, and I gave both the document page and PDF image numbers. --Pawyilee (talk) 08:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

British India[edit]

No mention of the Marathas? It gives an overwhelmingly false idea that the British conquered India from the Mughals in 1757 not to mention that it falsely states India was anarchic following the collapse of the Mughals, only until the British came in to create order. Bajirao1007 (talk) 07:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Europeans vs. certain Europeans[edit]

Stop putting all of Europe into one basket. The following countries never colonized Asian, African or other people: Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Czechia, Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, Croatia, Greece, Macedonia, etc. I hope that's a convincing list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.26.161 (talk) 08:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Upon a closer reading of the article I see that its scope is in fact defined in the lead as "Western Europe", so I see that your change was justified -- I was in error. I do see that the article is tagged with a request to rewrite the lead, but since there is no explanation on the talk page I'm not sure whether that was regarding the scope of the article defined in the lead. For now I will let your edits stand, since they seem justified. I do think this page needs some work on making sure it is neutral for sure. On a separate note, I do question what you meant in your last edit summary by "no tricks"? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 08:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The France granted the State of Vietnam based in Saigon independence in 1949 while Laos and Cambodia received independence in 1953. Certainly no[edit]

It is Françafrique These government is france puppet to against viet minh. These government made by many who pro-france 14.244.118.237 (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Western_imperialism_in_Asia&oldid=1193889088"