‘Imperialism’: An Historiographical Revision¹

Return to Empire: The New U.S. Imperialism in Comparative Historical Perspective

“…World-system theory sheds some light on the mid-19th-century British emphasis on an ''imperialism of free trade'' as opposed to colonialism, through its account of the alternating metropolitan emphasis on colonialism versus imperialism in different eras (Bergesen and Schoenberg 1980;Fieldhouse 1961;Gallagher and Robinson 1953). Historical periods in which the core is dominated by a hegemon are characteristically imperialist, according to this theory.…”

Domestic conflict and foreign policy: the contribution of some undeservedly neglected historical studies

“…State officials and the heavy industrialists and financiers of western Germany were supporting a program of 'industrial and commercial expansion' both at home and abroad. In these circumstances, large-scale landowners appeared to have only two options: to go along as weak partners in the general consensus favoring an extended empire or to "stubbornly defend their class interests against the state and so preserve undiminished their economic basis 5 . 44 But because of the high degree of organization that this class had already established for itself in the form of the Conservative party, a choice between these two deleterious alternatives did not have to be made.…”

“…1 At the same time, most historical treatments of domestic conflict and foreign policy are too impressionistic to provide clear concepts for comparative research. As Michael Fry and Arthur Gilbert have demonstrated with regard to the writings of one especially prolific and influential contemporary historian-Arno Mayer-a substantial amount of pruning and interpolation is required to put such notions as 'the Forces of Order and the Forces of Movement' or 'organic 5 and 'inorganic 5 societal crises into usable form. 2 But Mayer's work represents only the tip of an iceberg of radical historical literature on domestic conflict and foreign policy that floats outside the mainstream of current thinking about international relations.…”

“…Critics of the radical perspective on European imperialism have largely concentrated their attention on the economic components of these arguments in an attempt to demonstrate the empirical inaccuracy of the radical case. D. K. Fieldhouse, for example, argues that there is little if any evidence that the territories Britain acquired after 1870 were ones in which profitable trade and 026Q-21Q5/85/04/Q275-25/$G3.GQ © Review of International Studies investment could be undertaken, 5 Furthermore, he suggests that radical writers have overemphasized the peculiarities of European imperialism after 1870 and have thereby failed to recognize the essential similarities between colonial acquisition in the decades prior to the industrial revolution and the annexations of the 1880s and 1890s. 6 Similarly, Mark Blaug claims that capitalist economies such as those of nineteenth century Europe can always find more profitable investments for the surplus capital that they generate in home markets than in overseas ventures.…”

“…[T\he imperialistic policy smoothed the business cycle, or, what is the same, stabilized national income'. 10 From a substantially different vantage point, A. G. Hopkins has indicated the importance of small-scale trading and investment concerns for understanding the history of colonial 'partition 5 along the coast of west Africa. 11 Even Platt's critique of the radical perspective contains a number of anomalous observations-for example, his remarks concerning the 'higher yields 5 British investors could have obtained from (admittedly risky) investments outside the central areas of the Empire.…”