pp. 793-806

The most pressing question to ask regarding this reading, I think, is how this new imperialism differed from other from previous European expansion in the 17th and 18th centuries. There are several principal areas of divergence.

1) Imperialism, unlike earlier colonialism, had to reconcile itself with Europe's nominal commitment to liberalism. It therefore had a much more developed cultural flavor, as exemplified by France. Liberal nationalism became the rhetorical signature of imperial apologists, such as Jules Ferry. Imperialism became France's route to re-establish its national pride and dignity after the humiliation of the Franco-Prussian War. It also employed clearly developed ideas of racial and cultural superiority.

2) For similar reasons to 1), imperialism involved more subtle and varied means of control than past colonialism. In China, for example, European powers used trade treaties to cement and codify their commercial and cultural influence. After the Sepoy Rebellion in India, moreover, Britain rearranged its colonial government by removing whites from prominent public positions and establishing puppet governments.

Once again, both of these differences reduce to the different ideological contexts of the period. The transparency of foreign operations had increased exponentially over earlier colonization efforts, making it necessary for European powers to use less overt methods of control. Imperialism also required a more sophisticated defense to win over public approval and connect it to existing ideologies of nationalism and the like.