Resolved: The 1890's saw a major shift in geopolitics in the normalization of colonial imperialism as a tool for powerful nations.
In the 1870's, the world had its share of powerful non-imperialist* countries -- the United States, which had recently made a major shift to modernity with the Civil War; Japan and Russia, which were doing the same with the Meiji Restoration and Tsar Alexander II, respectively; and recently formed nations, like Germany and Italy; as well as Austro-Hungary, which was landlocked. As such, anti-colonial activists and thinkers commonly embraced "modernity" as conceived in the West, as a way of beating their overseers, forming the "copy their ways to beat them" strategy; that "modern" ideas like democracy, industrial capitalism, and what have you, do not require the subjugation and exploitation of other peoples. Indeed, a number of non-western "modernizers" and reformers explicitly used countries like Germany and the United States as models for their own way forward (e.g. Meiji Constitution imitated Germany's, Sun Yat Sen's American influence, Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani's philosophy of the "Fatherland", etc).
But then, in the 1890's, three strong nations that had been examples of non-imperial strength embraced colonial imperialism themselves -- first Germany, then Japan, and finally the United States.
First was Germany. Though the nation had gotten African colonies in the 1884 Berlin Conference, Bismarck had little planned for them, seeing the land claim as a way to help in relations with Europe; "
my map of Africa lies in Europe. Here is Russia, and here... is France, and we're in the middle — that's my map of Africa." However, in 1890, Kaiser Wilhelm II fired Bismarck and shifter German policy from one of realpolitik to Weltpolitk, a policy of "
World Power" or "
Our Place in the Sun"; Germany would not only "develop" her own colonies (
e.g.), but actively sought out new ones (as well as developing naval power to protect said empire).
Then, Japan's modern imperial era began in 1894, with the start of the Sino-Japanese War. Then the United States made its shift to true colonialist empire in 1898 with the annexation of Hawaii and the Spanish American War. The US, I would argue, had previously been
expansionist (similar to Russia), which I would argue is different from
colonial imperialism (which what this thread is talking about). Both these conflicts were motivated, in large measure, by seeking to open new foreign markets for the industrial powers, glossed over with rhetoric of liberation -- Korea, in the case of Japan, and the Spanish colonies, in the case of the US.
This normalization of colonial imperialism left an indelible mark on how the world thinks about modernity -- a connection between militarism and progress popularly conceived in powerful nations in the years leading up to the First World War; stronger strains of anti-liberal sentiment among anti-colonialsit (and some socialist) thinkers and activists in the years following the catastrophe; and to this day, said strains still influencing schools of various schools of thought skeptical or opposed to "progress" as commonly accepted by our world civilization.*
-----
OK, that turned out a little longer than I thought. So what do you guys think? Did the 1890's see a major shift toward normalizing colonial imperialism? If so, any thoughts my analysis of the effects?
*
I had a couple examples, but thought they might hijack the thread and get it moved to chat, so I'm holding off for now.
-----
CONSOLIDATE: Also, important note: Following the Sino-Japanese War, China was divided into spheres on influence (with Russia among the dividers, who also gained influence in Korea, etc).
Also of note: Italy, who AIUI previously sought and gained colonies for purposes of national pride more than economic resources or markets, made a bid to conquer Ethiopia in 1895 (to fail, but still).