172

Joined 23 December 2002
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 172 (talk | contribs) at 02:19, 9 January 2003 (to Sv). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

USER 172 (contributions listed below)


External Links:

==I'm interested in comments on the EXTERNAL links listed below. See: User talk:172/articles==

See User talk:172/Talk bloc 1 for old talk, not pertaining to external links.

Wallerstein:

Economics:

China:

Africa:

Misc.:

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz on the Transition (recommended):



In just the matter of a week or two, I’ve already revamped, overhauled, or written large segments of these following articles. I haven't really been keeping track though, not having an account until now (see below for old user names). Those are just the contributions that I can remember off the top of my head IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER:

Leonid Brezhnev, British Empire, capitalism, Fidel Castro, Chinese historiography, Colonization of Africa, Communism, Deng Xiaoping, East Asian Tigers, Economy of Taiwan, Fascism, Finance Capitalism, Four Modernizations, genocide, Great Depression, History of Belgium, History of Brazil, History of China, History of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, History of the People's Republic of China, History of Germany, History of Taiwan, History of the United Kingdom, History of the United States, J.A. Hobson, Hu Jintao, Hu Yaobang, Imperialism in Asia, Jiang Zemin, Saddam Hussein, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, kimjongilia, Leopold II of Belgium, Mao, Karl Marx, Mussolini, New Imperialism, Politburo Standing Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, Soviet Union, Stalin, Getulio Dorneles Vargas, World War I, World War II

So far I’ve been preoccupied with the topics of modern China and nineteenth century imperialism, but I’ve also contributed to pages on Brazil, Russia and Ming China. I’d appreciate some suggestions for other topics.


133 doesnt have a user page to leave answers to. you seem to have some input in this debate. I would suggest you answer my question then as i have some degree of account. why does the word new, alone in combination with an expansive term like imperialism, combine to make a term that at some point or another can be called to be applied to something more recent? ---Sv


I should hope that I have some influence over this article. I wrote the vast majority of its content, after all. I agree with 131 since “New Imperialism” is a very commonly used term in historiography to refer to this era specifically. The introductory paragraphs, thanks to some additions to my original text, make this point abundantly clear almost ad nauseam. The term “High Imperialism” is popular as well in reference to this era, but is less common. The version that he keeps restoring also makes the point that New Imperialism had inextricable links the breakdown of Pax Britannica.

Comment on the articles sometime too!

172

well, attachment is a vice here, im sure you agree. And at least Vera cruz and zoe disagree with you in principle from what i understand, though vera notes that the dates are arbitrary. -Sv

i will add nothing more on it. its not a well chosen battle, and not all that interesting. ---Sv


I’m not emotionally “attached” to that article, if that’s what you’re insinuating. I simply disagreed with the redirect for the above reasons. I welcome all changes that are constructive.


I’ve had my differences with Vera Cruz only because he kept stipulating that the article remain a mixed-up, jumbled mishmash, and with Zoe for construing baseless, intuitive charges regarding bias while knowing little about the history of the topic or the historiography pertaining to the era.

172