May 24th - The Age of Empire (Ch 1 - 4)

1. Summary:

The Age of Empire specifically focuses on the world between the years of 1875 and 1914. Chapter 1 discusses how the world economy was shaken (or due to change) after many advances in technology. Author Eric Hobsbawm also discussed how large the gap between the ‘advanced’ countries and people (wealthy) compared to the ‘backwards’ countries and people (poor). Chapter 2 discusses how the economy changed over this period of time. The depression in the 1870s caused many people to migrate by way of boat in the 1880s. Farmers suffered tremendously during the down cycle of the economy. During this period, the economic cycles we briefly touched upon in class can be easily seen by the price fall from 1873 to 1886 and then from the increase in prices from 1886 to the 1914 and beyond that. The other big change in trade that dramatically changed the world economy was the fall of the British monopoly over exporting goods to around 10 countries controlling around 80% of the market. Chapter 3 focuses on the main countries of the newly formed or altered world economy, including USA, Japan, England, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Hobsbawm discusses how during this period, around 6 or so countries controlled a quarter of the total land available in world – especially in the Pacific region and Africa mainly through imperialistic and aggressive manners. This clear division of the land across the globe definitely contributed to the economy becoming more global. Chapter 4 focused more on the introduction of the concept of global democracy and how many countries were cautious about the possible outcomes of it – even though Hobsbawm points out that it was quite inevitable.

2. What was interesting/what did you learn:

One of the things that I found most interesting was how during this time period, to be denoted as the ‘conservative’ political party in specific regions in the world would almost be the equivalent of committing campaign suicide. This was due to the wide reception of the many advances in technology. It seemed like everyone was all about change and really wanted to participate in it. I understand why they wanted to – but this is not why I found it most interesting. I think it is funny how people were so taken with it then compared to some of the people I have worked with – who are so against newer technology (such as computers or computer programs). In some respects with the crazy advancements we have made in technology in the past 40 years, people seem to want to keep with their same tools (which by my generation could be seen as moving backwards). For instance, my work has introduced a new computer system that is supposed to increase productivity and make it easier for individuals to do their jobs in the same system to allow everyone to access the information and reducing the time spent searching for it in different locations. However, people are constantly reverting back to their old methods (pen and paper for example and then scanning in pages to be stored on the computer) – which has not reduced the amount of time spent searching for information. I understand that part of it may be that the system was not set up or explained completely but part of it is resistance – at least in my experience.

3. Discussion Point:

Because of what caught my attention in the first chapter and how I find it a little backwards from what I have experienced at work, I must wonder if when new technologies came out from 1875 to 1914, why was there a more welcoming appeal to technology. Or maybe I should rephrase that, maybe what I am really wondering is that on a group level technology was greatly welcomed, but was it welcomed to that same degree on an individual level? Also, were there changes in responses to it depending on an age level – did people from say my dad’s generation find the newly introduced technology at that time as easy and useful as it was intended – or like some of the people I have worked with, did they just revert back to their old methods?