text:
Crataegus

Crataegus, commonly called hawthorn, quickthorn, thornapple, May-tree, whitethorn, Mayflower or hawberry, is a genus of several hundred species of shrubs and trees in the family Rosaceae, native to temperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere in Europe, Asia, North Africa and North America. The name "hawthorn" was originally applied to the species native to northern Europe, especially the common hawthorn C. monogyna, and the unmodified name is often so used in Britain and Ireland. The name is now also applied to the entire genus and to the related Asian genus Rhaphiolepis.

Etymology
The generic epithet, Crataegus, is derived from the Greek "strength" because of the great strength of the wood and  "sharp", referring to the thorns of some species. The name haw, originally an Old English term for hedge (from the Anglo-Saxon term haguthorn, "a fence with thorns"), also applies to the fruit.

Description
Crataegus species are shrubs or small trees, mostly growing to 5 – tall, with small pome fruit and (usually) thorny branches. The most common type of bark is smooth grey in young individuals, developing shallow longitudinal fissures with narrow ridges in older trees. The thorns are small sharp-tipped branches that arise either from other branches or from the trunk, and are typically 1-3 cm long (recorded as up to 11.5 cm in one case ). The leaves grow spirally arranged on long shoots, and in clusters on spur shoots on the branches or twigs. The leaves of most species have lobed or serrated margins and are somewhat variable in shape. Flowers are five-petalled and grow in flat-topped clusters and are most typically white, although they can also be pale pink or occasionally scarlet in colour. The fruit, sometimes known as a "haw", is berry-like but structurally a pome containing from one to five pyrenes that resemble the "stones" of plums, peaches, etc., which are drupaceous fruit in the same subfamily.

Taxonomy
The number of species in the genus depends on taxonomic interpretation. Some botanists in the past recognised 1000 or more species, many of which are apomictic microspecies. A reasonable number is estimated to be 200 species. The genus likely first appeared in the Eocene, with the ancestral area likely being Eastern North America and in Europe, which at that time remained closely linked due to the North Atlantic Land Bridge. The earliest known leaves of the genus from the Eocene of North America, with the earliest leaves from Europe being from the Oligocene.

The genus is classified into sections which are further divided into series. Series Montaninsulae has not yet been assigned to a section. The sections are:
 * section Brevispinae
 * section Crataegus
 * section Coccineae
 * section Cuneatae
 * section Douglasia
 * section Hupehensis
 * section Macracanthae
 * section Sanguineae

Selected species

 * Crataegus aemula – Rome hawthorn
 * Crataegus aestivalis – May hawthorn
 * Crataegus alabamensis – Alabama hawthorn
 * Crataegus altaica – Altai hawthorn
 * Crataegus ambigua – Russian hawthorn
 * Crataegus ambitiosa – Grand Rapids hawthorn
 * Crataegus anamesa – Fort Bend hawthorn
 * Crataegus ancisa – Mississippi hawthorn
 * Crataegus annosa – Phoenix City hawthorn
 * Crataegus aprica – sunny hawthorn
 * Crataegus arborea – Montgomery hawthorn
 * Crataegus arcana – Carolina hawthorn
 * Crataegus ater – Nashville hawthorn
 * Crataegus austromontana – valley head hawthorn
 * Crataegus azarolus – Azarole hawthorn
 * Crataegus berberifolia – barberry hawthorn
 * Crataegus biltmoreana – Biltmore hawthorn
 * Crataegus boyntonii – stinking hawthorn
 * Crataegus brachyacantha – blueberry hawthorn
 * Crataegus brainerdii – Brainerd's hawthorn
 * Crataegus calpodendron – late hawthorn
 * Crataegus canbyi
 * Crataegus chlorosarca
 * Crataegus chrysocarpa – fireberry hawthorn
 * Crataegus coccinea – scarlet hawthorn
 * Crataegus coccinioides – Kansas hawthorn
 * Crataegus collina – hillside hawthorn
 * Crataegus crus-galli – cockspur hawthorn
 * Crataegus cuneata – Japanese hawthorn
 * Crataegus cupulifera
 * Crataegus dahurica
 * Crataegus dilatata – broadleaf hawthorn, Apple-leaf hawthorn
 * Crataegus douglasii – black hawthorn, Douglas hawthorn
 * Crataegus ellwangeriana
 * Crataegus erythropoda – cerro hawthorn
 * Crataegus flabellata – Gray's hawthorn, fanleaf hawthorn
 * Crataegus flava – yellow-fruited hawthorn
 * Crataegus fluviatilis
 * Crataegus fontanesiana
 * Crataegus greggiana – Gregg's hawthorn
 * Crataegus harbisonii – Harbison's hawthorn
 * Crataegus heldreichii
 * Crataegus heterophylla – various-leaved hawthorn
 * Crataegus holmesiana – Holmes' hawthorn
 * Crataegus hupehensis
 * Crataegus intricata – thicket hawthorn, intricate hawthorn
 * Crataegus iracunda – stolon–bearing hawthorn
 * Crataegus jackii
 * Crataegus jonesae
 * Crataegus kansuensis – Gansu hawthorn
 * Crataegus laevigata – Midland hawthorn, English hawthorn
 * Crataegus lassa – sandhill hawthorn
 * Crataegus lepida
 * Crataegus macrosperma – big-fruit hawthorn
 * Crataegus marshallii – parsley-leaved hawthorn
 * Crataegus maximowiczii
 * Crataegus mercerensis
 * Crataegus mexicana – tejocote, Mexican hawthorn
 * Crataegus mollis – downy hawthorn
 * Crataegus monogyna – common hawthorn, oneseed hawthorn
 * Crataegus nigra – Hungarian hawthorn
 * Crataegus okanaganensis – Okanagan Valley hawthorn
 * Crataegus opaca – western mayhaw
 * Crataegus orientalis – oriental hawthorn
 * Crataegus pedicellata – scarlet hawthorn
 * Crataegus pennsylvanica – Pennsylvania thorn
 * Crataegus pentagyna – small-flowered black hawthorn
 * Crataegus peregrina
 * Crataegus persimilis – plumleaf hawthorn
 * Crataegus phaenopyrum – Washington hawthorn
 * Crataegus phippsii
 * Crataegus pinnatifida – Chinese hawthorn
 * Crataegus populnea – poplar hawthorn
 * Crataegus pratensis – prairie hawthorn
 * Crataegus pruinosa – frosted hawthorn
 * Crataegus pulcherrima – beautiful hawthorn
 * Crataegus punctata – dotted hawthorn, white hawthorn: sometimes claimed as the state flower of Missouri, though the legislation does not specify a species
 * Crataegus purpurella – Loch Lomond hawthorn
 * Crataegus putnamiana
 * Crataegus pycnoloba
 * Crataegus reverchonii – Reverchon's hawthorn
 * Crataegus rhipidophylla
 * Crataegus rivularis – river hawthorn
 * Crataegus saligna – willow hawthorn
 * Crataegus sanguinea – redhaw hawthorn, Siberian hawthorn
 * Crataegus sargentii – Sargent's hawthorn
 * Crataegus scabrida – rough hawthorn
 * Crataegus scabrifolia
 * Crataegus songarica
 * Crataegus spathulata – littlehip hawthorn
 * Crataegus submollis – Quebec hawthorn
 * Crataegus succulenta – fleshy hawthorn
 * Crataegus tanacetifolia – tansy–leaved thorn
 * Crataegus texana – Texas hawthorn
 * Crataegus tracyi – Tracy hawthorn
 * Crataegus triflora – three-flowered hawthorn
 * Crataegus uniflora – one-flowered hawthorn, dwarf hawthorn
 * Crataegus viridis – green hawthorn, including cultivar 'Winter King'
 * Crataegus visenda
 * Crataegus vulsa – Alabama hawthorn
 * Crataegus wattiana – Altai hawthorn
 * Crataegus wilsonii – Wilson hawthorn

Selected hybrids

 * Crataegus × ariifolia (= C. ariaefolia)
 * Crataegus × dsungarica
 * Crataegus × grignonensis – Grignon hawthorn, an unpublished name
 * Crataegus × lavalleei – Lavallée hawthorn, including Crataegus × carrierei
 * Crataegus × macrocarpa
 * Crataegus × media – the name for C. monogyna × C. laevigata hybrids
 * Crataegus × mordenensis – Morden hawthorn, including 'Toba' and 'Snowbird'
 * Crataegus × sinaica – za'rur
 * Crataegus × smithiana – red Mexican hawthorn, an unpublished name
 * Crataegus × vailiae

Ecology
Hawthorns provide food and shelter for many species of birds and mammals, and the flowers are important for many nectar-feeding insects. Hawthorns are also used as food plants by the larvae of a large number of Lepidoptera species, such as the small eggar moth, E. lanestris. Haws are important for wildlife in winter, particularly thrushes and waxwings; these birds eat the haws and disperse the seeds in their droppings.

Culinary use

The "haws" or fruits of the common hawthorn, C. monogyna, are edible. In the United Kingdom, they are sometimes used to make a jelly or homemade wine. The leaves are edible, and if picked in spring when still young, are tender enough to be used in salads. The young leaves and flower buds, which are also edible, are known as "bread and cheese" in rural England. In the southern United States, fruits of three native species are collectively known as mayhaws and are made into jellies which are considered a delicacy. The Kutenai people of northwestern North America used red and black hawthorn fruit for food.

On Manitoulin Island, Ontario, some red-fruited species are called hawberries. During colonisation, European settlers ate these fruits during the winter as the only remaining food supply. People born on the island are now called "haweaters".

The fruits of Crataegus mexicana are known in Mexico as tejocotes and are eaten raw, cooked, or in jam during the winter. They are stuffed in the piñatas broken during the traditional pre-Christmas celebration known as Las Posadas. They are also cooked with other fruits to prepare a Christmas punch. The mixture of tejocote paste, sugar and chili powder produces a popular Mexican candy called rielitos, which is manufactured by several brands.

The 4 cm fruits of the species Crataegus pinnatifida (Chinese hawthorn) are tart, bright red and resemble small crabapple fruits. They are used to make many kinds of Chinese snacks, such as tanghulu — coated in sugar syrup and skewered – and haw flakes. The fruits, which are called 山楂 shān zhā in Chinese, are also used to produce jams, jellies, juices, alcoholic beverages and other drinks; these could in turn be used in other dishes (for instance, many older recipes for Cantonese sweet and sour sauce call for shānzhā jam). In South Korea, a liquor called sansachun (산사춘) is made from the fruits.

In Iran, the fruits of Crataegus (including Crataegus azarolus var. aronia, as well as other species) are known as zâlzâlak and eaten raw as a snack, or made into a jam known by the same name.

The fruits of North America's Crataegus greggiana are made into preserves.

Research
A 2008 Cochrane Collaboration meta-analysis of previous studies concluded that evidence exists of "a significant benefit in symptom control and physiologic outcomes" for an extract of hawthorn used as an adjuvant in treating chronic heart failure. A 2010 review concluded that "Crataegus [hawthorn] preparations hold significant potential as a useful remedy in the treatment of cardiovascular disease". The review indicated the need for further study of the best dosages and concluded that although "many different theoretical interactions between Crataegus and orthodox medications have been postulated ... none have [yet] been substantiated."

Phytochemicals found in hawthorn include tannins, flavonoids, oligomeric proanthocyanidins and phenolic acids.

Traditional medicine
Several species of hawthorn have been used in traditional medicine. The products used are often derived from C. monogyna, C. laevigata, or related Crataegus species, "collectively known as hawthorn", not necessarily distinguishing between these species. The dried fruits of Crataegus pinnatifida (called shān zhā in Chinese) are used in traditional Chinese medicine, primarily as a digestive aid. A closely related species, Crataegus cuneata (Japanese hawthorn, called sanzashi in Japanese) is used in a similar manner. Other species (especially Crataegus laevigata) are used in herbal medicine where the plant is believed to strengthen cardiovascular function.

The Kutenai people of northwestern North America used black hawthorn fruit (Kutenai language: kaǂa; approximate pronunciation: kasha) for food, and red hawthorn fruit (Kutenai language: ǂupǂi; approximate pronunciation: shupshi) in traditional medicine.

Side effects
Overdose can cause cardiac arrhythmia and low blood pressure, while milder side effects include nausea and dizziness. Patients taking digoxin should avoid taking hawthorn.

Landscaping
Many species and hybrids are used as ornamental and street trees. The common hawthorn is extensively used in Europe as a hedge plant. During the British Agricultural Revolution in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, hawthorn saplings were mass propagated in nurseries to create the new field boundaries required by the Inclosure Acts. Several cultivars of the Midland hawthorn C. laevigata have been selected for their pink or red flowers. Hawthorns are among the trees most recommended for water conservation landscapes.

Grafting
Hawthorn can be used as a rootstock in the practice of grafting. It is graft-compatible with Mespilus (medlar) and with pear, and makes a hardier rootstock than quince, but the thorny suckering habit of the hawthorn can be problematic.

Seedlings of Crataegus monogyna have been used to graft multiple species on the same trunk, such as pink hawthorn, pear tree and medlar, the result being trees which give pink and white flowers in May and fruits during the summer. "Chip budding" has also been performed on hawthorn trunks to have branches of several varieties on the same tree. Such trees can be seen in Vigo, Spain, and in the northwest of France (mainly in Brittany).

Bonsai
Many species of hawthorn make excellent bonsai trees. They are grown and enjoyed for their display of flowers.

Other uses
The wood of some Crataegus species is hard and resistant to rot. In rural North America, it was prized for use as tool handles and fence posts. First Nations people of western Canada used the thorns for durable fish hooks and minor skin surgeries.

Folklore
The Scots saying "Ne'er cast a cloot til Mey's oot" conveys a warning not to shed any cloots (clothes) before the summer has fully arrived and the mayflowers (hawthorn blossoms) are in full bloom.

The custom of employing the flowering branches for decorative purposes on 1 May is of very early origin, but since the adoption of the Gregorian calendar in 1752, the tree has rarely been in full bloom in England before the second week of that month. In the Scottish Highlands, the flowers may be seen as late as the middle of June. The hawthorn has been regarded as the emblem of hope, and its branches are stated to have been carried by the ancient Greeks in wedding processions, and to have been used by them to deck the altar of Hymenaios. The supposition that the tree was the source of Jesus's crown of thorns doubtless gave rise to the tradition among the French peasantry (current as late as 1911) that it utters groans and cries on Good Friday, and probably also to the old popular superstition in Great Britain and Ireland that ill luck attended the uprooting of hawthorns. Branches of Glastonbury thorn (C. monogyna 'Biflora', sometimes called C. oxyacantha var. praecox), which flowers both in December and in spring, were formerly highly valued in England, on account of the legend that the tree was originally the staff of Joseph of Arimathea.

Robert Graves, in his book The White Goddess, traces and reinterprets many European legends and myths in which the whitethorn (hawthorn), also called the May-tree, is central.

It was once said to heal the broken heart. In Ireland, the red fruit is, or was, called the Johnny MacGorey or Magory.

Serbian folklore that spread across Balkan notes that hawthorn (Serbian глог or glog) is essential to kill vampires, and stakes used for their slaying must be made from the wood of the thorn tree.

In Gaelic folklore, hawthorn (in Scottish Gaelic, sgitheach and in Irish, sceach) 'marks the entrance to the otherworld' and is strongly associated with the fairies. Lore has it that it is very unlucky to cut the tree at any time other than when it is in bloom; however, during this time, it is commonly cut and decorated as a May bush (see Beltane). This warning persists to modern times; folklorist Bob Curran has questioned whether the ill luck of the DeLorean Motor Company was associated with the destruction of a fairy thorn to make way for a production facility.

The superstitious dread of harming hawthorn trees prevalent in Britain and Ireland may also be connected to an old belief that hawthorns, and more especially 'lone thorns' (self-seeded specimens standing in isolation from other trees) originate from lightning or thunderbolts and give protection from lightning strikes.

Hawthorn trees are often found beside clootie wells; at these types of holy wells, they are sometimes known as rag trees, for the strips of cloth which are tied to them as part of healing rituals. 'When all fruit fails, welcome haws' was once a common expression in Ireland.

According to a medieval legend, the Glastonbury thorn, C. monogyna 'Biflora', which flowers twice annually, was supposed to have miraculously grown from a walking stick planted by Joseph of Arimathea at Glastonbury in Somerset, England. The original tree was destroyed in the sixteenth century during the English Reformation, but several cultivars have survived. Since the reign of King James I, it has been a Christmas custom to send a sprig of Glastonbury thorn flowers to the Sovereign, which is used to decorate the royal family's dinner table.

In the Victorian era, the hawthorn represented hope in the language of flowers.

The hawthorn – species unspecified – is the state flower of Missouri. The legislation designating it as such was introduced by Sarah Lucille Turner, one of the first two women to serve in the Missouri House of Representatives.

Propagation
Although it is commonly stated that hawthorns can be propagated by cutting, this is difficult to achieve with rootless stem pieces. Small plants or suckers are often transplanted from the wild. Seeds require stratification and take one or two years to germinate. Seed germination is improved if the pyrenes that contain the seed are subjected to extensive drying at room temperature, before stratification. Uncommon forms can be grafted onto seedlings of other species.

title: Crataegus


text:
Talk:Imperialism

comment
The problem isn't that is should have a definition, its that imperialism is not a "big boner that comes on everyone".

comment
the first line should read, "Imperialism, AS defined......." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.61.79.54 (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticism Section is too long!
It's way overdone! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.192.71 (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Editorial Inquiry on "Benign" Imperialism in "Canada"
This article states that imperialism can be "relatively benign as in Canada, or brutal as in the Congo Free State.[8]"

A bit of research about the indigenous peoples of British North America or the Metis should bring this statement into question.

24.67.195.233 (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

 * I agree, I'm having a really hard time coming up with an example of benign imperialism. First, we'd have to rule out examples in which indigenous peoples were oppressed, displaced, or eliminated. We'd then have to rule out places in which people imported from elsewhere were subjected to cruel conditions (such as slavery or other exploitative forms of labor). The closest situations I can come up with would be Iceland under Danish rule, Svalbard under Norwegian rule, and Saint Pierre and Miquelon under French rule. The latter two might not even count considering they are still territory of Norway and France. --74.103.150.125 (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear sir, you`re having a hard time because the concept of benign is exogenous to the imperialist phenomenon. It is what it is: power over other people. Of course authority can produce good and so does imperial power, but that is not a point that needs to be made in a whole section. Particularly, "examples" of imperialism will always look double-faced through ethical lenses. Imperialism is not about being good, it is about being imperial. Notwithstanding the relevance of imperialism on ethical issues, what this article needs is to conceptualize it, relating it to basic modern phenomena like the rise of nation states and the international division of labor. Ideally, rhe historical section should not stop until we reached today. That would make a good article for wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.60.11.222 (talk) 05:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Imperialism and Capitalism
Really? No discussion on that? No mention whatsoever to the most basic characteristic of imperialism according to its most worldwide influential definition? I mean, no one needs to be a leninist to acknowledge that imperialism is closely related to industrialization, the second industrial revolution particularly (you know, railroads, steel and stuff), and the distribution of capital and labor on a world scale by powerful states. It is a pity that an entire section is dedicated to the soviet imperialism (a very interesting case, for sure), while no mention to the intricate relationship between the creation of ussr and the concept of imperialism is presented to the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.60.11.222 (talk) 04:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

 * I count at least 3 items from the See Also south. The framing of "socialist imperialism" as an accusation could be counted as implicit one in the body of the article. Prolly best you can do ATM. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Love the wikilink for Barbara Bush - must make for interesting table talk with Dubya! Perhaps this one? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The second paragraph ("Imperialism always involves the massive export of capital to foreign countries for the purpose of exploiting and dominating both their labor forces and their markets. Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism, represents the stage at which a country's consumers cannot buy all the products that have been produced, and additional markets must be sought after. The dominant feature of imperialism is the repatriation of invested capitalis current") is currently an unsourced wild claim that clashes with the broader definition of the first paragraph, and moreover simply repeats to 100% an extremely partisan (Leninism) view that is, contrary to what the first comment in this section states, far from being the 'most basic characteristic'. To restate the obvious: imperialism is not 'closely related' to industrialisiation, not least as it is not restricted to the 19th/20th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.4.250.108 (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I believe this should be further investigated and discussed within this page. The comparison between communist and capitalist imperial countries could also be further explored.

Comment
Leaving ethical considerations aside, it would be nice to see how the character of imperialism changed over time - references of Empires being built on a fit of absent mindedness might be appropriate, but let more qualified people decide that. It would also be helpful to elaborate on the differences in character of various colonial empires - The British Empire deserves a section of its own here, it would be the first empire that would come to mind when anyone mentions imperialism. I would like to see justifications - not justifications in that sense, but a motive behind empire building for each major colonial empire and how that character changed with time: from the empires of the New World to New Imperialism, at least. It would also be relevant(I think) to mention how the entire concept faded away giving rise to nation states of today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.242.128.130 (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Under US Imperialism, it states, and I quote; "The early United States expressed its opposition to Imperialism". Some may have, but the founding fathers, and here I include Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, and Adams, were all quoted as agreeing with, and promoting, imperialism from historical quotes and writing. Then, we go on to Jackson's taking of Florida, and the historical how and why. From this, the US was mostly founded on imperialism, and the statement quoted above would be a fallacy. Being such, imperialism in the US goes all the way back to a time before 1776, and not the late 1800's. I agree that qualified people should take a look at several things in this article, and the United States is one of them.--Craxd (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Wording?
I'm new to this, but early on it says "It's generally accepted that modern day colonialism is an expression of imperialism and cannot exist without the latter. The extent to which "informal" imperialism with no formal colonies is properly described as such remains a controversial topic among historians." Doesnt that show some degree of bias/ an opinion presented as a fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.185.195 (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

ONE DEFINITION OF IMPERIALISM

There is only one definition of Imperialism, that expounded on by Vladimir Lenin. Imperialism is State monopoly capitalism, the main superpower now being the United States. It began after free market capitalism gave way to Monopoly capitalism around the end of the 19th century. It is more pronounced today than ever and will be replaced by socialism and then communism, the highest most advanced stage of human society. Furthermore, colonialism is just a bourgeois term for free market capitalism.

This article is just a mish mash of pluralist and 'neutral' opinions. The Roman Empire was not an Imperialist system. It was a slave owning society preceding the feudal socio-ecomomic system. This clever pluralist interaction of different factors and definitions by Wikipedia "authors" only leaves one bleary eyed and agnostic and numbs people's minds to the truth of Marxism-Leninism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.239.250.100 (talk) 05:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

 * It isn't. The existence of neocolonialism is still disputed. This is made quite clear in the International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences on page 7232, saying "For some, [neocolonialism] is a virulent form of modern imperialism. For others, the absence of intent negates the political relationship. Neocolonialism remains a contested concept". Secondarily, the Roman Empire was an imperialist system. The definition of imperialism, provided by the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, is the "domination or control by one country or group of people over others". The Roman Empire fits under that (exampli gratia: the invasions of Judaea, Gallia, Germania, Africa, Aegyptus, Dacia, etc). You're confusing the concepts of Imperialism with Colonisation. Definitions must stay relevant. Ifly6 (talk) 05:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Humble link request
Could someone link Lewis Samuel Feuer to his wiki page, please and future thank you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.89.220.148 (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. All you have to do is add double brackets around the name of the article to "wikilink" to it:   . I do a "show preview" before I save to make sure the article actually exists (name of article will appear in red if article doesn't exist). Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Common use of the word imperialism
Currently, relying upon a single citation of a Swedish source (Magnusson, Lars (1991). Teorier om imperialism (in Swedish). Södertälje. p. 19. ISBN 91-550-3830-1.) the article asserts: "The word imperialism became common in the United Kingdom in the 1870s and was used with a negative connotation." A quick glance at the entry for imperialism, n 1. in the Oxford English Dictionary shows that the 1870s' time frame for this assertion, but not the negative connotation, is contradicted by the evidence of common usage, viz:

Etymology: < imperial adj. and n. + -ism suffix: after imperialist. 1. An imperial system of government; the rule of an emperor, esp. when despotic or arbitrary. 1858  ''Westm. Rev.'' Oct. 344  To lower the intellectual vigour of the nation,..to exhibit to the world how the waywardness of mind will yield beneath the compression of a stern resolution—these are the tasks set itself by Imperialism. 1861  C. H. Pearson Early & Middle Ages Eng. xxxiv,   Roman imperialism had divided the world into master and slave. 1861  G. Smith Irish Hist. 18   There appears to be in the Keltic race a strong tendency to what is called Imperialism. 1869  Times 15 Oct.,   Imperialism, or, indeed, any worse form of despotism. 1870  Daily News 8 Sept. 3   That this meeting begs to express its delight at the downfall of Imperialism in France, and the proclamation in lieu thereof of the Republic. 124.186.104.184 (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Islamic imperialism
no mention of the Islamic caliphate, which fits all of the traits of an colonial empire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.179.178 (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Map information?

The article contains this image, there is no information on the image page or the article page under the image on what the different colours are, who's empires these areas of land were within; Only "scramble for Africa" is written. In the article there is also no year mentioned, although 1913 is mentioned on the image page, but the colour's meanings as well as the year really should appear under the image in the article, otherwise the image is not very useful at all.  Carl wev   11:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Rewrite
Seriously, I think this article just needs to be rewritten. It is unfocused and makes no mention of a theoretical framework for understanding imperialism. I think we should organise an outline based on the different sections which lay claim to it, starting with a focus on: The production of an outline for this article would be fantastic so we can actually organise the thing, because its focus right now is completely variable between sections and it really shows the differences between the authors which have worked on it in the past. Ifly6 (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Political Science
 * Sociology
 * Colonialism

Capitalisation of Imperialism
The article uses variable capitalisation of imperialism. I feel that it should be lowercase in all forms unless starting a sentence.

For example, I mean:
 * British imperialism
 * For us, imperialism is the...
 * Imperialism led to [x]. However, by [y], imperialism and empire-building [blah].

Ifly6 (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Imperialism#Italy
imo, there should also be a section "Italy". --Neun-x (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Robert Michels (1910): Elemente zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Imperialismus in Italien => http://catalog.hathitrust.org

What's going on?
So, what's going on with the sudden flurry of edits by just-registered editors? The edits seem legit, but something's very fishy ... Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

 * I'm guessing this might be an unregistered class? I've informed the Education program here. Pinging the new accounts that have been editing here; could you perhaps shed some light on the situation?
 * ,,   Sunrise    (talk)  20:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I've replied to the note at WP:ENI. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Repeated manipulation of sourced material
I added material a while ago that has repeatedly been manipulated, it said a scholar describing the existence of progressive empires and regressive empires. Britain and ancient Rome were what he regarded as progressive empires, he regarded Nazi Germany as a regressive empire. That material was altered in the past, and I restored it. Just now I noticed that it was obnoxiously altered by removing any reference to Nazi Germany, and instead of saying Britain and ancient Rome as being what the scholar saw as progressive empires, that was replaced with the Portuguese Empire.

Sigh, Jesus Christ!

I'm tired of fixing this repeated vandalism so I've removed that material I added in the past. It's apparent that a very significant portion of editors on this article are immature people acting idiotically out of perhaps bias, or perhaps just to be a pain in the ass. The fact that other users here did not notice "British Empire" being changed to "Portuguese Empire" as being something that appeared to be a manipulation of the content, that is also highly disappointing.--174.88.218.170 (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

POV tone criticizing the topic
This article has a POV tone criticizing the topic that is very apparent in the intro by focusing above all on the criticisms of imperialism rather than on a NPOV definition of what imperialism is. Imperialism has indeed become a word of slander, however in history there were imperialist sentiments had positive connotations commonly in reference to spreading civilization and uplifting societies deemed to be backwards by the imperial power, such as the case of the Roman Empire or British Empire in India.

I am not posting this to either promote the idea of imperialism nor condemn it, I am posting this to address a concern that the article is not presenting the whole picture well. It is focusing too much on claims made in history condemning imperialism while not acknowledging the claims that have been made in history justifying it.--174.88.218.57 (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

 * Welcome to Wikipedia! :-) If you think that changes should be made to an article, the best approach is to start by fixing it yourself, using statements that can be cited to reliable sources. If anyone objects, they will undo your changes and then the issue can be discussed.  Sunrise    (talk)  22:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia rules WP:NPOV do not require editors to be neutral about imperialism. They require that all serious analytic viewpoints included in the article, in approximate proportion to their importance in the scholarly literature. So for there to be a problem that has to be important interpretation that got left out or seriously downplayed. User 174.88.218.57 needs to specify exactly what that Missing Interpretation is before he could tag the article has problematic. Rjensen (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As matter of fact most literature is negative about imperialism. Popular usage is pejorative and academics researching it criticizes it with same naturality an academic of slavery has little sympathy for that institution. Of course, there also are serious voices that proclaim certain benign effects of imperialism. Dentren  |  Ta lk  11:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Why is Britain listed twice on the powers list?
On the country list Britain is listed first, but then above the USA it is again listed, but this time under 'Great Britain.' Is there a specific reason for this? Or is it just an error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TC9078 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Imperialism and Colonialism
In 1920 Galsworthy wrote in In Chancery (p. 294 Wordworth Classics) "the Colonial disposition to own oneself ... is the paradoxical forerunner of Imperialism”. This must have had some clear and distinct meaning for him. I do not understand it and the first section of the article does not help. It may be worth working on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.113.15 (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Merger with Imperialism
Hi, I was recently editing the page Imperialism and I have come to realize that they are virtually the same thing and such research as I have conducted has not proven otherwise. Anyone against this idea or any reason why it has not happening already or if I am looking over some important factor? Thank you. --Jackery01 (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Imperialism is not just about military acquisition of territory
I was reading over this page about a year ago and it seems that there have been some massive changes to the page. A lot of the changes have begun to push an incorrect narrative of Imperialism, and omitted the fact that Imperialism is not simply about military acquisition of territory. Its about exerting political dominance on others through either through military force or diplomacy (and other soft power influences, such as trade, culture, religion, etc...). The active removal and omission of the so call soft power influences on the page needs to stop because it perpetrating an incorrect narrative that is leaving out half of the actual concept of imperialism.

This is from the UK's English definition of Imperialism from Oxford Dictionary. "A policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means."

This is from the US's definition of Imperialism from Oxford Dictionary. "A policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force."

Also there are 4 essays in 2 separate chapters of the book "American Compared: American History in International Perspective, Volume II: Since 1865" by Carl J. Guarneri that talk about the various forms of imperialism. The differences between Greek, Roman, British, and American imperialism. And how American imperialism largely differs from the more traditionally mainstream imperialism of the British Empire, and Romans. 69.228.32.133 (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Imperialism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511153707/http://porter.umdl.umich.edu/p/philamer/ to http://porter.umdl.umich.edu/p/philamer/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141008091712/http://www.canadiana.ca/citm/themes/pioneers/pioneers3_e.html to http://www.canadiana.ca/citm/themes/pioneers/pioneers3_e.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110512015502/http://www.polis.cam.ac.uk/contacts/staff/eperreausaussine/imperialism.pdf to http://www.polis.cam.ac.uk/contacts/staff/eperreausaussine/imperialism.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225004118/http://www.sam.gov.tr/perceptions/volume12/winter/winter-004-PERCEPTION%28mehmetakifokur%29%5B4%5D.pdf to http://www.sam.gov.tr/perceptions/volume12/winter/winter-004-PERCEPTION%28mehmetakifokur%29%5B4%5D.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Imperialism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060720214335/http://www.cfr.org/publication/7190/in_modern_imperialism_us_needs_to_walk_softly.html to http://www.cfr.org/publication/7190/in_modern_imperialism_us_needs_to_walk_softly.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Improving completeness of coverage

 * This article is almost exclusively focused on the last 500 years. Many important empires existed before 1500.
 * This article almost exclusively focuses on European empires. Non-Europeans also built many empires.

List of largest empires

I suggest covering: Akkadian Empire, Alexander the Great, Persian Empire, Athenian Empire, Roman Empire, Umayyad Caliphate, Mughal Empire, Timurid Empire, Mongol Empire, Qing Dynasty, Aztec Empire, Inca Empire, Bantu expansion, New Kingdom of Egypt, Songhai Empire, Khmer Empire, and Majapahit Empire. Jwray (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Modern imperialism
What about US imperialism after World War II in the form of client states? (2A00:23C7:CF0A:5A00:1C39:6426:FF89:E33E (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC))

Has it only been since 1945? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.167.70.17 (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Added USSR and Nazi Germany to the first paragraph of 'modern imperialist examples' since they're empires too
The first paragraph only mentioned USA and Britain. Seems like typical anglophobia to ONLY consider britain and USA. Either that, or it's shaped by present bias, which should have very little impact on history of the past. I included the USSR and Nazi Germany, because those empires rapidly expanded and forced millions into servitude as well. In the scope of modern empires, they are very notable. Impfireball (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that we should proceed at least from what countries call themselves. Britain called itself an "Empire." Nazi Germany, too. But the USA and the USSR are not. I think that you are wrong when you see some "anglophobia" here. 178.155.64.26 (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

"Never before had an Asian nation defeated a European power."
This line is included in the piece on the Empire of Japan in the section 'Imperialism by country'. This is simply untrue. There is no way, in the history of conflicts has this not happened before. Off the top of my head, I can name the First Anglo-Afghan War as an example. Which occurred in the 1840s– sixty years before the events of the Russo-Japanese War. That sentence should be removed. Iamdmonah (talk) 09:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Lead
I just shuffled the sentances of the lead to be more logical (chronologic; motives then methods).

Most importantly I have tried to make the first sentance clearer what imperialist expansionism does particularly, other than just being expansionist in the sense of an empreror calling them self titular ruler of all the lands. So adding the political and economic dimension to the blunt expansionism/conquest. For that purpose I put the methods at the end of the sentance and distinguished them between hard and soft power (as groups of methods from cannon boat politics, over cultural imperialism to exploitation like slavery and its racist mechanisms).

I hope this makes sense and works in the sentance.

PSI also exchanged the word gaining with "extending" and mentioning the motive of access Nsae Comp (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of Venezuela
The inclusion of Venezuela on this list of imperialist powers is very odd. Every other country on the list has arguably tried to expand economic and political control across the world, but Venezuela has not. Territorial disputes do not constitute imperialism, and neither does some right-wing conspiracy theory about Venezuela controlling the Bolivian and Ecuadorian governments (which is plainly false). Being a relatively large country with some regional influence is not the same as being an imperialist power. I don't want to just delete the Venezuela section because this would promote backlash, and it's important to show a range of views, but we should at least try to make the article less biased on this point.

FlibbaDibbaDoo (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

United States flag
Is there any particular reason the flag of the United States is shown prominently with no textbox to support its presence at the top of this page? I think the trolls are out again; suggest imminent removal. UnknownBrick22 (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Imperial powers in 1898
The map incorrectly colours Vancouver Island in blue as part of the USA when it was actually part of the Dominion of Canada in 1898 and should therefore be red for British Empire.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:2260:5330:2166:A2D9:1C89:CF5A (talk) 07:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Sources for Roman Imperialism
For editors looking to flesh out that section, a few sources:
 * Revell, Louise. Roman imperialism and local identities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
 * Webster, Jane, and Nicholas J. Cooper. Roman imperialism: post-colonial perspectives. University of Leicester, 1996.
 * Erskine, Andrew. Roman imperialism. Edinburgh University Press, 2010.
 * North, John A. "The development of Roman imperialism." The Journal of Roman Studies 71 (1981)

Firse source is in particular widely cited. Happy editing. ParthikS8 (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Nazi Germany
Why is Nazi Germany not part of the imperialism per country? Nazi Germany is the epitome of imperialism. Adrianolusius (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Too short
The imperialism section for Germany is far too short. The Berlin Conference and Prussia, for example, also come to mind on the subject. The section should be called Prussia / Germany. Adrianolusius (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Theories of Imperialism section
The Theories of Imperialism section appears quite odd to me for several reasons. First, there is very little emphasis on any theories of imperialism apart from Lenin and Hobson -- at minimum I think this should be expanded to include a short mention of Baran and Sweezy, Nkrumah, Frank, Emmanuel and Wallerstein given their enormous influence on more modern theories of empire.

Second, the mention of Rodney is commendable but it does not cover what made his theory of "capitalist imperialism" notable, as this passage could have been written by any other dependency theorist.

Third, the discussion of Joseph Schumpeter, Thorstein Veblen, and Norman Angell was an interesting read, but does not reflect their notability within imperialism studies. Schumpeter may warrant a mention, the other two's influence seems negligible (please correct me on this if I'm overlooking something, I am only reading the sources provided). The confusing thing about this paragraph is that it mixes discussion of Hobson's early work with his later theories (which Schumpeter, Veblen and Angell were closer to), giving the impression that they all opposed imperialism when they didn't -- they only opposed militarism, which they saw as completely separate from capitalism or imperialism.

Does anyone have any strong objections to changing this section?Mirkyton (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Imperial powers in 1800
Spain didn't hold control of Northern Morocco in 1800, that map is wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:2C40:12E4:9C35:6F52:3596:2CBB (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

the "colony" of Ireland
So the standard practice on here in articles having to do with colonialism and imperialism is to discuss Britain's historical relationship with Ireland in terms of a "colonial arrangement", and then make dubious comparisons between Ireland and Britain's overseas colonies. In this particular article readers are told that England's "imperial ambitions" began with the "Tudor conquest of Ireland", before shifting to Britain's colonization of India.

The problem of course is that Ireland was never a "colony" of England (or Britain) in any but a European context: it was a small territory that was annexed by its much larger neighbor, in the process of nation-state formation. By the 19th Century Ireland was fully incorporated into the UK and enjoyed full legal protections under the Crown and political representation in Westminster (something not even the 13 American colonies had), on equal footing with Wales, England and Scotland. Such a trajectory did not play out in India, in Africa, or indeed anywhere else outside of Europe.

There are a number of reliable sources describing the Ireland = India false equivalence as historically myopic and erroneous. Other than a small number of fringe historians, this perspective on Irish history is generally promoted by scholars in the field of "Irish literary criticism" (ie, not historians). But even the literary critics are cognizant of the fact that the historical consensus is against them (p. 103).Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

History
Conduct a research in your institution (WSU) and analyse the current rate of development and examine the role(if any)  that imperialism played in creating the modern problems this university community faces today. 102.66.149.132 (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Israel
Does Israel count as imperialism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.228.20.130 (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

 * No.
 * Israel has no overseas colonies and never had. It is located in some of the areas where the previous Jewish kingdoms lived (the kingdoms of Judah and Israel and the Hasmonean kingdom). In fact, many parts of its historical estate are under foreign rule. הלל. (talk) 08:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Intentional misattribution of 'hegemonism' to 'imperialism' (empiricism, good measuring)
It is easily assumable that the 3rd world, in its agenda to rob the developed nations of peace and of means of procreation, misattributes 'imperial', which means 'well and correctly measured' (e.g. SIS system of metric measurements) to 'hegemonic', which means 'to dominate'

Is there a particular orgabisation behind that malice, or does it originate from disgruntled 'violent revolutionaries'? PeterGL (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Eurocentrism
The value suffers from excessive Eurocentrism. There is no reference to the empires of the ancient world (Akkad, Assyria, Babylon, Greece, Rome, etc.), those of the Middle Ages (the Arabs, the Mongols), those of the New World (the Incas, the Maya, the Aztecs) and there are many more. The value needs a very serious correction. הלל. (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Not every empire is necessarily driven by imperialism. While historians normally apply the term "imperialism" to European colonial powers, I'm not so sure that they apply the term in the same meaning to all of the examples you gave (and I have serious doubts regarding Greece and the Maya). Rsk6400 (talk) 12:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Nation ? Subjects ?
Please take a look at WP:BRD and WP:EW. Would you please explain why you think that the expressions "nation" and "subjects" in the way you want to use them are helping to make the text clearer ? Rsk6400 (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

 * Because that's exactly what imperialism is. A single nation ruling over various smaller subjects. I would think this would be obvious to anyone editing this page. Dark4tune (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems you still didn't read or respect the guidelines I recommended. According to my ODE, a "subject" is "a member of a state other than its ruler", i.e. a "subject" is a person, and we are not talking about dominating persons, but about dominating whole areas and their populations. Finally, I doubt whether all imperialist states can be called "nations". Rsk6400 (talk) 06:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What makes your change even worse, is that "foreign subject" has a special, legal meaning, and "foreign subjects" are under the power of the laws of the country they live in even in the most anti-imperialistic of nations. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you make those rules up yourself? The guidelines you recommend don't provide any backing on any of the statements made in your previous reply. Links to reliable sources would be helpful. Dark4tune (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The guidelines tell us what to do in case of a disagreement. If you want to have a change made, you have to get consensus. You didn't answer to my points regarding English language. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Didn't answer to your points regarding English language? What does that even mean? Dark4tune (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The points I made about the ODE and the meaning of "(foreign) subject". Rsk6400 (talk) 08:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said, provide me a link to those exact meanings and we'll talk again. Dark4tune (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works, see WP:NOCONSENSUS. The ODE is the Oxford Dictionary of English, you can surely consult your own dictionary. I think this discussion has gone on long enough, feel free to seek dispute resolution, WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Ottomans?
I can see why people would suggest that the Ottomans were an Imperial power, but there are so many statements that are blatantly false, unsourced, and even worse, rely on Nationalist propaganda. The claim of “colonization” is unsourced and is a far reach from the supplanting settler-colonialism of the Americas, South Africa and Israel. The claim that the migration of the Serbs was due to persecution is also unsourced. 169.148.43.82 (talk) 11:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

 * You are very vague, the only point that might be not WP:TALKOFFTOPIC here is that about the migration of the Serbs. But that's a link to the detailed article, which has a lot of sources. Rsk6400 (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Doctrine of Discovery
Please link to the Doctrine of Discovery somewhere in the articles about imperialism and colonialism. I cannot add it as both pages are semi-protected. 76.26.49.188 (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Ottoman Turks
Ottoman Empire, Mughal Empire, etc. various imperial powers regarding Islamic culture should not be the primary attention within this article; This article is about the topic of imperialism.

Western civilization has to compose and complete this article for further references within our encyclopedia.

20:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)20:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)43.242.178.111 (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\20:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)20:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)~\\\\\\\\\\\

Benefits
There should be a section on the benefits of imperialism. The introduction of modern medicine and modern agriculture has caused a drastic decline in the level of disease in Africa and Asia. As a result the population of many areas has increased by a factor of 10 or 20 in much of the said zones. 2A00:23C7:9985:1701:5C94:1B62:3F46:D5A5 (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Smedley Butler
The last sentence, first paragraph, in Imperialis by Country \ United States is in contradiction to the Wikipedia article on Smedley Butler, and the citation supplied is dead. As far as I know, and it is backed up by the Wikipedia article on Smedley Butler, he was never "far left". 199.130.230.137 (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Imperialism by country \ Roman
I realize this is just a stub, but the Roman Republic was also imperialist. The phrase "Roman Empire" is usually defined as the Roman polity during the time frame when an emporer ruled. The Roman republic was imperialist for centuries. 199.130.230.137 (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Imperialism


text:
Eduardo Alquinta

Eduardo Fernando Alquinta Espinoza (January 22, 1945 – January 15, 2003), more commonly known by his friends and followers as "Gato" Alquinta, was a Chilean guitarist and vocalist from the folk/progressive rock group Los Jaivas, Chile's longest-surviving group. He died of a heart attack while on vacation in Coquimbo, Chile.

Early years
Son of Carlos Alquinta and Aurora Espinoza Rojas,, he began to devote time to music at the age of 12. He learned the songs of Atahualpa Yupanqui without his father noticing him. He met Claudio Parra at the Guillermo Rivera high school in Viña del Mar, with whom he shared his love of cinema. This closeness turned into friendship with the entire family of Claudio and Mario Mutis, another friend of the clan.

Beginnings in Music
By 1963, the year he began studying engineering at the Federico Santa María Technical University, along with Mario Mutis and the Parra members, they formed a tropical combo called The High & Bass that animated parties. In the group, he was the guitarist and one of the vocalists in the band. Later, he dropped out of engineering to study architecture, a career that he would share with Mario, and that he would not finish either. In 1968, he began to believe that the tropical music that the band performed was incompatible with the ideals that they were trying to convey to the public. For this reason, he traveled to several countries in America together with his wife, to search for new ideas and inspirations to establish a new musical component. Later, when he returned to Chile, he suggested to the band that they should be more original and be able to break with the established schemes to make their ideals known. The idea was well received, so they adopted the name of Los Jaivas in 1970. Before the appearance of their first official work, the studio album El volantín, from 1971, made the recordings that were later released in 2004 in a five-disc set called La Vorágine.

Los Jaivas
After the coup d'état in 1973, the entire band decides to flee to Argentina, where they continue with their musical career. Soon after, because of the repression of the military regime in Argentina, they had to leave for France. They settled there in 1977, in the city of Paris. From there, Los Jaivas experimented with music, through the use of imagination and inspirations. Alquinta declared on one occasion that the song Mira Niñita, was inspired while traveling by bus on Viana Street, so when they got to the Parra members, they made the song, being one of the most popular of the band. Later in 1981, Los Jaivas created their most famous and important album, Alturas de Machu Picchu, where several of their songs were inspired by the lyrical work of Pablo Neruda. Over the years, while Los Jaivas were innovating in various musical genres such as progressive rock, Latin American fusion and folklore, they were acquiring progressively more fame. Apart from being the band's guitarist and vocalist, Alquinta also dedicated himself to writing the lyrics for several famous band songs such as the aforementioned 'Mira Niñita', 'Pájaro Errante','Nubecita Blanca', 'Indio Hermano', among many others, which is why he became the best-known figure in the band. During an interview for Revista Vea in 1981, Alquinta declared that he was also dedicated to making musical instruments, such as zampoñas, trutrucas, flutes with reeds collected both in Chile and in Argentina and Bolivia. Additionally, he said that he considered himself some kind of mentholatum within the band because he constantly changed instruments.

Death
While on vacation with his family at the Mistral tourist complex, on La Herradura beach in Coquimbo, Gato Alquinta lost his balance on some rocks and fell into the water where he remained for several minutes. When he was pulled out of the water, he was unconscious, so he was transferred to the San Pablo de Coquimbo Hospital, but despite efforts to revive him, he died on January 15, 2003, at 6:45 p.m., at the age of 57 years old. After an autopsy by the Legal Medical Service, they determined that his cause of death was heart attack. More than five hundred thousand people attended his funeral in the streets of Santiago de Chile, while his name became one of the most iconic figures in Chilean music.

title: Eduardo Alquinta