Once they understood it, this would have been a tremendously contentious question in 1889. There was broad agreement (in Europe and North America) that the “first world countries” were the better nations of Europe, plus the United States (and maybe Canada, which tended to be an afterthought to everyone except the Canadians). But which were the better nations of Europe? The United Kingdom, France, and Germany were on pretty much everyone’s list, but agreement dropped off rapidly after that. The situation was particularly problematic for large countries, such as Austria-Hungary and Russia, which considered themselves the equal of anyone but were not always widely accepted as making the cut.
Of course, in reality there were countries outside of Europe and North America that performed extremely well by most measures. The perception, however, was that civilization’s home was Europe, with the acknowledgment that the United States also had certain achievements.
I think you have no right, from the state of war, to demand any concession of territory from America… You have not been able to carry it into the enemy’s territory, notwithstanding your military success, and now undoubted military superiority, and have not even cleared your own territory on the point of attack. You cannot on any principle of equality in negotiation claim a cession of territory except in exchange for other advantages which you have in your power… Then if this reasoning be true, why stipulate for the uti possidetis? You can get no territory: indeed, the state of your military operations, however creditable, does not entitle you to demand any.
Militarily a draw- morally a victory for the USA, given the David & Goliath circumstances.
The USA gained some Spanish territory. The only real losers were the Indians.
In 1889 the United Kingdom had some perhaps the most advanced cities on earth but also had an impoverished and underdeveloped periphery in much of Ireland. The “last witch burned in Ireland” case occurred in 1895. You also had the Knock apparition in 1879.
Can anyone chime in about European colonial cities in Africa during the era? From what I understand, at one time Mogadishu, Lagos, Luanda, Nairobi, and the like were quite pleasant by European/North American standards.
So if the USA lost, what concessions were they forced to give the British during peace negotiations? The peace treaty simply ratified the status quo ante and reaffirmed the prewar boundaries.
OK, the US didn’t annex Canada. Neither did the British re-establish control over the rebellious colonies.
A lot of different things would be going on in this period. Southern Africa had some established European-held cities like Cape Town and Luanda. Africa’s east coast would be dotted with Arab influenced trading cities dating to Medieval times. In West Africa, mostly there would be slave trading outposts and small forts with little reach. And as the scramble for Africa didn’t happen until the late 1800’s, most interior cities would be under African control. Some of these were quite nice and impressed European explorers. But it you are looking for classic colonialism, you probably need to wait till the early 20th century.
They in fact did walk in. After the Opium Wars, China was forced to grant concessions to European powers, who responded by reproducing little Europes in the International Settlements in Shanghai. They hated and disdained every single aspect of life in China and would have laughed in your face if you had suggested than any of those things existed.
Religion isn’t in and of itself a sign a place is impoverished and underdeveloped but apparitions aren’t all that common in first world communities/cities are they?
Developed and developing seem like they also are too broad. Chile, China and Somalia are all developing nations but they are all at totally different stages of development and influence in the world.
I thought low, middle and high income as well as things like the HDI index were used to rate nations now. Even that is kindof broad. The cutoff to ‘high income’ status is something like 14k per capita, about where many latin american nations are. But they are not near the state of development as western Europe, north America or Japan.
As far as 125 years ago, I wonder what the HDI would have been of western europe or north america.
Here is the GDP per capita from 1913, as measured by Angus Madddison
Australia 5715
United States 5301
Britain 5150
Canada 4447
Netherlands 4049
Argentina 3797
France 3485
Ireland 2736
Chile 2653
Spain 2255
Mexico 1732
Japan 1385
Peru 1037
South Korea 893
Sri Lanka 850
Brazil 811
China 552
And yes, Argentina is the only major country that I know of that dropped from an upper income country to a middle income country.
