Coercion and Negotiation
Introduced| English | Meaning |
|---|---|
| coercion/ˌkəʊˈɜːʃn/ | The use of force or threats to make someone act against their wishes. |
| negotiation/nɪˌɡəʊʃɪˈeɪʃn/ | Discussion aimed at reaching an agreement between parties with different interests. |
Two methods, named together
- Europeans established overseas empires and trade networks through coercion 强制 and negotiation 谈判.
- The CED names both in one clause, so neither is the whole story and each needs evidence.
- Which method was used where depended on relative power, on what was wanted, and on whether an existing state could refuse.
Select both methods the CED names.
Difficulty 2/5 · 140 coins + a small bonus on first completion today
Neither is the whole story, and each needs evidence.
Where negotiation happened
- Against a strong state with its own navy, army and courts, a European trading company negotiated for permission and paid for it.
- Treaties, licences, rents and gifts are the ordinary evidence of that relationship.
- So a trading post in Asia is often a contract, and it can be revoked.
A negotiated trading post is evidence that the local state was...
Difficulty 1/5 · 100 coins + a small bonus on first completion today
The method is a measurement of the relationship.
Where coercion happened
- Where an existing polity could not enforce a refusal, coercion was cheaper than agreement.
- The military technology of 1.6 is what made that calculation possible, and 1.8 records its consequences.
- So the same European actor could negotiate in one ocean and coerce in another within the same decade.
Coercion, negotiation, or European rivalry?
Sort each piece of evidence.
European expansion used the same method everywhere.
Difficulty 1/5 · 100 coins + a small bonus on first completion today
The same power negotiated in one ocean and coerced in another.
The same European power negotiated in one place and coerced in another. The CED names both methods in one clause, so an answer that treats expansion as uniformly violent — or uniformly commercial — has picked half of the sentence it is quoting.
A route was valuable partly because a ____ did not have it.
Difficulty 1/5 · 100 coins + a small bonus on first completion today
So overseas expansion turned into European rivalry.
Relations between European states
- The objective asks how and why trading networks and colonial expansion affected relations between and among European states.
- A route or a colony was valuable partly because a rival did not have it, so overseas expansion turned into European rivalry.
- So a war fought in Europe can have an overseas cause — a point the course returns to in units 3 and 5.
Select all the ordinary evidence of a negotiated relationship.
Difficulty 2/5 · 140 coins + a small bonus on first completion today
Bombardment is the evidence of the other method.
Naming the method is the analysis
- For any given post, colony or route: was it obtained by coercion or negotiation, and what does that tell you about local power?
- A negotiated arrangement is evidence that the local state was strong; a coerced one is evidence that it was not.
- So the method is a measurement of the relationship, which is far more useful than a list of possessions.
A company pays rent for a factory site under a local ruler's law in one ocean, and takes a harbour by bombardment in another. Reading the two together tells you less about European intentions than about which local state could enforce a refusal.
Europeans established overseas empires and trade networks through coercion and negotiation. Which method was used depended on whether a local state could enforce a refusal — so the method is a measurement of local power. Expansion also turned into rivalry among European states, giving European wars overseas causes.