How can you use this document to argue that imperialism (colonization) was one underlying cause of world war i

Imperialism is a type of advocacy of empire. Its name originated from the Latin word "imperium", which means to rule over large territories. Imperialism is "a policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means".[2] Imperialism has greatly shaped the contemporary world.[3] It has also allowed for the rapid spread of technologies and ideas. The term imperialism has been applied to Western (and Japanese) political and economic dominance especially in Asia and Africa in the 19th and 20th centuries. Its precise meaning continues to be debated by scholars. Some writers, such as Edward Said, use the term more broadly to describe any system of domination and subordination organised with an imperial center and a periphery.[4]

Imperialism is defined as "A policy of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy or military force."[5] Imperialism is particularly focused on the control that one group, often a state power, has on another group of people.[6] This is often through various forms of "othering" (see other) based on racial, religious, or cultural stereotypes. There are "formal" or "informal" imperialisms. "Formal imperialism" is defined as "physical control or full-fledged colonial rule".[6] "Informal imperialism" is less direct; however, it is still a powerful form of dominance.[6]

The definition of imperialism has not been finalized for centuries and was confusedly seen to represent the policies of major powers, or simply, general-purpose aggressiveness. Further on, some writers[who?] used the term imperialism, in slightly more discriminating fashion, to mean all kinds of domination or control by a group of people over another. To clear out this confusion about the definition of imperialism one could speak of "formal" and "informal" imperialism, the first meaning physical control or "full-fledged colonial rule" while the second implied less direct rule though still containing perceivable kinds of dominance.[6] Informal rule is generally less costly than taking over territories formally. This is because, with informal rule, the control is spread more subtly through technological superiority, enforcing land officials into large debts that cannot be repaid, ownership of private industries thus expanding the controlled area, or having countries agree to uneven trade agreements forcefully.[7]

It is mostly 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 remains a controversial topic amongst historians.[8] Both colonization and imperialism have been described by Tom Nairn and Paul James as early forms of globalization:

Even if a particular empire does not have a "global reach" as we would define it today, empires by their nature still tend to contribute to processes of globalization because of the way that imperial power tends to generate counter-power at its edge-lands and send out reverberations far beyond the territories of their immediate control.[9]

The word imperialism became common in Great Britain during the 1870s and was used with a negative connotation.[10] In Britain, the word had until then mostly been used to refer to the politics of Napoleon III in obtaining favorable public opinion in France through foreign military interventions

i try^$^