The American Empire

[TheOneAndOnly]

Here's a thought:
I've read in many places that the American Revolution should more acurately be called the American Civil War (the 1st Civil War, that is). But maybe it should really be called a civil war within the British Empire. By this I mean the empire split in two and went in two different directions (both with imperial policies).
The 1st half, what became known as the British Empire consisted of Britain, Canadian Colonies, Australia, and the fledgling Indian Empire and various bits and bobs throughout the world (and later lots of Africa) and the 2nd half became the USA. Britain concentrated on expanding in Australia and india and ruling the ocean trade routes. Whereas america concentrated on colonizing ever westward (the Monroe doctrine I believe this was called), native american lands, mexican lands and later philipines, Hawaii and various pacific specks.
I guess this is (very) roughly analagous to the splitting of the Roman Empire. the western half (British Empire) died pretty early after the split, whereas the eastern half (USA) lasted in some form or another until the 15th century.
Also it seems the old constituents of the British Empire (Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) are ever more becoming client states of the American Empire. So maybe the British Empire never died at all, it just moved its capital to washington?
I'm not claiming to be the 1st person to have these thoughts. I was just wondering if you had any opinion on them.
PS For those Americans who get touchy at the mention of an "american empire", this is meant to be taken tongue-in-cheek. So don't be so serious.

Oh this link is what started me thinking
http://www.pattern.com/bennettj-anglosphereprimer.html

And for those who doubt Britain's subservience to USA
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...186508,00.html

[themuzicman]

I forget who said it, but someone said that the US are the worst imperialists in the world, because we give our colonies everything and demand almost nothing.

How can you revolt against that?

Michael

[JCA]

I guess I have always been amused when Americans talk about how they 'kicked the English out of the country".. had that been so, wouldn't have been many people left here.. and we would be calling it France-2 or something..


Yes, it was a civil war.. and as far as England was concerned at the time, those that came over here could have it. Who knew how much of it there was? It just didn't seem worthwhile to England to send over the troops it would have taken to take it all back.. but trust me, they could have.

Now, it's true.. we are an old nation.. and we recognise which side of the bread is buttered. Most of the English people of my generation know that England has pretty much had it's day.. we have no natural resources left except a litle coal and oil, and have pretty much become a "Tourist Country". Just as England expected people to fall in line behind her when she basically rules 70% of the world, the English understand that America will want the same.. and we know the writing on the wall.

England has done much to support the US, at great cost to herself I might add, and has been thankful for the help given back.. as there will ALWAYS be a stronger link between the US and the UK, than the rest of the world.. at least in our opinon


As for the split of the English people in comparison to the Church, I don't think it's too far of a stretch to see the similarities overall..


Love and Peace

:jca:

[Gilgaron]

I forget who said it, but someone said that the US are the worst imperialists in the world, because we give our colonies everything and demand almost nothing.

How can you revolt against that?

Michael

Muz is right; from the way I understand it, the US is a hegemon, while not being an empire because it does not (any more) set up colonies. Setting up independent governments that are friendly to you, like we did to Japan, Germany, and are trying to do in Iraq is the behavior of a hegemon, not an empire.

[TheOneAndOnly]

I admit the American Empire is different to probably all others before it, but it is still an Empire. It took the lands of the native americans (even the land promised to them), it took a vast chunk of mexico. And it annexed Hawaii and brainwashed the inhabitants to believe they have freedom. No US state has the freedom to leave the union (AFAIK). I think Prez Buchanan in 1860 denied any state the right of secession and the Civil War settled this once and for all. So even if Hawaiians wanted out of the union its a non-starter. What kind of freedom is that. Doesn't america also rule Peurto Rico?

http://www.hawaii-nation.org/

[Christianotaku]

yes but puerto rico had a chance to vote to become there own nation. The american goverment is to nice to its so called properties for it to be considered an empire...

[Bill Mutz]

Yes, Britain could well have won that war. The thing is, they had what they felt were bigger fish to fry at the time. The US will surely run out of steam eventually. They always do. I think that we are pretty much at the top of our wheel by now.

[Gilgaron]

I admit the American Empire is different to probably all others before it, but it is still an Empire. It took the lands of the native americans (even the land promised to them), it took a vast chunk of mexico. And it annexed Hawaii and brainwashed the inhabitants to believe they have freedom. No US state has the freedom to leave the union (AFAIK). I think Prez Buchanan in 1860 denied any state the right of secession and the Civil War settled this once and for all. So even if Hawaiians wanted out of the union its a non-starter. What kind of freedom is that. Doesn't america also rule Peurto Rico?

http://www.hawaii-nation.org/

Oh, I don't think anyone argues the US used to act in imperialistic ways. I thought the question was whether or not it is one now.

[Gilgaron]

Yes, Britain could well have won that war. The thing is, they had what they felt were bigger fish to fry at the time. The US will surely run out of steam eventually. They always do. I think that we are pretty much at the top of our wheel by now.

The US hegemony will continue for a while, I think. It is less unstable than empire is.

Since the US is not bogged down by colonies like past empires were, instead all that needs to be sustained for hegemony is economic and military strength. Our allies have militaries, but still depend upon US military support for those sorts of actions and won't be able to exceed our own for quite some time, assuming they wanted to invest the money. So far they have not, which is why the cold war left the US as hegemon to begin with; allies would rather pledge monetary support than soldiers.

Maintaining economic power might be more difficult to hold, but hegemony's collapse is easier on the state than empire's collapse is.

[NJon]

Another very old thread to reply to.


Anyway, I'd say the reason why the American Revolution was called the U.S.A.'s "first civil war" goes back to two points:

1. Though the colonies were composed of numerous European immigrants, English immigrants were still dominant among them. In many cases, you'd have people of native English blood whose families had been in the colonies for generations fighting the motherland (and often relatives).

2. The main reason, though, is the rift left between Whigs and Tories (rebels and loyalists, respectively). There was a lot of violence amongst colonists loyal to the Continental Congress, and those loyal to England. This too split apart families. For example, Ben Franklin's son was a loyalist. When Franklin heard that he was siding with England, he never spoke to him again. After the war, the son moved to England and never returned.