|
I agree with hidell, but i believe reflecting also has a connotation of time passing as the image
bounces of the reflection, the idea that things will come full circle eventually and in fact,
America will have its george III despite its very cries against it... Empire seems more at fault
than either Britain or America, terrible |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
By the early twentieth century, many American leaders certainly did see the US as potentially
replacing Britain as a major world power. At the very least, the US government wanted to get into
the imperial game--as did Japan--because Europe's aura of invincibility took a major hit during the
war. I do think that we can speak of Anglo-American imperialism, but in contrast to what is
suggested in this debate, this form of colonialism was often more bearable for those people being
colonized than French imperialism.
The British and the Americans were more inclined to accommodate local cultures and practices--so
long as they did not threaten their hold on power--than the French. In French colonies, forced
linguistic and cultural assimilation was a more rigorously applied policy than in most colonies
under Anglo rule. A good example is British rule in Lower Canada (formerly part of New France),
which had a majority Francophone and Roman Catholic population. After an initial, short period of
repression, the British allowed French-Canadians to keep their language and openly practice their
religion. In fact, many French-Canadian Catholic bishops were secretly pleased that they were under
British rule, since this way they were able to completely avoid the anti-clerical tendencies of the
French Revolution.
Moreover, the British and the Americans also tended to give up their colonial possessions earlier
than the French, and were more inclined to negotiating peaceful compromises with local leaders of
these fledgling nations. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
No. Britain was far more enlightened than its wayward offspring, America. The truth is that it was
partly British virtue which resulted in the American war of independence. The Americans wanted to
rapaciously steal land from the Indians in the West. Many of America's vaunted founding fathers had
a stake in it and expected to make a great deal of money from land speculation. But Britain forbade
it. Britain wanted to let the Indians keep their own lands. This is a large part of what motivated
the so-called freedom struggle. It was a struggle for freedom alright, freedom to oppress and to
tyrannize, just like the not dissimilar "freedom struggle" in Texas a century later. In that case
the Mexican government prohibited the owning of slaves. The Texans demanded the freedom to deny
other human beings their freedom and revolted. They've been revolting ever since. Just look at
George W. Bush.
Since then America has continued its policies uninterrupted for 250 years, victimizing the weak and
defenceless. Britain's former colonies, for the most part, retain affectionate ties to their former
imperial ruler. They voluntarily choose to be part of the Commonwealth, a community of former
members of the British Empire. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
28 Mar 2008 16:20
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
