Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

America: A country or an idea?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
arch.buff View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606
  Quote arch.buff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: America: A country or an idea?
    Posted: 31-May-2006 at 18:37
Ok, we all know that througout history there have been tolerant and prosporeous empires and leaders, one such as Cyrus the Great first comes to mind, but there have been many more as well. My question is regarding the United States of America, it obviously has evolved and adapted over time since its founding but would we consider the formation of this country just as all the others or is this a special idea that a number of men bought into. It has been said that Rome when it first got its numerous population it was a populous of crooks and exiles from other parts of central Italy and that they all came together to start something great. This is probably just another folklore about Rome but in the case of the British and the forming of the US its seems this actually took place. Or on the other hand would we consider the US just like any other population of people that yearned for absolute freedom where the Govt. wasnt sole power and some of that power was actually given back to the people?
Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King.
Back to Top
Aura84 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 11-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote Aura84 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2006 at 18:48
Its hard to answer this question because the US is still "young", so we can't compare them to other empires. I honestly wouldn't consider the US as an Empire though.
Nam et ipsa scientia potestas es

Knowledge Is Power
Back to Top
arch.buff View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606
  Quote arch.buff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2006 at 19:06

Thats not what I was trying to say, although that brings up another interesting off-topic question, what would constitute an "Empire" in our day though?

But rather the founding of the country, and what it is based around. Was the US destined for greatness by its makeup and "ideas"?
Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King.
Back to Top
Aura84 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 11-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote Aura84 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2006 at 20:54
I think there is a correlation between freedom of speech/ideas and perhaps a long prosperous period (the height of an empire). In terms of the U.S, I think it all has to do with not only the ideas being expressed, but also the timing in which those ideas were expressed. In 1776, freedom was a hot topic that other nations soon took up. I probably didn't answer you question though.

Personally, I think there are two things that define an empire. Time and new ideas/methods.
Nam et ipsa scientia potestas es

Knowledge Is Power
Back to Top
arch.buff View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606
  Quote arch.buff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2006 at 21:03
No, you answered quite well. You actually touched on something I left out, timing. It seems to me the US was actually ahead of its time, in the aspect of freedom. The concepts that the forefathers put forth were totally backwards to europe at the time, and the same concepts and laws are the same we still live by today(of course in some cases with some fabrications, but not many)
Back to Top
aska_lankas View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 21-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 61
  Quote aska_lankas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 01:01
but they are not ahead of time in other aspects such as defence. and in defence i mean from itself not other countries. oh and the canadians.
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 02:53
The ability to express ideas and allow important stakeholders a say in how the country is run would, of course, give such a nation an advantage over nations which lacked those things. I think with any nation it is too easy to mythologise the past into some kind of great creation myth, if Australia were one day to rise to the status of a great power my descendents could similarly claim that their nation was like a new Rome, founded by crooks and misfits and brought to greatness.

The US enjoyed an unusually advantageous position of close proximity to a range of resources, inherited alot of up to date institutions and technology from Britain and also enjoyed a pleasant mix of isolation from European military conflicts while being receptive to European ideas and technological advances. Part of the US success can be ascribed to some of her early ideas and institutions, while due credit must also be given to her envious disposition after she gained independence.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 05:21
Originally posted by Aura84

In 1776, freedom was a hot topic that other nations soon took up.
 
Freedom was hardly a new idea, or even newly hot, in 1776. Take a look at the history of the Dutch and the Swiss and of course also the British. Consider the Jews in the time of the Maccabees as well as under the Romans. And those are only a few examples.
 
Agreeing with Constantine's post, I'd point out that the settlement of the united States is a unique example in history other than pre-history of a settlement expanding into territory that became more and more fertile and resource-rich as the expansion continued.
 
And it is of course simply a very large country. Any country that big is eventually going to be powerful, whatever its institutions.
 
 
Back to Top
Lord Ranulf View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 28-Mar-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 309
  Quote Lord Ranulf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 09:52
U wrote: 
 
Freedom was hardly a new idea, or even newly hot, in 1776. Take a look at the history of the Dutch and the Swiss and of course also the British. Consider the Jews in the time of the Maccabees as well as under the Romans. And those are only a few examples.
 
LR sends:
 
I would certainly agree with that.
 
U wrote:
 
I'd point out that the settlement of the united States is a unique example in history other than pre-history of a settlement expanding into territory that became more and more fertile and resource-rich as the expansion continued.
 
LR sends:
 
I can concur with this as well and would make the claim that it applied to the entire Western Hemisphere at large during the vast exploratory/colonialisation  age ca. late 15th century-forward.
 
but I would also pose that America's subsequent developement has also 'at times' encompassed an 'empire like attitude' as a result of the nationalistic expansion of it's position in the world. ....and it's identification of the same.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 13:18
Have you read Gore Vidal's Empire?
 
He makes much the same point, though he deplores the fact.
Back to Top
Lord Ranulf View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 28-Mar-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 309
  Quote Lord Ranulf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 13:36
Originally posted by gcle2003

Have you read Gore Vidal's Empire?
 
He makes much the same point, though he deplores the fact.
 
I have and he does indeed..good example of it in lit....here's an excerpt for those unfamiliar with it...........
 
.........................................................................................................
 

America and Empire

by Gore Vidal

The twentieth century produced a great deal of writing about American politics, much of it bewildered when new notions like empire started to sneak into nervous texts whose authors were not quite certain if empire could ever be an applicable word for the last best hope of earth.

The bidding then changed dramatically after World War Two, when Harry Truman armed us with nuclear weapons and gave us an icy sort of permanent war against Godless Atheistic communism, as personified by Joseph Stalin, standing in for Hitler, whom we had got rid of with rather more help than we liked to admit from the new world demon Stalin. How, why did Truman lock us all into a national security state, armed to the teeth? The simple story was dread of communism everywhere on the march, but those of us who had served in World War Two knew as well as our political leaders that the Soviet Union, as of 1950, was not going anywhere very soon: They had lost twenty million people. They wanted, touchingly, to be like us, with consumer goods and all the rest of it.





Purchase Robert Scheers New Book

Playing President

Playing President
My Relationships with Nixon, Carter, Bush I, Reagan, and Clinton--and How They Did Not Prepare Me for George W. Bush


What actually happened was tragic for the Russian people and their buffer states: Truman, guided by that brilliant lawyer Dean Acheson, was quite aware that by 1940 the world Depression of the early 30s had returned. The New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt had largely failed. What was to be done? FDR took a crash course in Keynesian economics. As a result, he invested $8 billion into re-arming the United States, in order to hold our own against the Fascist axis of Germany, Japan, Italy. To the astonishment of Roosevelts conservative political enemies, the U.S. suddenly had full employment for the work force and a military machine of the first rank with which we were able to defeat Fascism, and just about anyone else who defied us.

Truman and friends learned and never forgot an important lesson: It was through war and a militarized economy that we became prosperous with full employment. After victory in Europe and the Pacific, Truman himself began to play the war drums. Stalin was menacing Turkey and Greece (Acheson threw in nearby Italy, and why not France?). We must stop the rising Red tide, while acquiring that eras latest propaganda toy, a TV set. This wearisome background was well known to historians like William Appleman Williams, but hardly suspected by too many of the usual publicists of the American way of life.

Robert Scheer has had the good fortune to observe first-hand the last half-dozen Presidents, from Nixon to W. He has also had the perseverance as a journalist to insist that he be able to conduct one-on-one conversations with the odd sort of men who were playing (or trying to play) President. This makes for a fascinating immediacy in the book at hand, particularly when he is giving his protagonists a harder time than they had expected. Scheer has always suspected that he would be one of the last journalists able to use the print medium fully in the electronic age that had dawned around 1960.

Scheer makes a telling analysis of Nixon and his frozen smile, with the comment that despite being unquestionably the best prepared of all modern Presidents before assuming office, it was his indelibly awkward and secretive style that did him in. Scheer is impressed by this Presidents mind despite himself, as was Walter Lippmann, whom I once teased for supporting Nixon. Walter was serene: I only know, he said, if I had a difficult lawsuit on my hands, I would go to him as a lawyer. He presents you an entire case before your eyes: He is simply brilliant, unique in public life.

Print journalism is a challenge to the writers intelligence, as well as to that of his subject. Of course, few journalists and player Presidents are up to Scheer and Nixon. Yes, Nixon did much that was evil along the way (Cambodia, Watergate), but he usually managed to harm himself mosta form of good manners. He was primarily interested in foreign affairs and the opening up to China; dtente with the Soviets; these were significant achievements, and he had no strong domestic policies, which should have been a great relief for Us the People. No wartime tax breaks for cronies is quite enough for us to applaud him in other roles.

Presidents are trapped in history as well as in their own DNA codes. After Watergate, Nixon starred as Coriolanus for a while, but when he saw that this got him nowhere, he realized he was so steeped in blood that he could not turn back, so he went on as Macbeth, to our benefit at times. Scheer is not the first of our journalists to recognize how like classical players the Presidents tend to be if they have the right war or disaster to contend with. Scheer is generally good-humored about them, though Bush Is implacable self-love seems to rub him the wrong way; also, Reagans rambling does not get either of them very far, yet Scheer has grasped what few others have: Mrs. Reagans importance not only to her somewhat listless husband but to our country, where she seems to have understood before other politicians that the Cold War was getting us nowhere.



Edited by Lord Ranulf - 01-Jun-2006 at 13:39
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987
  Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 13:53
Originally posted by arch.buff

... It has been said that Rome when it first got its numerous population it was a populous of crooks and exiles from other parts of central Italy and that they all came together to start something great. This is probably just another folklore about Rome but in the case of the British and the forming of the US its seems this actually took place...


I once made this point, and this one lady was very offended, telling me that her family were noblemen from England that immigrated early .

And there is a kernel of truth in that. There was a sector of English nobility that moved to the U.S. and kept their higher social standing ever since.

Recently in the local news they described their descendents as a lost British community. This was describing people who have lived in Virginia for close to 500 years now :)

But this is an important point: the U.S. was the independent continuation of a British colony that had existed for over 100 years, more or less, at the time of independence. As far as I know, and I know that I am weak on this area, I have heard that the North American colonies were given a lot of autonomy. George III attempted to change this, and it was his inovative desire to profit more from the colonies and put it in a more subservient place that started the American Revolution. If this is true--and I still need people helping me here--then the American Revolution was a conservative movement to retain rights and liberties at stake, not to gain new ones.

But as I said, my knowledge on this era is not to strong, so I will thank any one who corrects this.

Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 14:21
I believe the US colonies paid about 1/10 the tax per capita of the British and having just funded the French/Indian War there was a British policy to get more money from the US to pay for its defence. However I think this was more an excuse than than the real cause.
 
At the end money was behind everything. It was a middle/merchant class revolt and a captalist one at that. To put it bluntly America could make more money ruling themselves and people with power knew this. Arguably you could call it a British mistake to allow this situation to happen. Never let the most powerful people in a colony have more financial interests in the colony than the mother country.
 
I think we still have a picture of the US revolution. That is the US of now. I really don't think America, the people ruling the country or the values have changed much. It was a corperate take over then, the onl;y thing that changed was the board of directors and it's the same now.
 
 


Edited by Paul - 01-Jun-2006 at 14:22
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 19:35
Originally posted by Paul

I believe the US colonies paid about 1/10 the tax per capita of the British and having just funded the French/Indian War there was a British policy to get more money from the US to pay for its defence. However I think this was more an excuse than than the real cause.
 
At the end money was behind everything. It was a middle/merchant class revolt and a captalist one at that. To put it bluntly America could make more money ruling themselves and people with power knew this. Arguably you could call it a British mistake to allow this situation to happen. Never let the most powerful people in a colony have more financial interests in the colony than the mother country.
 
I think we still have a picture of the US revolution. That is the US of now. I really don't think America, the people ruling the country or the values have changed much. It was a corperate take over then, the onl;y thing that changed was the board of directors and it's the same now.
 
 
 
Not acurate.  There was precious little specie in the North American economy in 1760-1775 (not that it was recognized or understood by London) to satisfy British needs for revenue to pay for the War for Empire.
 
The incomplete and misunderstood picture of North America in the last third of the 18th century is part of the mishandling of the colonies by Britain, and the resulting conflict that caused the separation of the English colonies from Britain.
 
You are trying to equate the economic (and political) situation of the colonies with modern concepts of civic responsibility and values, and that dog won't hunt.  The view of colonial interests as twentieth century capitalists is a misinformed and convenient way of dismissing the 18th century concern with natural rights, and of the rights of Englishmen to be considered by the King.
 
 


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 02-Jun-2006 at 08:26
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 19:54
Natural rights and freedom in those days, was freeom to trade and freedom from feudalism and serfdom, eg capitalism. Britain was formost in these values in the world and so it's US colonists. The English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution had already happened in England, it was only natural a similarly ideological revolt would follow in a colony. See Locke's 2nd Treatise of Civil Government, the basis of the US constitution for what natural rights mean. [A man mixes his labour with nature and so owns the product, which he has right to sell. He also has the right buy the labour of other men]..... In other words, rebel and get rich.

Edited by Paul - 01-Jun-2006 at 19:59
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 20:04
Paul:
 
You still misunderstand the reality of the North American economy, and of the lack of specie to satisfy the minions of Lord North.
 
As with some garbled understanding of "ideological revolt," and of John Locke, you are still equating a 20th century capitalist understanding of political economy with the sense of the rights of man of the 18th century.  A grave mistake!  Unlike modern life, it was not always about the money.
 
 
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jun-2006 at 06:06
 
Originally posted by hugoestr

  If this is true--and I still need people helping me here--then the American Revolution was a conservative movement to retain rights and liberties at stake, not to gain new ones.

 
It always claimed to be a conservative movement, aimed at preserving ancient rights. In fact all English 'revolutionary' movements claimed to be aimed at restoring ancient rights.
 
Remember John Ball:
"When Adam delved, and Eve span,
Who was then the gentleman?"
 
More directly, "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
 
The signers of the Declaration did not claim to be advancing anything new, merely restoring the natural rights that had been infringed by the King. (Much the same as the Dutch had done with the Abjuration of 1581:
 
"...whereas God did not create the people slaves to their prince, to obey his commands, whether right or wrong, but rather the prince for the sake of the subjects (without which he could be no prince), to govern them according to equity, to love and support them as a father his children or a shepherd his flock, and even at the hazard of life to defend and preserve them.
And when he does not behave thus, but, on the contrary, oppresses them, seeking opportunities to infringe their ancient customs and privileges, exacting from them slavish compliance, then he is no longer a prince, but a tyrant, and the subjects are to consider him in no other view.")
 
Back to Top
Lord Ranulf View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 28-Mar-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 309
  Quote Lord Ranulf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jun-2006 at 13:06
Originally posted by gcle2003

 
Originally posted by hugoestr

  If this is true--and I still need people helping me here--then the American Revolution was a conservative movement to retain rights and liberties at stake, not to gain new ones.

 
It always claimed to be a conservative movement, aimed at preserving ancient rights. In fact all English 'revolutionary' movements claimed to be aimed at restoring ancient rights.
 
Remember John Ball:
"When Adam delved, and Eve span,
Who was then the gentleman?"
 
More directly, "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
 
The signers of the Declaration did not claim to be advancing anything new, merely restoring the natural rights that had been infringed by the King. (Much the same as the Dutch had done with the Abjuration of 1581:
 
"...whereas God did not create the people slaves to their prince, to obey his commands, whether right or wrong, but rather the prince for the sake of the subjects (without which he could be no prince), to govern them according to equity, to love and support them as a father his children or a shepherd his flock, and even at the hazard of life to defend and preserve them.
And when he does not behave thus, but, on the contrary, oppresses them, seeking opportunities to infringe their ancient customs and privileges, exacting from them slavish compliance, then he is no longer a prince, but a tyrant, and the subjects are to consider him in no other view.")
 
-----------------------------------------------------------
I concur that early on......... it was conservative in concept... partialy based on the foundation and rights of English citizens at large... and that belief for a great while was held by the colonialists and their leaders ...in many cases right up to first shots being exchanged..but revolutionary in the same sense.... I believe as those who had fought earlier in the rift between King Charles  I and the parliement...
 
......................................................................
......................................................................
 
but in relationship to the original question posed....it is indeed a country.....ie. a geo-physical region found in the North American continent of the western hemisphere of the planet..........and it's subsequent historical and political devlopement aided by the immigrants (whose myriad past  political and cultural experiences became present).... who formed it .......have become represenitive of an 'idea'........ie. democracy......personal liberties ......capitalism etc.....obviously not in it's original formation..... but in it's subsequent developement.


Edited by Lord Ranulf - 02-Jun-2006 at 13:13
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jun-2006 at 17:57

Originally posted by hugoestr

Originally posted by arch.buff

... It has been said that Rome when it first got its numerous population it was a populous of crooks and exiles from other parts of central Italy and that they all came together to start something great. This is probably just another folklore about Rome but in the case of the British and the forming of the US its seems this actually took place...


I once made this point, and this one lady was very offended, telling me that her family were noblemen from England that immigrated early .

And there is a kernel of truth in that. There was a sector of English nobility that moved to the U.S. and kept their higher social standing ever since.

Recently in the local news they described their descendents as a lost British community. This was describing people who have lived in Virginia for close to 500 years now :)

But this is an important point: the U.S. was the independent continuation of a British colony that had existed for over 100 years, more or less, at the time of independence. As far as I know, and I know that I am weak on this area, I have heard that the North American colonies were given a lot of autonomy. George III attempted to change this, and it was his inovative desire to profit more from the colonies and put it in a more subservient place that started the American Revolution. If this is true--and I still need people helping me here--then the American Revolution was a conservative movement to retain rights and liberties at stake, not to gain new ones.

But as I said, my knowledge on this era is not to strong, so I will thank any one who corrects this.


    

Somewhat true - but King George wasn't trying to profit from the colonies so much as recoup the expenses incurred from its defence.

For most of its history, the American colonies acted as a sort of pressure release for British society; malcontents of all sorts (notably the Puritans) had the alternative to go there, getting them out of the hair of British society. Prior to the French-Indian Wars, taxes in the colonies were very low - and more importantly, what taxes there were, were hardly ever collected. Once the defence of America began to incur costs, taxes began to be enforced and this caused resentment among the smugglers, slave-traders, and other groups who made up the economic classes in the US. They started causing problems in the colonies, the British responded with repression, and the discontents responded by popularizing revolt through a carrot and stick approach (on the one hand, making promises like settlement beyond the Appalachians, representation in Parliament, etc, and on the other hand things like Franklin's "Join or Die" posters and the beatings, killings, and public humiliation of Loyalists).
Back to Top
R_AK47 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 25-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 468
  Quote R_AK47 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jun-2006 at 18:06
America today is an empire.  Look at how widesrpead the power of the USA is.  It is everywhere across the globe.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.082 seconds.