Damn, that was a pleasure to read. Thank you.

How on earth do you keep raising the bar? Well done.

Brilliant, Bill. Thank you.

Bill - As Steve said above, "How do you keep raising the bar"? I hope one day to read all your thoughts in book form. Now that's a collection I would treasure.

Continued success.

Terry

Bill, You have become another 'must read' along the lines of den Beste, Reynolds, and Lileks.

Keep up the excellent work!

Another really outstanding essay and yes, a pleasure to read.

I also enjoyed P.J. O'Rourke's Eat the Rich, but I'm sure you've also read Parliament of Whores?

I'd be fascinated by your take on our system of government as it is now practiced. I spend some time posting on the newsgroups where I have a signature line I found somewhere on the 'net:

The Constitution may not be the greatest work ever set to paper,
but it beats what the Government is using these days.

Keep it up, Bill. I know how much time it takes to craft essays like this. While I'd like to see a new one every day, please don't burn yourself out.

One a week will do! :-)

This is how blogging becomes an artform. That's three of a kind, please continue.

Thanks for another brilliant piece!

Sent the link to your blog to another dozen people.

MonkeyPants
Imperial Falconer

Bill Whittle for President!!

Nuff said!

Great work, Bill.

You're making it really hard for the rest of us to write anything with meaning. :-)

Well done, Bill.

As a life-long car-nut, I have owned a number of vintage vehicles. One was a "T-Bucket Roadster". To the uninitiated, this is the quintessental American "Hot-Rod", of "77 Sunset Strip", and "Beach Blanket Bingo" fame. For the five years, or so that I enthusiatically drove the thing everywhere, it became a study in what you write about in this essay. Perhaps, along with Jazz, Rock N'Roll, and yes, McDonalds, nothing is more American than a "hot-rod". Not a refined, gleaming, hi-performance work of art, like the sports cars of Europe, but a glitzy exercise in wretched excess, born of castaway parts, and good for little more than showing off.

A T-Bucket, sitting next to a gleaming Porsche, is the rolling embodiment of some sentiments in your article. Having actually parked my Bucket next to such cars at rallys, and shows, guess which drew the larger crowds?..the most smiles?

What I discovered that I had was a smile machine. No matter where I went, no matter what age, gender, race, color, or creed, the universal reaction to that car was a smile. Children beamed, giggled, and pointed. Adults became child-like, and gave the thumbs-up, or shouted compliments. These weren't car nuts, but everyday people on everyday streets. The universal appeal of this gaudy, overdone in-your-face contraption was what it symbolized..what it represented. Freedom to choose, freedom to create, freedom to be silly, have fun, make noise, and relish in the obvious wretched excess, with no need of a noble purpose. Free as well from pretentiousness, snobbery, wealth, or image. The freedom of "everyman". The freedom to be an American.

Hubcap

I may not have time to read every blog on my 'roll every day, but I'll be damned if I'll ever miss out on YOURS again!

Well written, enjoyably read! I, too, look forward to the next...and the next....

Thank you.

Bill - I don't think you have it in you to scribe an uninteresting essay. You consistently hit quite a high mark. Not only does what you say ring true, it seems to resonate across the blogspace. Quite an accomplishment. Your empire essay is much like waves of oscillation in the deep ocean. The energy is passed along to others; the peak shows you sparkling vistas at and the throughs provoke self-examination.

You hit the mark dead-on with your statements regarding empire and hegemony. I have often countered those who state that America strives to be in Empire with my belief that America is actually a non-empire.

I state this in the belief that, as you pointed out, empires of often the result of conquest and occupation, with the empire imposing its laws on the subject peoples. Nothing could be further from the truth, in regards to America. We state our beliefs, particularly when it comes to human rights and fairness in the marketplace, but we do not write the laws and impose them against the will of the foreign populace. There have often been statements made by those of somewhat diminished capacities the Canada and Mexico should become our 51st and 52nd states. This raises the ire of the citizens of those countries. This is the basis of the claims for American imperialism. To the contrary, we try to get others to willingly follow our lead.

As an example, think about what occurred in the Philippines and Panama. When we received suzerainty over the Philippines, we did not make them a vassal state; rather, we appointed a governor, and granted them independence shortly after their request at the end of WWII. In Panama, we returned land and the operation of the Canal to the people of Panama. In both cases, no rebellion was necessary. We and they sat down, discussed the needs of the country, and granted the territory back to the local people. Hardly the act of a hegemon.

We are in fact the light and hope many peoples of the world. What other people of the world snipe at themselves, pointing out their own shortcomings for all to see. We see it as a critique of our shortcomings. What others in the world see is a nation where the standard is so high that they can barely imagine rising so far. I liken it to us saying that we still have thousands of feet yet to ascend; they see the mountain they still have yet to climb. That is one of the reasons so many immigrants come to America each year. The hope of improving things for themselves and their children.

When I was a Recruiter for the Army, I once was talking to a young kid about joining. Since he was 17, I had also to speak to his parents. His father had come to America 25 years previously, coming up from Guatemala and working on Miramar Naval Air Station as a gardener. After learning English, he brought his wife up, formed his own company (1 pickup truck and three other workers) and began doing lawn care throughout the San Diego area. Twenty years later, in 1988 when I met him, he had 400 employees, and lived in one of the best areas of North San Diego county. He said his oldest had gone into the Navy for four years, this son was going into the Army, and his youngest would go into one of the services when he was old enough. He felt his family had something to pay back. The boy I was working with took a job that gave him a lot of college money, but simply because he wanted to have the money on his own, not rely on his parents.

In my talks with many migrants, of which California has more than a few, the common response was they came here to have a better life. Whether their family remains where they came from or if they came here also, they willingly and eagerly came here.

I can't think of an Empire in which this ever occurred.

Bill:

I stumbled onto your essay from a Rachel Lucas link; all I can say is that you have given voice to what many of us have stumbled to articulate over the past several years. Gracias!

Dusty

Bill,

I appreciate your writing, but I would like to suggest that world reaction to us as bullies and imperialists is a subtle and complex thing. I certainly agree that envy, and the sense of not being able to compete with us are very strong themes, but I believe that there is more going on. I think Europe has the view that ancient China used have about the rest of the world: it's filled with barbarians who wouldn't know civilization if bit them. The Europeans (continental) can't understand why we're ahead of them, or simply think that we are barbaric gun happy nuts who believe in capital punishment and solve their social problems with jails. And our whole emphasis on business confuses them. They are certain that it is simply the pursuit of money: so few have them have started a business or worked in a really vital one they can't image the idea of work being satisfying. The truth is that our cultures have diverged so much in the last hundred years that they don't have a clue about us.

Speaking of not having a clue "The Arab Street" certainly doesn't. They know about the streets paved with gold, and would like to get a part of it, but they are told by state/religion controlled press that Christian world has been robbing them for centuries. (The fact that the Islamic world spent 1000+ conquering countries and forcing religious conversion seems to be forgotten.) The Arab Street is an uniformed mob. While we must recognize the danger from it, I think its opion is worthless. The demagogic political and religious leaders on the other hand deserve some of your attention.

Hope this is useful in sharpening your already fine pen.

Gawd! Yet another excellent essay. A hearty toast to you!

This essay rambles, and it's too wordy. I can't endorse it as enthusiastically as the others have done.

One point worth noting: Americans do NOT come home every time. There are a lot of American troops billeted around the world. Germany and S. Korea host particularly large contingents, and those countries are growing restive. I think we ought to get all our troops out of Europe, at the least.

It would be good to remember that billeting of British troops helped to trigger the American Revolution.

Hey Bill - Says what I've always wanted to say,
but didn't have the wit to do it.

If the President of the USA ever sees your blog, he should immediately offer you serious sums of money to write his speeches.

No, maybe not. When people found out who wrote the speeches, many of them would elect you instead of him.

IMO, there is a note of hegemony in USA culture. It is, again IMO, inevitable regardless of whether or not it is intentional. You believe the USA to be superior to everywhere else. There are stacks of replies with the same view. The USA is undeniably the most powerful nation in the world today. Put the two together and some degree of hegemony is inevitable. The USA isn't just an 800lb gorilla - it's King Kong. It can't help influencing almost everywhere.

There is a lot that is crude and vulgar in USA culture. There's also a lot that is elegant, erudite and refined. The USA is a big place - there's a lot of everything there. "Crude and vulgar" has mass market appeal, so it's better for export. The Romans had gladitorial circuses, the USA has Jerry Springer et alia. Having said that, some of the export sucesses from the USA are far from crude and vulgar. Consider Frasier, for example. I place that on a par with Yes, Minister.

There are a couple of things that grate on me;

The hypocrisy which is sadly commonplace. Both here and on Rachel's blog, I can see negative comments about "Europeans" from people who object to negative comments about "Americans". What's the difference?

The arrogance in claiming all good things to be American (and ignoring South America, of course). Concepts such as freedom of speech, a fair trial, etc, did not originate with the USA. For example, read a translation of the Magna Carta, focusing on the sections pertaining to criminal justice. Then read the USA Bill of Rights, focusing on the sections pertaining to criminal justice. The latter is clearly very strongly based on the former. Some key parts of the USA Bill of Rights are lifted directly from the Magna Carta, verbatim if you allow for the changes in English over time. The Magna Carta become law above all law in England in 1215. That's a bit earlier than the USA Bill of Rights. What the USA did, and did very well, was to start a country from scratch and build those principles in at the foundation - but they didn't create those principles and those principles are not American. I wasn't completely joking when I said that the best way for Britain to remain true to its old principles would be to become a state of the USA. Nor is the adherence to those principles as perfect in the USA as it is made out to be - numerous actions by various USA governments are arguably in breach of the USA Constitution, and not just in modern times.

The "we did it all" principle affects a great deal, even if it isn't wholly intentional. To give a topical example of this...to future generations, The Lord of the Rings will be an American creation. It's the King Kong thing I referred to, above.

It often is intentional and carried to the point of historical revisionism. Watch "U-571" for a good example...and then find out what actually happened, if you can. In reality, the USA was not involved at all at any stage.

The USA is not the Perfect Society depicted in blogdom and Hollywood. It has one very strong positive attribute, though - it works very well. That proves there's a lot right with it.

Hubcap...you appear to contradict yourself by spending most of your post describing the image of a hot-rod and then saying it's freedom from image.

Sapper Mike...there's a lot of people in Britain whose ancestors came here for a better life, though admittedly most of them came after Britain ceased to be an empire. So there's an Empire people willingly and eagerly came to for a better life. People are still coming here for a better life - and they're travelling through most of Europe to do so, often risking death in the process.

Personally, I think it's a damn good thing. IMO, the hybrid vigour caused by large-scale immigration was one of the factors that allowed Britain to successfully weather the transition from the largest empire the world has ever known to a very small country, while fighting two world wars.

I don't know that the Magna Carta is a good reference document. It quite clearly states that it is in a response to the disagreement between barons and the crown, and nearly all the rights granted therein are granted only to the landed gentry. I would particularly reference the part about nobody being imprisoned or detained on the word of a woman unless it concerns her husband's murder. Also the frequent references to disposition of chattels.

The principle of universal equality was certainly not in the Magna Carta. It classified the people into several separate groups, i.e. barons, knights, freemen, chattels, women. Admittedly the US did not solve the slavery issue for 100 years or so, but it certainly came much closer than the Magna Carta.

Let's see...rights from the Constitution/Bill of Rights...
speech: US yes Magna Carta no.
establishment clause: US yes, Magna Carta no (except the Church of England)
free press: US yes Magna Carta no.
Right to bear arms: more or less a wash.
Quartering of troops: US yes, Magna Carta no.
Self-incrimination: US yes, Magna Carta no.
Reservation of rights not mentioned: US yes, Magna Carta no.
Free interstate commerce: US yes, Magna Carta no.
Confirmation of Judicial appointments: US yes, Magna Carta explicitly no (although they must "know the law". It could be argued that any really egregious appointment would trigger the baronial revolt specifically allowed by the MC, but that could just as easily be because the Judge wanted to apply the law to Freemen, Chattels, and Barons too equally, since, after all, only the Barons could initiate the revolt.)

The Magna Carta is not the foundation of anything except another several centuries of chattel serfdom. It was imposed by the barons, and they were its beneficiaries. It is the founding document of an Oligarchy, not a Republic or a Constitutional Monarchy.

In particular, free speech, free press, freedom of (and from) religion, freedom from quarter, and the checks on judicial appointments were by and large explicit departures from the British conditions of the time.

Dear Angilion,

I expected this critism and would like to respond. Strangely, I realize that what we have here in microcosm reflects the lerger world around us.

This essay is not an uprovoked attack on Europeans. It is a defense of the United States. If you feel it is unjustified and harsh, may I point you to The Guardian for the start of your tour of the kind of things being said about us?

Furthermore, we have a large cadre of elitists in the US media pretty much mumbling and nodding at all of this. I am not willing to let such poisonous remarks go past me without a fight.

I did not get to see the Roman circuses. I have seen Jerry Springer, and I get as many laughs out of it as I do from Benny Hill -- which is to say, quite a few guilty ones. Benny Hill has had me on the floor.

Regarding the Magna Carta, I agree completely that it was a breakthough in the revolt against the authority of the King. My admittedly limited understanding of it, however, reminds me that it took absolute power form the kings, and distributed it to DUKES, EARLS AND OTHER NOBLES. The full force of the Magna Carter was in effect at the time of the American Revolution. Our Founding Fathers apparently felt that it's lack of limitations on Government, particularly a Bill of Rights, did not go nearly far enough. I maintain that the US Constitution properly remains the fist national document to put the power of government in the hands of the People. That said, no one can deny, least of all me, that the United States is the philosophical child of Great Britian. To say it owes it a debt in this regard is to say you owe your parents a debt -- it's inadequate. You owe them your very existence, as we do the United Kingdom.

In re-reading this esay, I cannot find any reference to any passages that suggest "we did it all." If you can point them out tome, I will retract them and apologize.

I can understand the British reaction to the American movie "U-571." For those unaware of the controversy, the actual stealing of the enigma device was accomplished by British commandos, not American. Many Brits accused us of stealing their history.

I do not know a great deal about the circumstances of that British raid. I do now a little more about the capture at sea of U-505, which now rests at the Chicage Museum of Science and Industry. I believe, but do not know for certain, that this was the first time a U-boat was taken at sea. Many of the elements of "U-571" reflect the actions of those Americans.(http://www.msichicago.org/exhibit/U505/)

I don't recall seeing "based on a true story" in the promotion of "U-571." But you have a good point here -- the enigma raid was not done by Americans, it was done by The British. However, this begs the question, which I passed on very briefly in the essay, of the Tenth Commandment: if this was such a great story and vital piece of history, why did Great Britian not make the movie herself? Das Boot, the absolutely brilliant German U-boat film, did very well overseas. Could it have something to do with the very depressing reports we read that 80% of British school children are ASHAMED of their own history?

I am half British. My grandfather was knighted in 1957. You have no idea how painful that statistic is to me. In addition, when I say 'European' I am almost always mentally excluding the Brits, whose leader has been stalwart in our defense against a great internal tide running against us. (For this, I and many, many other Americans are and shall forever be extremely grateful.)

That 80% statistic is ENORMOUSLY worrisome. I started this weblog to do my very small part to try and make sure that that number is never reached over here.

Angilion, you raise fine points in a reasonable, fair manner. It is a pleasure to have you here. Hopefully this clarifies my position a little; if not, I would be happy to respectfully discuss it further with you.

Well said!

I just made the most amazing chocolate & banana cheesecake. Anybody for a slice??

First, in response to Alan Sullivan's comment: Yes, we do stay in some places. Sometimes for our own self-interest, but in the places you have mentioned, and many others, we've stayed to protect others. It was more the nature of the billeting of British troops that riled the colonists, rather than their presence.

Now, on to the meat of things.

I was going to wait until the first of the new year to post this idea somewhere (no blog of my own, yet), but the presence of your 'Empire' essay is too timely to put it off any longer.

The USA is the most powerful nation on the planet, in any sense one wishes to measure such things. We have influence that reaches both wide and deep. We may not be a force for direct conquest and occupation, save in a few necessary places, but we have enormous, potent forces at our disposal.

Given those things, and our stance as a nation striving to be moral, to be ethical, even in the wilderness state of international relations, is it not our responsibility, our duty, to bring the blessings of liberty to -everyone-? There are many around the world who simply cannot throw off the chains placed upon them by their leaders. Does it not fall to us to break those, to destroy those governemts who grind their own people down?

I ask not here for equivalencies between the USA and such places as Iraq, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Cuba, North Korea, China, etc. They're disingenuous at best. There -are- places in the world where the only word that can apply to the practices of their leaders is 'evil', and we should no longer hesitate to use that word. Moral relativism makes such horrors acceptable.

I do not suggest that we immediately invade and rebuild all of these places, and others. What I do suggest is that we should look at this as a problem to be solved over a century, perhaps more. We cannot extend these things by bankrupting ourselves. That we pick and choose our battles carefully, and work towards that end. That we destroy, piece by piece, the structures that have been allowed to flourish that create such amounts of human misery. Some of these battles and destructions will be military, others economic, still others cultural. Many will incorporate aspects of all three fronts.

Should we not strive to extend opportunity and freedom to everyone, around the world? If given the chance, some - or many - might choose not to take advantage of them, but should they be allowed to take away the chances of others to take hold of the dream we offer?

This will not be cheap, or quick, or painless. But if we are determined to strike at those who have chosen to be our enemies, and I pray that we are - we should be determined to bring chances and hope to those who have none. Not to bankroll their avarice, but to let them take their futures into their own hands.

What a terrific essay. I'll be back regularly. However, there is one fact in there I find quite disturbing - YOU WENT SWIMMING IN THE CORAL SEA!!! What are you nuts? Glad you made it back in one piece.

Like multiple people have said... Bill's work is of such quality, writing Fiskings seems almost inadequate. Great job!

But I do have one question, and I wish that you'd put the answer in "Empire Redux." HOW can Europeans eat Mcdonald's and watch Baywatch, yet agree with their elites that America is like a drunken cowboy? Constant investigation and simple observation both reveal that most Europeans do not trust or like the American government's policies against certain Arab nations, and certainly don't like their Israel policy. Their elites thusly keep their powers- remember, Europe is a democracy, although obviously not a perfect one- and the criticism continues. Bill, your points as to why America isn't an empire were bang on: but you still haven't answered the question, why does Europe despise America when they should be thanking the USA on bended knee? Canadians are constantly reminded that the Dutch think we're the greatest people on Earth: why shouldn't they? We freed them from the Nazis. So why don't the French, who were saved by a far greater power that could have conceivably just left Europe to Hitler and kept on being a master power, like America very much at all? Why did Du Gaulle rip America apart, which set French- American relations back 400 years? THAT is the question I would like to see answered... it's a hard one, but I'm sure you can do it if it can be done. :)

Trevalyan:

The short answer is that Canada is easy for Europeans to like, because we have nothing that they envy. The French in particular have spent the last three centuries telling themselves that they are the founders & proprietors of la civilisation, a word they invented; & from the 18th century until the middle of the 20th, 'the Great Powers' meant the European powers almost exclusively. America took away their global pre-eminence; America holds the place in the sun that most Europeans still, in their heart of hearts, believe is rightfully theirs. They cannot appreciate what America gives them, because they are consumed with envy of what America makes for itself. Canada is still a second-rate power compared to Britain, France, or Germany. (Even if we didn't starve our military to the point of extinction, this would still be true.) They do not envy us or fear us.

When you regard yourself as the lord of the earth, you can be gracious & charming as you accept gifts from your inferiors. But when someone gives you such gifts as prove that you are their inferior, you suffer a blow to your self-conceit for which you may never forgive them.

Very similar to Victor Davis Hanson's A Funny Sort of Empire.

Fucking beautiful. Seriously. I'm sending this to people I know. Keep writing, because you're a shining beacon.

Author Author

Excellent work. You should write Presidential speeches.

Absolutely brilliant.Thank you.

Loved the piece. But you forgot another great example of American non-Imperialism: the Mexican War. In it, we invaded our neighbor, took over the whole place (Halls of Montezuma and all), then gave it back (90+%) except for the part we then paid for. No other country in the history of the world can claim anything similar.

I am going to go all over the place, so let me say Thank You now: ignore the rest if you want.

"...the US Constitution properly remains the fist national document to put the power of government in the hands of the People." Yes, and that is perhaps a large part of why we are not an Empire. There is always the 10% mentioned by Lenin who want control at any price, the 10% who will go along, and the 80% who hope the others will eventually do something good. The US was the first to give the 80% some actual power, and they want to be home rather than trying to dominate others. Even the multi-nationals so hated by many almost always put even top management in "local" hands.

Yes, we are far from perfect - but we have come far in our two-and-a-third centuries. I do hope we will remember that it does take time, eg I think we will have to maintain a presence in Afghanistan until the national government can withstand a coalition of any two "warlord" types. This is not to say we must impose a government, though it may appear so because it has always been a region more than a nation and the regions have seldom cooperated. On the other hand, note that I put "warlord" in quotes. A few months ago, I read an interview with one man who has been branded as such: he was grateful as could be that the Taliban and their predecessors were out, wanted to go back to being a leader for his people rather than their general, but was in no hurry to send someone to Kabul. He wants, no, NEEDS, time to rebuild a thirty-year-old army into farmers and artisans: to that extent he supports whatever happens in Kabul - as long as the US reigns in extremists. Yes, he wants his voice heard in the capital - but is not yet ready. He trusts the US - I hope we do well by him.

And yes, we still have troops in other places. In some, it may at first blush seem anachronistic - Germany, for example, which has forgotten that less than a generation ago there was well-founded that if our "trip-wire" troops pulled out Eastern tanks would roll in the next day. Japan, which knows where China's missiles are aimed. South Korea, much the same. These and others do not want our troops, yet are terrified we will actually recall them. And in none of these cases are we an occupying power. Even in Cuba we pay rent on Guantanomo, if the legal position is perhaps murky.

Well done, Sir - very well done!

Perhaps the verbal support from afar after 9 - 11 was because we were seen as "Victims" as this, of course, fits well into so many themes beloved in certain intellectual circles.

There is something in the American character, in our ethos as a people which rejects this status and our immediate collective American response is to fight back. Whatever we Americans are, it is not victims.

Why is this, do you think?

I can really appreciate the references you made to those who helped you to learn how to think, as opposed to what to think. I read Carl Sagan's Dragons of Eden while I was serving in the Air Force during the last days of the cold war. While I never agreed with his politics, Sagan was a man who compeled you to examnine a subject deeply. I read alot of Asimov, Heinlin, as well as as much history as I could. The comparisons you make between the optimism of American movies and the dark futile tones of European films are well made. We strive to make ourselves better, closer to the ideal heros of our myths. The rest of the world seems to believe that what is, will always be, and that change is futile.

Thanks for your thoughtful article, I'm very glad that I stopped by.

An interesting footnote about the U-571 "controversy" is that there were _two_ Enigma devices captured by the Allies during World War II; one by the British, and one by the Americans. The U-Boat captured by Americans is presently on public display in Chicago.

Of the two, the British capture was more important, because it took place earlier. Nevertheless, it seems interesting that there is a number of British people who firmly believe that there never was a second device.

Who is wrong? Who is being lied to?

So sweetly lucid, it brought tears to my eyes, thanks

Trevalyn will serve as an excellent example of a problem. He believes that Europeans should thank the USA on bended knees. He is simply expressing a common sentiment.

Consider what that means - Europeans should regard the USA as God, or at least as a symbol of God on Earth with a divine right to rule, like a medeival King or Queen.

Perhaps they didn't mean that we should all go that far. Perhaps regarding the USA as a serf regarded their Lord and Lady would be enough.

Do you really have to wonder why such towering condescension puts people's backs up?

It's the "we did it all" thing again. The USA was not the only country fighting the Axis powers, you know. If it hadn't been for Britain and the Soviet Union, there wouldn't have been a war for the USA to enter late and claim all the credit for winning.

Come here and talk to people who lived through the Blitz, then tell them it was of no importance because it happened before the USA joined the war and the USA was the only country fighting the Axis powers, right? Go and talk to people who lived through years of Nazi oppression before the USA got involved in the war, and tell them the same. Go find the relatives of the millions of people who died fighting the Axis powers and who were *not* from the USA, and tell them that their father, their husband, their grandfather, those people did not die, or even fight, because it was the USA alone that fought the Axis powers.

Kneel to you as if you were God? Kiss my arse, you callous, arrogant wannabee tyrant.

"I don't know that the Magna Carta is a good reference document. It quite clearly states that it is in a response to the disagreement between barons and the crown, and nearly all the rights granted therein are granted only to the landed gentry."

The rights granted in the Magna Carta are for everyone who was not a slave (or serf, which was effectively much the same thing). They were not granted only to the landed gentry.

"It classified the people into several separate groups, i.e. barons, knights, freemen, chattels, women"

I'm sure it's normal to pretend that women had a lower status than chattels, but that doesn't make it true. "Freemen" included women who were free just as much as it included men who were free. It's only in recent years that "man" has become sex-specific. The original meaning of "man" was explicitly sex-neutral. It meant "person".

There are references specficially to women in the Magna Carta. These establish certain inalienable rights for women, such as the right to own property and land, etc. Which women had before, anyway. The point of the Magna Carta was to establish them above all law.

The Magna Carta did not establish more centuries of serfdom. It established two key principles - inalienable rights and a law above the ruler.

You might like to note that I did not say that the Magna Carta was the same as the Constitution of the USA, which is the strawman you were fighting.

I said that the Magna Carta was *an* example proving that the concepts stridently proclaimed to have been invented by the USA were not.

"This essay is not an uprovoked attack on Europeans. It is a defense of the United States. If you feel it is unjustified and harsh, may I point you to The Guardian for the start of your tour of the kind of things being said about us?"

I'm disappointed to see that line of argument from you. I expected better, much better.

Two wrongs do not make a right. That's true even at an individual level, but you are not working on an individual level here. You are working on a group level - all Europeans and all citizens of the USA.

I could do what you have done. It's not difficult to find some citizens of the USA who are prejudiced against Europeans and point at them to deflect any criticism of a POV that Europe is superior to the USA. I wouldn't, because I consider that type of behaviour to be profoundly wrong. It promotes prejudice. "Some of are prejudiced against , so prejudice against is justifiable". Then switch the groups around and repeat. You give only a wave in that direction rather than marching down it, but even the wave is a disappointing sign.

I'm so disappointed that I'm not going to reply to the rest of your reply straight. I'm going to have a nice frothy bubblebath first instead.

Besides, it was not a defence of the USA. It's a claim that the USA is better than everywhere else, especially Europe.

Well, the U-505 (the one in Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry) was captured by a carrier group that forced it to surface. There were no commando teams involved, and it was a total surprise to the US command (the commander of the carrier, Admiral Daniel Gallery, told his group that he wanted to do it, but never notified his commanders about his intentions). I've read his account of it, but I don't remember whether they captured the code machine off of it. I know they were able to recover a number of code books and such.

Also, the FIRST Enigma machine captured in the war was by the _POLES_. Locals in occupyed Poland managed to steal one, then smuggle it out to Britain. Credit where credit is due, eh? :)

Just a quick list of some of the things in the Magna Carta:

A fair trial by a jury of the accused's peers.

Punishment in keeping with the severity of the crime and not allowing cruel punishments, nor those that remove a person's ability to make a living afterwards.

Security against unreasonable seizure of assets, arrest, etc.

Note that these explictly applied to all free people...just like they did in the Bill of Rights of the USA. If anyone really cares, I'll quote sections from the Magna Carta along with the corresponding Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Note that the Magna Carta is written in Latin, so pick your translation carefully (or, preferably, make your own).

You might also want to look at the English Bill of Rights, 1689 and the Tolerance Act, also 1689. The latter is about freedom of religion.

The revolt of the British colonies in America was partially justified on the basis of British law at the time. The British government, it was argued, was *not* following British law in its treatment of the colonies, who were therefore entitled to declare independence. The same law has been used in Australia quite recently (1971), to form the Principality of Hutt River Province. The status of that country is still undefined, though it claimed independence from Australia in 1971. I get the impression that the Australian authorities are ignoring the issue because it's too thorny and not really worth the trouble.

My point, as I have explicitly stated before, is to show that the USA did not create the concepts generally claimed to be "American" and portrayed as being invented by the USA. What it did with those concepts was to make them the foundation of a country rather than something added long after the country came into existance and to enforce them more strongly. The bluntly unequivocal wording is a joy to behold. As one famous free speech supporter said, "No law means no law. What else can it mean?"

A challenge for the people here:

Is there anything good that you do *not* see as being American?

Now try to pretend that you're not from the USA, and try to see how you'd feel if all the good done anywhere else is appropriated by a country *with the power and influence to make that appropriation stick*

I think that some of what is going on with European and other fear of American "imperialism", fear of what we will do with our great power is really projection. They know what they would do had they such power, because they know what they have done when they had such power, or even fractions of such power.

The greatest thing George Washington did for his country, and for the world, is that he "went home". He had a substantial fraction of a continent under his power at the end of the Revolution, and he walked away from it. This was unfathomable to Europeans at the time, and it still seems to be.

It's not that the US has never had any imperial tendencies, but our moves in that direction have usually been to check the growth of other empires. (To Hawaiians who resent the US takeover, I have asked if they really would rather be a colony of a still imperial Japan.) And we have done some nasty things in that vein (counter to an above post, we brutally quelled an insurrection in the Philippines after we took them from the Spanish empire). But still, our overall behavior in this regard has been vastly different from real empires.

Angilian, Perhaps "image conscious" would have been the better phrase to use for clarity. Hot-rods most definately have an image. Part of it is the absence, for the most part, of any need to project the image in a pretentious manner.

My sister, and her husband spent two years in the UK on job assignments. The reports I received were how the Brits rather matter of factly took credit for the victory in Europe. The Yanks arrived late, and contributed little. Apparently, a provincial attitude can cut both ways. I see little significance in such an attitude by anyone. I only wish that the Brits hadn't seen fit to bang their proof marks into every available surface of our fine, lend-lease small arms. Stamping "NOT ENGLISH MADE" into the sides of them appeared to satisfy the standard British military pecksniffery, and cleared things up for any other country who might import them to our satisfaction as well.

Hubcap

I'm glad to see someone mentioning the Poles and their role in cracking the Nazi codes. Time for a point here - people were fighting the Nazis 15 years before the USA joined the war, and their work was crucial. Perhaps everyone in the USA should thank them on bended knees, Trevalyn, like a serf to the King?

However, Dave's understanding of events is a little inaccurate.

An Enigma device was not captured by Poles in occupied Poland. Poles in unoccupied Poland made replicas of early Enigma devices, the prototypes.

Polish mathematicians working *before* the Nazi invasion of Poland, as early as 1928, collaborated with a traitor in the German cryptography group in 1932. Three Polish mathematicians were trying to crack the Enigma encoding right from the start, which gave them an advantage. Having a tame traitor must have helped a lot. I think it's time he was thanked. Many thanks to Hans-Thilo Schmidt. If he hadn't given lots of classified information to those Poles, it's unlikely that anyone could have cracked the later, far more sophisticated, Enigma devices quickly enough. The Poles had got nowhere in 4 years against the early, far simpler Enigma devices before Hans-Thilo Schmidt gave them the necessary information. They spent 11 years on the work, always at least one step behind the Nazis. They got as far as having crude electromechanical devices built to speed up calculations, "bomba". Thankfully, they were astute enough to realise that a Nazi invasion of Poland was imminent and got their work out to Britain and the genuises at Bletchley Park. IIRC, it took Turing a day to design a machine 10 times more powerful than a bomba. They built programmable electronic computers at Bletchly park, well before the Mark 1 or ENIAC...and then destroyed all the work at the end of WW2, leaving the whole field of computing essentially to the USA. N.B. I'm not suggesting that USA inventors built on the work at Bletchly Park without crediting it. I am suggesting that the British overnment made a serious error in judgement when they killed all work in the field of computing from Bletchly Park and declared it to be Secret Knowledge, not to be told to anyone. Actually, I'm stating it explicitly - they screwed up badly, IMO.

Angilion,

Something is driving this fury of yours that is not in the words written here, at least not by me.

Your entire thrust of the past several e-mails seems to be that we steal credit for everything good in the world. I do not see anywhere where I made that statement, nor have I seen it written in the comments.

Your attack on Trevalyn rabid pro-Americanism seesm to lose a little steam when you realize (if I am correct on this,) that Trevalyn is a Canadian who has also written critically of us in other threads.

You say you are disappointed that I point out things said in The Guardian, The Observer, Fisk, Pinter, and a host of other leading British critics, saying that by responding to their arguments, 'two wrongs don't make a right.'

Sir, that is patently nonsense. It is our OBLIGATION to respond to slander like that, and I will continue to do so.

Regarding America's 'late' entry into the war, I will say, in the words of another unremembered writer, that we were late to your wars the same way a policeman is late to the scene of a crime. This nation was founded specificaly as a response to endless European wars. Thomas Jefferson was particularly vehement on this point, and felt that if we did not isolate ourselves against the endless bloody conflicts that have raged over the European continent since men took pen to parchment, then we would be bled white and eventually destroyed.

This is a democracy, and at the beginning of WW2 there were very large numbers of Germans and other immigrants that wanted nothing to do with yet another fight brought on by the elite Old-Chap diplomats of the Old World.

Do us the courtesy of remembering the lend-lease program, which was damn near illegal, and provided the destroyers and convoy support that kept the sea lanes open. Any reading of Churchill's biographies will tell you that in his opinion, this kept Britain from falling. These were done as an ostensibly neutral country, out of respect and admiration for our British cousins.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, I am half British; my grandfather is was knighted as a member of the Order of the British Empire. I do not need that pedigree to love and admire the British. I am a pilot, too, and there is no place in time or space I would have rather been than in a Spitfire or a Hurricane defending the British isles.

With that said, uou might want to carefully examine the level and tone that has been coming from certain elements of your country this past year or two. Morons, cowboys, idiots --- people who steal their wealth from starving Africans; people who never really invented anything worthwhile, just took a European idea and marketed it better in our vulgar, money grubbing way --- this is, in fact, the core of your Magna Carta argument.

We percieve the actions of July 4th, 1776 to be a break in history -- and that attitude and self-confidence is what has made us successful and kept us free.

Where on EARTH did anyone here write that only Americans died during WW2 and other conflicts. Who said -- show me where -- we wrote that we won WW2 on our own? What DOES gall us from Europeans is simply this:

Go to the various military cemetaries throughout Europe and count the American headstones there. Realize that these are only a fraction of the American kids who never had a chance to grow up because they died IN EUROPE fighting beside your country. Now come to the United States and show me comparable cemetaries where French and Germans and Italians died on our soil to keep US free.

You can't do it.

We can handle criticism. We don't call Tony Blair 'a poodle' and 'a lapdog' for standing by an ally -- YOUR country does. As a nation that has fought and died beside you in two World Wars and spent untold treasure preventing a third, we find this PROFOUNDLY disgusting and disgraceful.

The capture of U-505 took place on June 4, 1944. The reason why it isn't referred to much in connection with the Enigma codes is because it was so late.

The film wasn't called "U-505", was it? It wasn't about the capture of U-505, was it?

There are other U-boat captures between the key capture of U-571 and the end of the war. For example, the capture of the communications gear from U-559 in 1942. Some British soldiers deliberately stayed in a sinking submarine, handing out the equipment. Two of them drowned doing so when the sub sank as they handed up the last piece.

It's unfortunate you regarded my remarks as condescending, Angilion, so let me clarify. The bravery of Britain and the Soviet Union in fighting Hitler is certainly not regarded with anything short of honour in North America. However, I maintain that Britain would also have LOST to Hitler if the United States took the hands-off, "Tyrants will be Tyrants," approach to global politics that seemingly dominates European thought now. And the Soviet Union would have lost, with equal valour. AFTER the war, America maintained their war footing in order to prevent the Soviets from finishing the job Hitler started. The elite crew of the European Union repays our generosity with contempt and derision. And we damned well KNOW the reason they wish to maintain the dictatorships of Iraq and Iran is for OIL. Not the sovereignty of nation states, but because they have massive contracts to buy cheap oil from those illegitimate governments. The stunning hypocrisy of their accusations about "blood for oil" rankles worst when I remember this. Certainly it rankles when young Iranian students are fighting their regime, while Europe coddles it!

I'm not asking for lordship over Europe: my statement meant that extreme gratitude would not be out of place in exchange for the vital AMERICAN aid in the defense of Europe against the armies of the Nazis, and then the Soviets. At the very least, we don't expect our allies to be denounced as lapdogs! Is America a perfect jewel: no it isn't, and when I see something I don't like, I'll call the American government on it. But it's a DAMNED sight better than the duplicitous, spineless governments that dominate Europe, and the Du Gaulles of this world who seem delighted to believe that they freed Europe without the help of the American "cowboys." It's like "Idiots Redux" when Europe claims that Saddam would never ever use chemical weapons, or attempt to destroy Israel with nukes, or that he's not a threat. The same thing that happened with Hitler, except the names and technologies are all different.

You can't spend money on deterring tyrants from slaughtering their neighbours? Fine. You want to buy cheap oil from said megalomaniac tyrants? Knock yourself out. But DON'T go posing like enlightened scholars and brave freedom fighters when everyone knows that your actions are taken out of the most base self- interest! And certainly don't sneer at military prowess when it's been all that's kept you safe for the past 60 years! Let Europe chew on THAT for a while... then I'll think about according it a bit more respect.

That was another great post in response to Angilion, Bill. I was gonna write back, but I can't write like that, especially in short order.

Another thing, Anglion, in response to your post at 0956 and to others who have not mentioned a dang thing about the Cold War:

What if America had not come to save the United Kingdom and Western Europe during WWII? Besides many more Europeans on both side dying, the continent and British Isles (even with our supply of materiel to Britain) would have been taken by the Nazis. Ok, how would that be different then the part of Europe that was eventually run by the Communists? Not a whole lot, I don't think, though I can see comments coming about this. Nazis vs. Commies. Not a lot of fun to live under either "system" of government.

So, back to the Cold War. America would have had to take the same stand as we did against the Soviets and their empire, if the Nazi's had the same power (which they would have had). It took major military spending over many years, posting of American soldiers, sailors, and airmen all over the world and 2 hot wars with losses of over 100,000 Americans to keep Soviet rule from spreading.

Yet, we had long-haired (well, and short-haired too) Europeans making a big stink about old Ronnie approving the setup of tactical missiles to counter the Soviet SS-20's. That is a major lack of gratitude. I wonder how they feel now that they can talk to former Soviet subjects and see some of the mess left behind in Russia itself and the former satellite countries. But, President Reagan was not a Bill Clinton or George W. (the way he is turning out). He actually stood for his principles (and I'm not saying I agree with all of them. The basing of tactical missiles to counter the SS-20's and the initiation of missile-defense research ("Star Wars") were the last straws for the Soviets. They could not outspend Ronnie on their military, and not have a total s__thole for an economy.

So, it ended up being Ronald Reagan and lots and lots of Mechanical and Electrical engineers that won the Cold War, when it comes down to it, along with the soldiers of course.

The thing is, this would have had to happen if we had stayed out of WWII, just a different Boss, same as the old Boss. You would have heard just as much Western European criticism of American Imperialism then too, just from a different newspaper - the 3rd Reich Daily.

So, yeah they should thank us, but we don't expect that, Anglicon. We just ignore the comments about American unilateral action, just as we did during the Cold War. I don't expect the European to understand until they are subjects of a totalitarian regime. At that point, I guess they may shut up, cause they have to.

The saving grace of the USA is the ability to take the best from a document, an environment or a government and adopt it for our constitutional use. While the definition of hegemony may be accurate it has not been adopted for our constitutional use. To me the capability of controlling is the difference between We and the European nations. To whit: the position of being the strongest and most powerful and therefore capable of controlling others.”

Few foreign possessions have been maintained and these few were by the preference of the controlled.

I'm a little late to the party but here's my two cents worth.

Regarding so-called American Imperialism/Hegemony, it's non-existent as Bill so eloquently pointed out. Furthermore, those who hurl the accusation are actually self-refuting. Considering how they cozy upto or remain silent about real tyrants, their epithets fall flat. If we truly were global masters, or had pretensions to being so, they wouldn't say a word.

As to Angilion's resentment of the "they should thank us on bended knee" I agree. No one owes me any gratitude, I wasn't alive then and had absolutely no part in the Victory of WWII. I helped out with the Cold War, but I did it for my own reasons and expect no gratitude. Besides, if gratitude has to be asked for then it's not worth having.

It should be remembered that relations between nations are very in-the-moment sort of things. There's alot of what have you done for me lately there.

For a different perspective, if you are an American, just imagine what it would be like if France considered us ingrates because we didn't thank them in perpituity for their assistance during the War for Independence. {Vive LaFayette!!}

Like Bill stated I don't see where "we did it all" is even implied. Maybe Angilion has encountered this attitude elsewhere and is bringing it into this discussion. How far back are we to trace the geneaology of modern governance? Romans, Greeks, the code of Hammurabii?

It might be helpful to keep in mind that our accusers are mostly socialists, or at the very least fellow-travellers. America is practically incomprehensible from that perspective. The welfare state aside, we don't want elite control over our lives. Our history, and the myths that are based on it, are very liberty-centric. One of our main tenets is do what you want as long as it doesn't infringe on others. This tenet is not strictly adhered to, of course, but it is a guiding principle. Strong suspicion of concentrated power, regardless of the noble rhetoric justifying it, has been America's strongest bulwark against the modern world's worker's paradise experiment.

To hubcap: Rock on brother:)

Bill: I first read you on Rachel's blog re 2nd Ammendment. That was remarkable. This is stunning, great, stupendous, etc., etc, etc.
What you have written should be on the front page of the NYT and WP - but sadly, won't. As to our Anglo friend who has a real burr under his saddle, what he doesn't seem to understand is that we come late to the party because we are forced to, not because we want to. We want to stay away, and do so after the dirtywork is done. The greatest criticism that we could undergo would be if we refused to be involved.

Wow...

"Thank-you" just doesn't cut it. Discovering your site, and this essay in particular was the highlight of my week. I hope you don't mind that I excerpted portions of it on my site to entice others to read it as well.

If my grandfather--who voluntarily fought in both World Wars--were still alive, he would shed a tear reading what you wrote.

His favorite saying, which I'm sure you'll enjoy, was:
"Life is not a dream in the clover...On to the walls, on to the walls, on to the walls and OVER!"

God bless you!

There is a precendent for a potential universal state refusing to take over civilization. One of the Ptolemies offered Egypt to the Roman Republic and the Romans turned it down (at least the first time). Before Julius Caesar, Roman dictators went home after their tasks were finished.

That was a wonderful post.

Thank you very much.

Angillioin please refrain from making an a$$ of yourself. (Note, I wrote this slightly angry, so I hope it's cogent.)

As for WWII, it's like this: A friend should be very thankful when another friend helps them out of a mess they made, instead of kicking their friend in the face.

I doubt we were in for much trouble from Germany. I think they would have been content to have Europe and Russia for their Lebensraum. At least, that's the impression I get from history books (of course, Hitler screwed up big time by declaring war first). We had our hands full with the Japanese, who were a greater threat to us. Yet, we decided to start with Europe first. Is it wrong to expect a little gratitude from friends for helping them out, not for just the four years we were in the war, but the 44 years after that, when the big red dog was breathing down Western Europes neck?

Secondly, as for the Magna Carta, get the #*@#(sorry, he made me mad) off your anglo-centric high horse. No one is claiming that America created the concepts of freedom and equality. What people are saying is that the specific combination is unique to America (and so far works far better than other places), because America took a lot of concepts and separated the wheat from the chaff. We got ideas from all over Europe and even from the Iriquois. Britain is not even close to being the main contributor to the Constitution (since, the Constitution is not the Bill of Rights), there were the Iroquois, the Greeks, the Romans, Locke (who was an Anglo) and others. In fact, just an example, the electoral system comes largely from the Seneca tribe of the Iroquois.

In conclusion, America has made many mistakes in the past (particularly against the Native Americans), but it is the best country in the world and I'll be damned if anyone tries to unfairly denigrate my country.

Joseph Hertzlinger: I don't think that's a good example, Ptolemy XII said he'd give Julius 6000 talents if he made him king, instead of taking Egypt over for himself.

Bill, you're completely wrong, they're not slandering America...in print it's libel.

Bill Whittle said:
You say you are disappointed that I point out things said in The Guardian, The Observer, Fisk, Pinter, and a host of other leading British critics,

Every so often I find someone who writes REALLY eloquently and to the point about issues which have, somehow, become hard to explain, but shouldn't be. Your 3 essays: Empire, Freedom and Honor, definitely fall into that category.

I have two other favorites which I would like to share with you. One is a piece from May 2002 by Mark Steyn entitled "Sweet land of liberty: Britain and Europe have free governments, but only in the US are the people truly free" which details crucial differences between EU centralized governance and local control in the U.S. You might wish to link to this article on your site (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1102/steyn.html). Also, one of many places to access Gordon Sinclair's marvelous 1973 pro-American Canadian radio broadcast is http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Our_Culture/americans.htm.

I live in Chappaqua, NY, and one of the places I intend to share these essays with is with the Social Studies department at the local high school. My daughter graduated from there last year and had to fight her way through because she was a patriot and supporter of the military long before 9/11. She had trouble with both peers and teachers. After a school assembly, she wrote the following, simply because she was so angry and upset. I don't think I ever expected any teenager of mine to be spouting the "Love it or leave it" line I heard in my own youth, but this was the culmination of 12 years of curricula with an anti-American edge that most participants in the school community either don't notice, support or ignore. Nonetheless, she is re-applying for a Marine NROTC scholarship, knowing that she is willing to fight for the right of others to disagree with her. I know she would like feedback about her essay from anyone interested in contacting her. Jessie can be reached through me at DKCGrp@netscape.net.

Social Studies or Socialism?
- Jessica Ruth Cunningham, November 2001

The assembly on Thursday was, in my opinion, a farce. We, the students, were told we were going to have an assembly on the history of terrorism, and the history behind what prompted the 9/11 attacks. That is to assume that we did, in fact, prompt the attacks, an assumption not everyone agrees with. Four teachers stood in front of the entire school and spoke with absolute solemnity the most politically correct, socialist biased, historical drivel ever to pass my ears; and in my long years in the public school system, I have heard a lot of it.

The teachers spoke of American foreign policy, and America, as they have for all of my life, with thoughtful and disturbing dislike. They did not shout out that America is evil. They said it slowly and quietly coating their political views with their titles as teachers; and replacing historical fact with their own opinions. They said many things about how the rest of the world hates us and sees us as imperialistic and nasty. They implied that "the why" was because we are culturally imperialistic. That we push our culture onto other societies and "once we get our foot in the door we proceed to push out or eradicate any other culture already present." They didn't mention that the reason other cultures accept ours, as well as other western cultures, is because they like them. It brings modernizations, new ideas and freedoms.

They never mentioned the fact that many Islamic country's text books paint Americans as devils and evil without morals, ungodly wretches. That these countries breed hatred into generation after generation. That many of the newspapers say either that we are lying about the attacks in the first place, or that they were perpetrated by Israel. The papers paint the bombing in Afghanistan as unprovoked and terrorist. They show Osama Bin Laden to be a hero of Islam. They write about suicide bombers as though they were saints.

I don't know about any of you reading this, but I remember 9/11, and I know we were provoked. I also remember the USS Cole and the US Embassy in the Sudan. We have been attacked and provoked without giving meaningful responses too many times. I know of hundreds of actual heroes, the police and firemen who died saving innocent lives. The men and women in the Army, the Marines, the Air Force, the Navy, the National Guard, and the Coast Guard are also to be remembered and respected as heroes of our country. They protect the innocent, those targeted by suicide bombers and terrorists; they protect us.

They mentioned that many middle eastern countries dislike us because we helped Israel, and have been on their side on all occasions. No one mentioned that we help Israel due to a fifty year old promise made after the end on World War II. After the war ended the UN promised the Jews a homeland. The chosen place, for said Zionist homeland, was, what is now, Israel. This was decided by the UN, not the US. We protect Israel because we promised to fifty years ago; and we are honorable enough to keep that promise, even under threats and pressure.

We, the students, were told that we are materialistic and obsessed with wealth and power. That is of course why we spend billions of dollars in humanitarian aid and assistance funds and helping the homeless, helpless, and hungry everywhere in the world, sometimes even before we do anything at home! We are only interested in the Middle East because of oil; yet no one mentions that we could have all the oil we wanted if we developed our Alaskan oil resources. This is something that many environmentalists are against, yet our own citizens of Alaska want us to do it. Environmentalists aren't the only ones who don't want us to be self sufficient in oil, either. The UN has made it clear that America is a large and crucial part of the Middle East's economy. Without our wealth and food stores they are left with a whole lot of oil, sand and anger; not much else.

We are a great and honorable country, always ready to stand and fight for those who ask for our help, and those we owe our loyalties to. But we have stayed off fighting for ourselves for far too long. I am sick of those who print and speak defeatist propaganda, and I have one thing to say to people who dislike The United States of America: "This is the only country, or at least one of the very very few countries, in the entire world that would allow you to preach your dislike of its government, ideals, and people. If you think its such a horrible place, LEAVE".

>

This is inaccurate on almost every point:

- Although we did indeed take the capital and thoroughly defeat the Mexican forces, we did not in fact occupy the entire country.

- The part of Mexico which we annexed was well over 10% of the country.

- Yes, we did pay for it, but the price was not willingly agreed upon. The Polk administration offered to buy California and the southern extension of Texas several times, but the Mexican government refused to sell. So we invaded, turned out the uncooperative government, and wrote the purchase into the terms of surrender. I'm not complaining -- I'm happy to be living in the U.S. rather than Mexico -- but to pretend it was a willing sale is just naive. (And Texas, which came to us in a more roundabout way, wasn't paid for at all.)

- Many other countries throughout history can claim something similar. In the early modern period in Europe it was standard procedure to invade a country, occupy most of it, and pull back to annex only a small piece of territory in the settlement. In 1870, for example, Prussia defeated France and occupied Paris, but they annexed only Alsace and Lorraine.

mdl

Phil wrote:

>

That's not accurate. Before the 19th century, forced conversion was the exception, not the rule, as is obvious from even a passing glance at Islamic history.

With regard to Christianity and Judaism, the Qur'an explicitly forbids forced conversion. Religions in India and Africa did not enjoy the same scriptural protection, and there were sometimes proselytizing rulers there, but more often the practice was to respect local freedom of religion so long as the conquered people submitted to political suzerainty.

This explains why large Christian communities persisted throughout the Islamic world -- in Egypt, Lebanon, Constantinople, all through the Balkans, etc. Jews fleeing persecution in Europe frequently fled to Ottoman lands, where religious freedom was respected. The large Jewish community in Salonika (later exterminated by the Nazis) was made up of Sephardic Jews who fled the Inquisition in Spain.

The Ottoman Empire was built on a fundamental premise of religious freedom, and its expansion in Europe was largely due to the fact that the Orthodox peasantry routinely favored Ottoman rule, which respected their religion, over the various Catholic princes, who did not.

It's only in the modern (ie, nationalist) era that the nasty genocidal wars (Armenia, India, etc) become a feature of the Islamic world. The Ottoman government stuck to its ideal of multinationalism to the bitter end, eventually losing control of the state to the nationalists. The first Serbian independence movement was actually sponsored by the Ottoman government, against local Turkish landowners.

To a certain extent, the failure of the Islamic world is a by-product of its history of religious and cultural tolerance. It is precisely because the Ottoman Caliphate *didn't* impose a uniform culture that the state lost its coherence in the nationalist era. Nations from the Ottoman sphere (both in Europe and the Middle East) are still struggling with that problem even today.

mdl

I don't think that's a good example, Ptolemy XII said he'd give Julius 6000 talents if he made him king, instead of taking Egypt over for himself.

I think Joseph was referring to an earlier era. Roman forces occupied Egypt during the time of Ptolemies VI and VII, to defend it against Seleucid attack. Rome could have easily annexed it, but they preferred to pull back and leave the Ptolemies in place.

As for Julius, I hardly think he was bribed not to take over Egypt. He was embroiled in his own civil war. So long as whoever ran Egypt acknowledged him as the leader of Rome, he had no need to annex the country.

Rome under the Republic never annexed Egypt. When Augustus took it, he claimed it as his personal property.

mdl

yeah. right you right wing piece of shit.

Bill,

First, I must say thank you! I first read your freedom essay on Rachel's site, then your other essays here. You've written some of the finest, most cogent essays I've seen in a long time, expressing my sentiments better than I ever could.

Second, I'd like to recommend a book called "Beyond Terror," written by a former Army Intel officer, Ralph Peters (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0811700240/). One of the essays in the book, "The American Mission," nicely complements this essay. He argues America has w