Is America just a extension of British Empire?

johen

Elite member
Messages
1,018
Reaction score
126
Points
63
see individualism and altruism by usa, canada, u.k and australia:


- Another question is how come the extreme individualism people can have the maximum altruism.
It seems to me that their altruism originates in British empire. One thing I know is that British people tried to be more civilized than other people at that time. For instance, they adopted hexadecimal system like mile, inch.
 
see individualism and altruism by usa, canada, u.k and australia:


- Another question is how come the extreme individualism people can have the maximum altruism.
It seems to me that their altruism originates in British empire. One thing I know is that British people tried to be more civilized than other people at that time. For instance, they adopted hexadecimal system like mile, inch.
Facepalm!

How does a hexadecimal system make a country more "civilized"?
 
Its about two and a half units of sarcasm in my neighborhood.
 
America Is in Denial About Its British Imperialist Origins:

"Much of the imperial history that made Britain is also imperial history that shaped America, and both nations are largely oblivious to it. Americans are, in my experience, largely ignorant of the fact that the British empire is contained within the language we share"

"Indeed, the U.S. is a British imperial creation. One of the greatest lies America tells about itself is that it was a victim of Britain’s imperial oppression and that it stands in opposition to everything the evil empire ever represented."

"the Thirteen Colonies were, in themselves, a distinct phase of British imperialism. It’s true that the Puritans came to the New World to escape religious persecution, but the institutions they set up to promote capitalism, protect property rights, resist the abuse of government power, were British. As Tom Holland put it on a recent episode of The Rest Is History podcast: “The fascination both for English people and for Americans about the relationship between Britain and America is that America in a way is taking a path that Britain might have taken and vice versa. In so many ways the War of Independence is a Civil War.”"

"BBC History Magazine was right to conclude in 2008 that “despite the violent rupture of the revolutionary war,” the U.S. inherited from British empire “judicial procedures, political practice, and a tolerant pragmatism”; that despite only being established six years prior to the French Revolution, the U.S. “resolutely retained its Anglo-Saxon distrust of high-minded and over-controlling political theorizing, as well as keeping the ‘illogical’ English system of weights and measures.” Indeed, Duncan Bell reminds us that, between the late 19th century and the First World War, a network of prominent individuals, including the likes of Scottish-American industrialist and philanthropist Andrew Carnegie, British editor and journalist W. T. Stead, colonialist Cecil J. Rhodes, and writer H. G. Wells even advocated unification of the U.S. and Britain."

"Bell adds that “people excluded from the embrace of whiteness were largely absent from the unionist discourse, except when they were figured as a problem or threat.” This brings us to the racism of British imperialism, and how it influenced America racism and vice versa. The fact is that as British imperialism peaked, prominent journalists and authors across British empire and the U.S. colluded to spread ideas of white supremacy across the planet and the racism that persists in Britain and America has shared roots."

"Moreover, Britain’s racist imperialism, inspired America’s own racist imperialism. “I believe in the expansion of great nations,” wrote future President Theodore Roosevelt in a letter to a friend 1899. The colonization of India had done lots for “the English character. If we do our work well in the Philippines and the West Indies, it will do a great deal for our character.” A quote which echoes the words of British Professor of Black Studies Kehinde Andrews as he argued in 2021 that “in the new age of empire, the United States has become the centre of modern colonial power. The country likes to present itself as a victim of British colonialism, which freed itself from tyranny and now looks to do the same for the rest of the world. But this is a delusional fantasy. The United States is in fact the most extreme expression of the racist world order. Not only does the United States have its own history (and present) of colonial possession but its entire existence is based on the logic of Western empire.”

"the history of slavery is also the history of the colonialism, of empire, and of the largest empire in human history, run by Great Britain. It might drive some commentators mad to hear it, but if you want to truly understand American history, you really need to understand British imperial history."
 
How does a hexadecimal system make a country more "civilized"?
I have one question. There are tons of things by theft in British museum to show off. Is it pride for British empire?
If so, I think this kind of act is similar to nomad people's showing off enemy's body parts.
Recently I learned that the individualism originated in Hungary, and spread to whole Europe.
 
How does a hexadecimal system make a country more "civilized"?
I think British people thought as same as american at that time. I have a different opinion though.

"less than 50 years earlier, the consensus view of the US congress had been that the metric system is inferior to the english"
 
Facepalm!
I just said "One thing I know is that British people tried to be more civilized than other people at that time."
I did not mentioned the other part of cruelty. For example, indian people usually do not change their first name in the USA due to the cruelty. However, british scholars taught indian to get their identity to be lost by long time mooslim regime. two tracks: disease first, medicine second.
 
I just said "One thing I know is that British people tried to be more civilized than other people at that time."
I did not mentioned the other part of cruelty. For example, indian people usually do not change their first name in the USA due to the cruelty. However, british scholars taught indian to get their identity to be lost by long time mooslim regime. two tracks: disease first, medicine second.
The British destroyed India's economy in the 19th century to benefit British factories.
That was cruelty enough.
 
The British destroyed India's economy in the 19th century to benefit British factories.
That was cruelty enough.
That is why British scholar said that the core element of capitalism is "animal spirit".
We can see now that spirit in american capitalism and football culture.
I think it is related with an extreme individualism.

But one american scholar denied that "Everybody think that american is selfish. that's wrong" in Newyork times.
It is b/c american altruism index is too high.
so I think that the altruism originated from Britain, as not an people's character, but efforts to show them to be civilized like " medicine"
 
I see the USA and the British Empire both as an extension of Western civilization. In terms of state governments, states like New Jersey kept a lot of the British-style of government. Where the governor was given a lot of power, and control over state matters. Almost like an elected dictator for a four year term. Whereas states like neighboring Pennsylvania are more of a decentralized-style of state government.

Some considered the Federalists as wanting to keep the British-style of government, except they simply did not want to have to pay the King. On the other hand you have people like Thomas Jefferson, and the Democratic-Republicans, that wanted to have a decentralized more libertarian-style of government.
 
Last edited:
That is why British scholar said that the core element of capitalism is "animal spirit".
We can see now that spirit in american capitalism and football culture.
I think it is related with an extreme individualism.

But one american scholar denied that "Everybody think that american is selfish. that's wrong" in Newyork times.
It is b/c american altruism index is too high.
so I think that the altruism originated from Britain, as not an people's character, but efforts to show them to be civilized like " medicine"
You can call it "animal spirit" (whatever THAT is) but I call it plain robbery.
 
How old are you...10?
oh, that one also came from Britain.

Anyway, children are just mirrors to their parents:
"Research clearly shows that children not only recognize race from a very young age, but also develop racial biases by ages three to five"

I remember that scholar found at aquarium that american children focus only upon special big fish, but northeast asian ones upon the relation among fishes. (individualism vs collectivism)
 
oh, that one also came from Britain.

Anyway, children are just mirrors to their parents:
"Research clearly shows that children not only recognize race from a very young age, but also develop racial biases by ages three to five"

I remember that scholar found at aquarium that american children focus only upon special big fish, but northeast asian ones upon the relation among fishes. (individualism vs collectivism)
If children develop racial biases it's because of what their parents have said to them.
 
You should read Margaret T. Hodgen's "Change and History. It's a fully documented, painstaking book with plenty of statistical material.

It showed that from the time of William the Conqueror (1066-87) onward all technological change in England was associated with the immigration of skilled workmen from the Continent (mostly from France and the Low Countries).
 
Some considered the Federalists as wanting to keep the British-style of government, except they simply did not want to have to pay the King. On the other hand you have people like Thomas Jefferson, and the Democratic-Republicans, that wanted to have a decentralized more libertarian-style of government.

I think that is individualism, founding philosophy in the USA. The US constitution has a background of distrust to federal government. American people just wanted to be not intercepted by the government which should do things stipulated only in constitution. This individualism goes further to family relation. Family members are independent of their family. Thus one party easily get a divorce without agreement. It is an extreme individualism. American index 91, and german 68.

I think this individualism, core philosophy in the USA, originated in british empire:
 
I remember that scholar found at aquarium that american children focus only upon special big fish, but northeast asian ones upon the relation among fishes. (individualism vs collectivism)
Like individual society, nomad people always need special person to lead tribe. Nomad people has an animal culture (animal is their god) as capitalism has core element of animal spirit. It means brutal.

So does Anglo-saxon's extreme individualism originate in Hun?

450_roman-hunnic-empire_1764x1116.jpg


"This is probably as far as we can sensibly go at present. On the whole, it would seem that there is at least a case to be made for a degree of Hunnic involvement in fifth-century Britain. Not only does the simplest and most common interpretation of Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica V.9 imply that the latter believed that the Anglo-Saxons partly derived their origins from Huns, but a mid-fifth-century Roman ambassador also arguably thought that Attila ruled over the British Isles in the late 440s. Taken together, these two sources are certainly suggestive, and a small number of finds and names from pre-Viking England may offer some additional support here too. Furthermore, such a scenario may actually have a reasonable potential context. On the one hand, it is now generally agreed that the situation in the fifth and earlier sixth centuries in eastern Britain was rather more ethnically complex than has been sometimes assumed, with the post-Roman immigrants to Britain including individuals and groups drawn from a number of continental tribes and confederations, including potentially Danes, Swabians and Goths. On the other hand, Lotte Hedeager has recently argued that the main Anglo-Saxon homelands in northern Germany and southern Scandinavia were, in fact, under Hunnic rule in the first half of the fifth century and saw a Hunnic presence then, something that, if true, would clearly offer a credible context for any contention that there were Huns amongst the mid-fifth-century 'Anglo-Saxon' immigrants to Britain and that those parts of the island under 'Saxon' control after c. 441 were at least nominally also under Hunnic overlordship by the late 440s. As such, whilst the case cannot be said to be proven and is perhaps surprising, it does deserve at least some serious consideration."

 

This thread has been viewed 1572 times.

Back
Top