I seriously doubt the U.S. "inherited our isolationist traits from them." That even strikes me as ahistorical, though I would consider an elaborated explanation of what you mean by that and how it could be true. But it was precisely British expansionism that caused them to conquer territory and build colonies in North America, and the U.…
I seriously doubt the U.S. "inherited our isolationist traits from them." That even strikes me as ahistorical, though I would consider an elaborated explanation of what you mean by that and how it could be true. But it was precisely British expansionism that caused them to conquer territory and build colonies in North America, and the U.S. then continued as an imperialist power, most prominently but not only by conquering all the Indian Territory to its west.
What I observe a strain of in the UK and the U.S. is not so much isolationism as such but a refusal to accept that they can no longer dictate terms to the world, need partnerships with other countries and multi-country organizations based on reciprocity and lasting commitments that can't be abrogated on a whim, and that they need immigrants and need to stop fixating on where they came from, what they look like, what their native languages and religions are, and how they got there.
It's probably way too simplistic to say that empires can fall either the soft way or the hard way, but at least in relative terms, the hard way seems more common, when we think of how severe a loss of empire was for Spain, for example, or for Rome. And in elective systems, I think that the people believing the bullshit we've been taught about how our nation is uniquely great and, to quote Borat, "All other countries are run by little girls," makes things worse.
Oh we definitely inherited isolationist sentiment from them. That's a major reason - not to mention having to suck up to German and Irish Americans - why we entered both World Wars later than we arguably should have. The difference between us and the UK is that the UK had a channel to separate themselves from mainland Europe. We had an ocean. Thus British involvement in mainland European affairs was more imminent than American. Not to mention "manifest destiny" was basically our way of justification of territorial expansion. Just as they believed they were the rightful rulers of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, and much of Africa, we believed we were the rightly rulers of what is now the continental USA, and there were some who wanted us to conquer all the British and Spanish ruled territories of the Americas.
You've just contradicted yourself. Supporting expansionism and conducting it on a huge scale is not isolationist. If we go back to Washington, what the U.S. was wary of was "entangling alliances" - not attacking countries and peoples on our own. That's not isolationism; it's unilateralism.
The British and American governments of the 19th century would have disagreed with that statement. Until the Entente Cordiale of 1904, the UK was considered to have practiced "splendid isolationism." And by American standards, not interfering with countries in the Americas but not Europe was "isolationism."
Right, which was imperialist expansionism. Isolationism is what was practiced by Japan for centuries, when they didn't invade any countries and kept foreigners out except under heavy restrictions in Nagasaki. Had the British done that, there would have been no British Empire throughout the world, and what's now the U.S. would have had a very different history.
I seriously doubt the U.S. "inherited our isolationist traits from them." That even strikes me as ahistorical, though I would consider an elaborated explanation of what you mean by that and how it could be true. But it was precisely British expansionism that caused them to conquer territory and build colonies in North America, and the U.S. then continued as an imperialist power, most prominently but not only by conquering all the Indian Territory to its west.
What I observe a strain of in the UK and the U.S. is not so much isolationism as such but a refusal to accept that they can no longer dictate terms to the world, need partnerships with other countries and multi-country organizations based on reciprocity and lasting commitments that can't be abrogated on a whim, and that they need immigrants and need to stop fixating on where they came from, what they look like, what their native languages and religions are, and how they got there.
It's probably way too simplistic to say that empires can fall either the soft way or the hard way, but at least in relative terms, the hard way seems more common, when we think of how severe a loss of empire was for Spain, for example, or for Rome. And in elective systems, I think that the people believing the bullshit we've been taught about how our nation is uniquely great and, to quote Borat, "All other countries are run by little girls," makes things worse.
Oh we definitely inherited isolationist sentiment from them. That's a major reason - not to mention having to suck up to German and Irish Americans - why we entered both World Wars later than we arguably should have. The difference between us and the UK is that the UK had a channel to separate themselves from mainland Europe. We had an ocean. Thus British involvement in mainland European affairs was more imminent than American. Not to mention "manifest destiny" was basically our way of justification of territorial expansion. Just as they believed they were the rightful rulers of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, and much of Africa, we believed we were the rightly rulers of what is now the continental USA, and there were some who wanted us to conquer all the British and Spanish ruled territories of the Americas.
You've just contradicted yourself. Supporting expansionism and conducting it on a huge scale is not isolationist. If we go back to Washington, what the U.S. was wary of was "entangling alliances" - not attacking countries and peoples on our own. That's not isolationism; it's unilateralism.
The British and American governments of the 19th century would have disagreed with that statement. Until the Entente Cordiale of 1904, the UK was considered to have practiced "splendid isolationism." And by American standards, not interfering with countries in the Americas but not Europe was "isolationism."
OK, they could misdefine "isolationism" as encompassing huge-scale aggression and imperialism, but why should we?
Because we did the same thing. We just had a different name for it: Manifest Destiny.
Right, which was imperialist expansionism. Isolationism is what was practiced by Japan for centuries, when they didn't invade any countries and kept foreigners out except under heavy restrictions in Nagasaki. Had the British done that, there would have been no British Empire throughout the world, and what's now the U.S. would have had a very different history.