Why Anglos Lead

National Interest ^ | 12/22/2005 | Lawrence Mead

[isaiah55version11_0]

OVER THE last few years, due to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, many commentators have discerned the emergence of a new American empire. Some critics blame the Bush Administration, arguing that, but for Bush, there would be no crisis over American "unilateralism" or "hegemony." Others blame the end of the Cold War for "unleashing" America on the world.

Actually, American pre-eminence extends much further back--to World War II or before. It really continues a British primacy that dated back at least to 1815. During the 20th century, Germany, Japan and Soviet Russia challenged the Anglo ascendancy, but they were turned back. So today the world order bears a remarkable resemblance to the late Victorian era. Now as then, the world is globalizing, and English is its lingua franca. The United States has merely supplanted Britain as the leading power.

[isaiah55version11_0]

Good Stuff. But I believe he left out our insatiable apatite for innovation in war fighting that goes back to the Kentucky Long Rifle. Even in our present supremacy we never cease to find new and exciting ways to kill and break things.

[proxy_user]

Hey, what about Saxons and Jutes?

[brushcop]

That's okay by me, as long as it keeps the scum and wolves away from our door. Now, we've got to do some INTERNAL housecleaning, if you ain't with us, you're agin us...

[Just another Joe]

In part of that I almost thought he was saying that if the French had prevailed we would be a nation of surrender monkeys.

Then I caught on, if the French spoke English they WOULDN'T be a nation of surender monkeys.

[advance_copy]

It's because we are fascninated with weapons and warfare. We always have been, it's in our blood. Post a pic of a nice handgun or fighter aircraft and we all go, "coooool!"

Every Indepedence Day, we go out and watch explosions going off in the air. The bigger the better. We take our kids to see it. They love it, it's fun, really fun.

Our boys get little army men for Christmas. They make battles on the floor surrounded by wrapping paper and bows in front of the Christmas tree. Then they take their new BB guns outside and shoot at critters. Later, they figure out that they can shoot at their army men. Many a GI Joe has been pelted by BBs.

Nowadays, we give our kids video games. First shooters, war games, etc. They use the computer to get really good at aiming and shooting. It's high tech. They develop strategies for deploying their armies to destroy the cyber-enemies. And they are experts at it before they've learned how to drive.

[PzLdr]

What about the Romans, who taught England both the rule of law and the desirability of highly trained, professional troops?

[English Nationalist]

What about the Romans, who taught England both the rule of law and the desirability of highly trained, professional troops?

What about the Romans? At that time the English were living in Germany.

[mugs99]

The United States has merely supplanted Britain as the leading power

That was the result of the Spanish/American war. We have been number one since then.
.

[Albion Wilde]

With the able help of the Celtic Scotch-Irish, one of pioneer America's largest ethnic groups and always ready for a good fight!

[henry_thefirst]

I think your history is a bit off. The Romano-British culture all but disappeared when the legions were withdrawn in the fifth century. Rule of law dissapeared, and with the Barbarian invasions soon to follow, all ideas of "highly trained, professional troops" were replaced by highly mobile roving bands of pillagers. The only traces of Roman rule at this time were roads and beaten down walls. The Roman church even disappeared for at least a century.

Rule of law can really be said to have reemerged in England in 1066 with the Norman invasions. The Normans brough Norman-Frankish law theory into Britian. During the reign of Henry II (1133-1189) English common law as a concept emerged.

You don't want a history of English common law, I'm sure, but just note that the Roman influence of England, in the grand scheme of history, was minimum.

[ryan71]

What about God?

This article points out several valid reasons Anglos lead, but avoids our belief in God and Christianity and how it has influenced our economic, domestic, and foreign policies.

[minus_273]

while not necessarily anglo, Singapore is an interesting example in asia. A british colony where english was made the primary language is the only developed country in the area and with Japan is one of only two developed countries in Asia. Singapore can be authoratraian, but it has rule of law and capitalism. Hong Kong was another good example of British governance raising what is essentially a backwater into a powerhouse.

[henry_thefirst]

Singapore is a key example of combining the trade system established by the British and combining it with Benevolent dictatorship, making Singapore into a true economic powerhouse.

[oldbill]

You guys must be a product of modern American education. "Anglo superiority"? Wrong - it was some very simple concepts never before uttered until 1776, that "all men are created equal", that every individual has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that are the secret of American success.

A man's worth is not the gift of some monarch or mullah or commisar, but an inherent design of the creator. Those Anglo roots may be a source of many of our laws and protections, but don't forget it was also that same Anglo structure, where the king rules and the subjects live for his convenience, that we overthrew in 1783.

America's success lies in the fact that not just Anglos, but all of the melting pot (until recently) was willing to throw aside its old homeland's concepts and embrace those basic American ideals.

Pushing this "Anglo" nonsense starts sounding like that "Aryan" nonsense some other northern European tried to sell 70 years ago.

[henry_thefirst]

No, I'm afraid you are mistaken. Read John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Voltaire, and then you will see why "some very simple concepts never before uttered until 1776" is a grossly inaccurate statement. America, the concept, the theory, is a direct product of the European enlightenment.

[jpl]

That was the result of the Spanish/American war. We have been number one since then.

I would argue that Britain was still a superior overall power to the United States right up to WWI, which wore down the British Empire greatly, and then the WWII Axis killed off its remnants.

[minus_273]

not just the trade system. Singapore adopted the language, civil service and business culture established by the British. It also helps that the population is almost entirely chinese which brings a type of intense work ethic of its own.

[Brian Allen]

<< What about the Romans? At that time the English were living in Germany. >>

Englishman, to American: "Do you know, Old Man, that we English have never ever been defeated in war and that our nation has never been successfully invaded nor conquered?"

American: "What about '1066 - and all that?'"

Englishman: "Yes, indeed! That was us!"

[minus_273]

"Anglo structure, where the king rules and the subjects live for his convenience, that we overthrew in 1783. "


not really. The problem was that the british has a certian set of rights (basically our bill of rights) for citizens in the UK and did not apply them in the Americas. the UK monarch has not held any power for a very very long time.

Secondly what the article calls Anglo has nothing to do with race, he is just using the term to identify a set of ideas that came from the British. If you look at Singapore or HK, you see that simply emulating some of those ideas leads to prosperity regardless of the race of the people.

[henry_thefirst]

"I would argue that Britain was still a superior overall power to the United States right up to WWI, which wore down the British Empire greatly, and then the WWII Axis killed off its remnants."

I think you are correct in this statement, but i'd like to point out a few things. In 1914, Britain was the most powerful "world" power, but Germany was the most powerful land power. Its interesting to note that it took the world power and two other strong powers (France, the 2nd most land power at the time and the United States, the up and coming Naval power) to defeat Germany, and at a very severe cost. What this points out to me is that Britain's power was actually very limited in some degree, and could not be easily reflected upon the battlefields of France.