The Rise of America
Our liberal friend from Down Under, Tim, recently commented on the rise of America:
I also don't think it's true to say "America became a capitalist country, and it grew to be such a huge economy, hence capitalism is what made it so large." America's growth was fuelled first by a rapid expansion of natural resources by taking all the land away from the Indians, and then the economic exploitation of other countries (e.g. latin america, south-east asia).
America became a great nation because hardworking Christians were disgusted with the corruption in England and Holland. They came to America because they wanted to build great things instead of mooching off the crowded cities of Europe.
God blessed these people, and to a large extent the Americans living today are enjoying the fruit of their forefather's efforts.
Another factor in America's rise was its opposition to heavy, European taxation. King George was trying to tax everything he could in the thirteen colonies: stamps, tea, and voting. The revolutionary war was fought to free the American economy from the oppression of taxes.
Little did these patriots know that their great great grandchildren would vote in leaders who saw taxes as the Solution to Everything.
"Capitalism" as an ideology did nothing except give people the freedom to enjoy the fruit of their efforts. Capitalism itself did none of the hard work. The risks were taken by entrepreneurs, business owners, and Yankee inventors.
To say that America became great because it took land from the Indians is peculiar to say the least. Were the lands the Americans took full of Indian greatness when they became American lands? Were the Mayan lands full of greatness as they sacrificed their own people to their dark gods?
Many other countries have far more lands (with more natural resources) than America, such as Russia. Is Russia greater than America? Was the British empire greater than America (after 1812)? Was the Spanish empire ever greater than America?
To say America became great as a result of its "economic exploitation" of other countries is also very strange. If US companies (such as Walmart, Kmart, etc.) offered Latin American companies fifteen million dollars in exchange for goods (and those companies had a real choice to accept or reject that offer), then how exactly are they being exploited? The US companies find a market for them to sell their goods, and somehow this is exploiting them?
Has the average lifespan of the Indians, South East Asians, and Latin Americans increased or decreased following the rise of America? What about sanitation? The education of children? Technology? Etc. The way I see it, if these far away places suddenly vanished over night, America would lose valuable trading partners, but America would be fine.
If America vanished overnight a thousand international economies would instantly die.
In summary, Americans became great by trusting God, working hard, and finding favor under Providence. Many economists have presented similar interpretations (i.e. Weber). To credit foreign places (which have never known greatness) as providing the means to greatness for America is a major stretch.
posted by Matthew Canonicus at
10:44 PM
3 Comments:
I don't think the early colonization was as clean and simple as you presented it. The Puritans and the Pilgrims weren't the only ones who arrived in America, there was colonies by France, Spain, and other social groups in Britain. The motivations for colonising were diverse. The main reasons the Pilgrims came to America were the possibilities of being missionaries in the new world and economic hardship (I haven't read anything to suppose this tough life they were living in Europe was due to taxes). The puritans left because of religious conflicts with the church of england, and a desire to establish a pure church on a separate continent.
You jumped from the arrival of colonists to the revolutionary war too quickly. By the revolutionary war there was thirteen colonies and most of them had a strong sense of unity. How did they grow so big, and why did these colonies have a monopoly over the land? You can be as hard-working and capitalist as you want, but if you lack land and natural resources you will never become a superpower. Their expansion was largely due to wars with other european powers, and the blood of native Americans. I'm not claiming this was unique to the Americans, it happened in Australia too with the Aboriginals. It happened in all cases of colonisation, but there is no use denying that the reason America became so large and had the room to grow into the economic powerhouse it is today was through mass slaughter.
Taking land from the indians, other european powers, and other countries like mexico is what made America into the unified large nation that was capable of doing things like waging war with the Germans in the world war, institute the Marshall Plan immediately after, and then have an arms race with the Soviet Union.
The reasons for the American revolution also aren't as simple as you made out. Great Britain was trying to govern America, and heavy taxes was just a part of the legislation the British Parliament produced in order to anger the american colonists.
The British Parliament restricted colonisation beyond the Appalachian Mountains because it was an indian reserve, and although settlers went beyond them anyway and the legislation became moot, it angered alot of colonists. John Adams wrote that the revolution was born from the Navigation Acts, which forced America to adopt protectionist trade policies (as Britain was heavily influenced by mercantilism at the time). There are other things, but of course one of the main reasons was the heavy taxation. I don't believe the revolution was one against taxes, though, just european taxes. If colonists were going to be taxed, they'd like the revenue to go towards something that would help them, and not Britain. Hence "taxation without representation." It was like they were paying tribute to Great Britain, but this does not automatically mean they were ideologically opposed to taxation by their own system of Government.
I agree that capitalism allowed the greatest level of growth possible for these colonies. Even Marx marvelled at the productive power of capitalism. My point was that it wasn't capitalism that allowed America to grow into a superpower, or even the work ethic of the colonists. Both of those helped, of course, but the main reason was because the colonists conquered a great deal of land from other people. That is how any nation in all of history has become a superpower.
You are right that land counts for naught if the people aren't capable of using it wisely. But just as truthfully, skilled labour counts for nothing if they don't have a great deal of land to work on. Imagine if the original colonies did not expand to where the modern USA stands, can you imagine American still being a superpower?
Lastly, I really don't agree that Americans became great by trusting God or due to anything involving God. Why would God favour the settlers as they murdered people to expand their colonies? Sure there were plenty of peaceful settlers as well, but as a whole I really have a hard time believing that God would actively help these people wipe the native americans off the map. Again, in this time period this is not unique of American colonisation, it's a characteristic of all colonisation from the european powers.
"I really don't agree that Americans became great by trusting God or due to anything involving God. Why would God favour the settlers as they murdered people to expand their colonies?" Tim
Like you said there was quite a range of responses to the Indians. The Quakers were killed by the Indians and never fought back ... and they became successful (until Ed Rendel and Arlen Spector became their leaders, but I digress). On the other hand there was the Trail of Tears under the uber-democrat Andrew Jackson against the efforts of the conservative Marshal. The Native Americans also killed a lot of innocent Europeans: no one talks about how Leif Ericson's son's colonies were destroyed by the Inuits. There was also the entire colony of Roanoke. And I certainly doubt God was on the side of the human-sacrificing Mayans.
Ultimately the struggle between the Europeans and the Native Americans was not decided by open violence. Their ways could not accommodate large numbers of people. The Cherokees adapted, but by then the Americans had such a thriving economic base the Indians had neither (1) the power nor (2) the will to resist Americanization.
Hawaii is a good example of what happened to the native tribes. The Hawaiians liked the huge amounts of money the US Military was giving them to occupy Pearl Harbor. They also started selling their land (voluntarily). As they tried to industrialize their country they became more successful, but the business people realized they'd have it better under US rule and not the Hawaiian monarchy. The US refused to accept Hawaii as a territory for long time.
I did jump from the colonization of America to the revolutionary war quickly, you are right. We have been responding to each other in such broad generalizations that I was thinking everything would be open territory. As for your assertion that the Americans were OK with taxation (as long as they got to keep the revenue) I disagree. If you read early American writings (I'm thinking of Emerson's Self-Reliance) there is a strong emphasis on removing dependency between human beings and living life as a self-suffecient individual. Emerson wanted to separate himself from the activities pursued by the government.
The Bill of Rights is conspicuous because all the rights are negative rights. In other words, none of the rights are "Here is something you get for free because someone else worked for it". They're all rights that are like: "The government can't take this from you or stop you from doing what you want with your property or seize things without due process or stop you from collecting guns." Etc.
As for the favor of God, I strongly believe a large number of Americans strongly pursued devout paths especially during the nineteenth century (which was really when America became a superpower, esp. after the Spanish American war). The two things that come to mind are the first and second great awakenings, which are generally acknowledged even by secular historians. This was also the time that the Ivy League schools -which were set up to train preachers- started to become internationally recognized.
A lot of this current is still present in our citizens today. I've written a couple posts here mentioning the significance of how Americans give a far higher portion of their salaries to charities than the people in other nations (maybe not Australia, but who knows? ;)
Anyway, all that is where I was coming from (whew, sorry if you actually took the time to read all that). Thanks again for the conversation, Tim. You are quite the raconteur. My colleagues here will probably call me out on my excessively academic style. I think that is probably about right.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home