Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
American colonies and Great Britain relationship
National identity
National identity
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: American colonies and Great Britain relationship
The American identity is not concrete. It grows, transforms, evolves, and the American people evolve in parallel. Through vote and through policy, media and protest, election and law, the people dictate the country’s, and the identity’s course. The identity that has roots in revolution. 1776, the United States breaks from Great Britain. The people free themselves, from oppression, from royalty, and begin the governmental experiment that will dominate the globe for the next two and a half centuries. The experiment represents a government so different from Britain’s, that no one would guess they once existed as one. The American people, desperate to rid themselves of British traces, find this beneficial. They must; they are Americans now. Unfortunately, their British heritage will not allow it. Whilst these new Americans battle their inheritance, it creeps into their policies, protocol, their social configuration, military influence, their economic structure, and the very documents with which they broke from their mother country. Eventually, this heritage creates a perfect image of the British empire, world dominance and all. Yet, the citizens still combat it. The leaders abhor it. But, despite attempting to establish its own identity, America reflects British society.
This American quandary first appears in political protocol. It began at the Revolution’s end. On May 22, 1782, just months after Britain’s final surrender at Yorktown, Colonel Lewis Nicola suggested to George Washington that he become America’s king. Washington replied with a resounding no, declaring that he viewed the idea “with abhorrence” (qtd. in “George Washington and the Rule of Law” 2). Washington realized what the Revolution stood for. He ...
... middle of paper ...
...ast India Company. 6 April 2010. 1 May 2010.
Olson, James Stuart, Robert Shadle. Historical Dictionary of the British Empire, Volume 1. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. 1996.
“The Spanish Armada.” Britishbattles.com. 2010. Britishbattles.com. 24 March 2010.
“Talking Points on the ‘No Taxation Without Representation’ Act.” The Leadership Conference. 3 October 2002. 24 March 2010.
“Timeline.” The Life of Theodore Roosevelt. January 2001. The Theodore Roosevelt Association. 10 April 2010.
“Washington’s Farewell Address.” The Avalon Project. 2008. Yale Law School. 23 May 2010.
In today’s society, American citizens tend to believe that America has been, “American” since the day that Christopher Columbus set foot in the Bahamas. This is a myth that has been in our society for a multitude of years now. In A New England Town by Kenneth A. Lockridge, he proves that America was not always democratic. Additionally, he proves that America has not always been “American”, by presenting the town of Dedham in 1635. Lockridge presents this town through the course of over one hundred years, in that time many changes happened as it made its way to a type of democracy.
The benefit of hindsight allows modern historians to assume that colonists in British America united easily and naturally to throw off the bonds of tyranny in 1775-1776. The fact that "thirteen clocks were made to strike together" (p.4) surprised even the revolutionary leader John Adams. Prior to the mid-1700s many residents of British North America saw themselves in regional roles rather than as "Americans", they were Virginians or Bostonians, regional loyalties trumped any other including those as British colonial citizens. In T. H. Breen's work, The Marketplace of Revolution, he offers an explanation for the sudden creation of a unique American identity. In his words, "What gave the American Revolution distinctive shape was an earlier transformation of the Anglo-American consumer marketplace" (p. xv). Breen contends that before Americans could unite to resist the British Empire, they needed to first develop a unity and trust with one another in spite of their regional differences. "The Marketplace of Revolution argues, therefore, that the colonists shared experience as consumers provided them with the cultural resources needed to develop a bold new form of political protest" (p. xv). The transformation of the consumer marketplace allowed the colonists of British North America to create a unique British and the American identity that would later result in revolution and the formation of a new nation. This trust based on consumption, Breen concludes, was absolutely necessary for the boycott movement to be an effective tool against the British government. "Unless unhappy people develop the capacity to trust other unhappy people protest remains a local affair easily silence by traditional authority" (p.1).
Godfrey Hodgson believes that the ideal for the American Exceptionalism stands for its great principle (rule of law, rights protection, constitution, and sovereignty of the people) that protects it from any political crisis that hit other great countries (xvi). He goes further and suggests that ideology was involved in establishing the exceptional character of American civilization (7). However, his purpose in writing the Myth of American Exceptionalism is to dispute Perry Miller’s (1905-1963) assumption of “the uniqueness of the American experience.” Essentially, he argues that the exaggeration of the American experience and destiny is extremely dangerous, “because they are the soil in which unreal and hubristic assumptions of the American history have grown” (16). That is to say, the American experience is less exceptional than it seems. He offers two counter arguments. First, the history of the United States is connected to the history of Europe. Second, the social and political ideals, especially democracy and liberty, have come into existence after a struggle as anywhere else (Hodgson 16). For him, it is true that American history has distinct and original features; yet, it is also true that America always been greatly influenced by European
The United States was a recently forged nation state in the early 1800’s. Recently formed, this nation state was very fragile and relied on the loyalty of its citizens to all work collectively toward the establishment and advancement of the nation states. Many members of the nation state gave great sacrifices, often their lives, to see that the united states was a successful and democratic. However, the United States, was fundamentally a mixing pot of all foreign people (excluding marginalized Native Americans). This early 1800 's flow of new “Americans” continued as people sought new opportunities and escaped religious or political persecution and famine. One notable
“Is there a single trait of resemblance between those few towns and a great and growing people spread over a vast quarter of the globe, separated by a mighty ocean?” This question posed by Edmund Burke was in the hearts of nearly every colonist before the colonies gained their independence from Britain. The colonists’ heritage was largely British, as was their outlook on a great array of subjects; however, the position and prejudices they held concerning their independence were comprised entirely from American ingenuity. This identity crisis of these “British Americans” played an enormous role in the colonists’ battle for independence, and paved the road to revolution.
The start of the American Revolution, described by Edmund Morgan as, “the shot heard around the world,” was the “Americans’ search for principles” (Bender 63). Although the world’s colonies did not necessarily seek independence much like the Americans, the world’s colonies were nonetheless tired of the “administrative tyranny” being carried out by their colonizers (Bender 75). The American Revolution set a new standard in the colonies, proclaiming that the “rights of Englishmen” should and must be the “rights of man,” which established a new set foundation for the universal rights of man (Bender 63). This revolution spread new ideas of democracy for the colonized world, reshaping people’s expectations on how they should be governed. Bender emphasizes America as challenging “the old, imperial social forms and cultural values” and embracing modern individualism” (Bender 74). Bender shapes the American Revolution as a turning point for national governments. The American Revolution commenced a new trend of pushing out the old and introducing new self-reliant systems of government for the former
Alan Trachtenberg, professor of American studies at Yale and author of The Incorporation of America, argues that the system of incorporation unhinged the idea of national identity that all American’s had previously shared. As a result, incorporation became the catalyst for the great debate about what it meant to actually be American, and who was capable of labeling themselves as such. Throughout his work Trachtenberg consistently tackles the ideas of cultural identity and how those ideas struggled against one another to be the supreme definition of Americanism. This work not only brings to life the issue of identity, but it attempts to synthesize various scholarly works into a cohesive work on the Gilded Age. It demonstrates that concepts developed during the incorporation of the time period have formed the basis for the American cultural, economic, and political superstructure.
The American Identity is a notion that describes the American people’s values and ideas to other people and nations all over the world. Overall, the American identity has projected that America’s people are free, and America can provide this freedom to anyone that wants to live in it. On the contrary, the people of America learn that even with this vast freedom, America still provides many unexpected hardships that limit American freedom. The foreigners’ outlook of the American Identity is based upon America’s symbols and documents, without which, would make America’s Identity much less identifiable. The American Identity expresses unrealistic amounts freedom through symbols and documents, but in reality, Americans experience many unexpected
In the words of Joseph Margulies, “National identity is not fixed, it is made.” Through the event of 9/11 our national identity has changed significantly. Before we dive into the now and the changed national identity, lets set a foundation of where national identity started. In the nineteenth century, Protestant Americans were incomparably dominate. It was argued that the Enlightenment and the Western intellectuals of the eighteenth century were still the foundation of national identity in the nineteenth century. However, from the writer, Samuel Huntington, the religious foundations of American society were based off the Anglo-Protestant heritage. (Page 24) On the other hand, in Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity, the author stated the American culture was dwindling Anglo-Protestant heritage. The original values were based off the Anglo-Protestant heritage included liberty, equality, individualism, democracy, and the rule of law under a constitution. Later in the nineteenth century, the European heritage grew and the ideas of individual freedom, political democracy, and human rights grew as well. (Page 19) The nineteenth century introduced the “well-being and integrity of the community and the virtuous citizen’s obligations to the community’s welfare (page 20).”
Gull, John. The Oxford Illustrated History of Brittan. Great Brittan: Butler & Tanner Ltd, Frome, Somerset., 1984. Print.
When declaring independence, the bulk of the people thought that would be “…to burn the last bridge, to become traders in the eyes of the mother country.” (Garraty 110). John Dickinson had stated, “ ‘Torn from the body to which we are united by religion, liberty, laws, affections, relation, language and commerce, we must bleed at every vein.’ “ (Garraty 110). The people were afraid to break away, they pondered “ ‘Where shall we find another Britain.’ “ (Garraty 110). Eventually independence was inevitable. There was a great mistrust towards both Parliament and George III when the colonists heard that the British were sending hired Hessian soldiers to fight against them in the revolution. The pamphlet written by Thomas Paine entitled Common Sense called boldly for complete independence. This reflected his opinions on George III, calling him a brute, and also attacking the idea of monarchy itself. “Virtually everyone in the colonies must have read Common Sense or heard it explained and discussed.” (Garraty 110). John Adams dismissed it as something he had said time and time again. “The tone of the debate changed sharply as Paine’s slashing attack took effect.” (Garraty 110). A committee was appointed by Congress, consisting of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and many more. “The committee had asked Jefferson to prepare a draft” that would soon become known as the Declaration of Independence. (Garraty 112). It consisted of two parts: an introduction which justified the abstract right of any people to revolt and described the theory on which the Americans based their creation of a new, republican government, and a second part that made George III, rather than Parliament, look like the ‘bad guy’. “…The king was the personification of the nation against which the nation was rebelling.” (Garraty 112). “The Declaration was intended to influence foreign opinion, but it had little immediate effect outside Great Britain, and there it only made people angry and determined to subdue the rebels.
WWII has a ripple effect across the globe causing changes both internationally and domestically. Internationally, The sun finally began to set over the British Empire with the majority of her majesties colonial possessions gaining independence in the years following the war. Britain’s stage left exit from its hegemonic role resulted in the start of a new “Great Game” between two burgeoning superpowers. A new world order began to take shape with the United States and USSR vying to establish their own hegemony.
Michael Cox’s thesis as outlined in “Empire by Denial? Debating US Power”, is chiefly that: the United States of America is an empire, and that current beliefs to the contrary are the result of denialism due to negative connotations associated with the concept of empire, not due to a lack of suitability of that term to describe the current state of American foreign policy.
After winning the Revolutionary War and sovereign control of their home country from the British, Americans now had to deal with a new authoritative issue: who was to rule at home? In the wake of this massive authoritative usurpation, there were two primary views of how the new American government should function. Whereas part of the nation believed that a strong, central government would be the most beneficial for the preservation of the Union, others saw a Confederation of sovereign state governments as an option more supportive of the liberties American’s fought so hard for in the Revolution. Those in favor of a central government, the Federalists, thought this form of government was necessary to ensure national stability, unity and influence concerning foreign perception. Contrastingly, Anti-Federalists saw this stronger form of government as potentially oppressive and eerily similar to the authority’s tendencies of the British government they had just fought to remove. However, through the final ratification of the Constitution, new laws favoring state’s rights and the election at the turn of the century, one can say that the Anti-Federalist view of America prevails despite making some concessions in an effort to preserve the Union.
For years, America has always been perceived as one of the top world powers due to its ability of achieving so much technological, economical, and social progress within a mere couple decades. Despite their great accomplishments, America is actually regressing psychologically, preventing the country from reaching its true potential as an “opportunity rich” country. In Anthony Burgess’ Is America Falling Apart? , the author unveils the circumstances in which America’s restricting society and selfish ideology cause the nation to develop into the type of society it tried to avoid becoming when it separated from the British Empire.