The Good Ol' U.S.A.

I've been reading a book about the historical relationship between the United States and England. The subject material is fascinating, but it was as written in the 1980s and gives no compass for the world we live in today. It's funny how a historical book with any political objective can look historical in a quick amount of time. The point is that this book is making me look at situations that both countries are in today and not how they are generally similar, but how they are both significantly different.

The general idea is that both countries have common ties. England looks to be our greatest ally today, but while it's not our longest ally (France takes that title), England is the country we have the longest relationship with. We also share a similar language. To us, it's one and the same, but to other countries, we speak American, not English. Also our idea of military and global conquest was fashioned after England. By the time America was starting to forge its own identity, we were looking first to make an elite navy and setting up colonies around the world. The military part was our greatest success.

The Twentieth Century gave us two World Wars and shifted the balance of power from England to the United States. England was both physically destroyed and emotionally exhausted. It was in both wars from the start and was the target of mass bombings. London gets distinction for being the first city to get bombed in its urban area. Before it happened in World War I, it had never happened before. Armies attacked only military complexes, but things changed. America was able to prosper through both wars for always entering the war late and not having its home turf be a battle ground. World War II was mainly fought in firebombings and destructions of cities. The United States had a small island off the coast of Alaska invaded. I believe the fighting only lasted a few days. That's the history of modern warfare on U.S. soil.

Today we don't give the history of England with the same discerning glare that we do for the United States. One is because it is English history and not ours. Second is because our history of bad deeds has graced most of the 20th Century. England was made non-important as a major power half way through.

The oddity is that in one current situation England is not looking very good at all. With the War on Terror a worldwide conflict, race relations in Western modernized states have become very tense. Terrorists arent just homegrown in Middle Eastern countries, but districts within the country they are attacking as well. Our general idea of terrorists have been made into our mind with the ability of terrorists to get into the United States and attack the World Trade Center with little ease, but that wasn't the case with the bombing in England and Spain. The prepetrators there were able to be products of those societies.

Most major countries have some influx of other societies and races within its population. Certainly all three countries in question do, but considering the United States has the most villianous image around the world, why didn't Muslim people from within the U.S. attack the World Trade Center? And why did they come from within England and Spain and attack the country that housed them most of their natural born lives?

There are numerous reasons, but the major ones have to deal with the basics of national identity for each country in questions. First, both Spain and England were based on racial identities. England for the English and Spain for the Spanish. The mixture of different societies and giving them equal rights is a considerably new phenomenon. This hasn't made for an easy transition, but an uncertain identity for many minority sects. Because they see a majority and history around them that doesn't include them, there can be resentment. There also can be resentment for people of the native race as well. They may see minorities as impeding on their lives and land.

The United States has a basis of history that makes it a melting pot for numerous societies. There has been large spread of racism and even anti-immigration, but it's been an entire history of dealing with that situation instead of a newer phenonomenon like in England and Spain. The United States was able to modernize quicker and allow minorities to feel more at peace with living there because different people and religions were always part of the United States. Christianity has become a large part of our culture, but it is still not a national religion and our President isn't head of church as well as state. In England there is a national religion and the Queen is head of church. That's a deeper history.

There is another explanation. When people go from oppressive countries to the United States, they are leaving mainly because of exile and escape from a brutal dictatorship. The freedoms of the U.S. are much more welcomed. The majority of population of immigrants in England are people coming from former British colonies who aren't going to just escape tolitarian regimes, but going to a country they feel they have a right to live in if they so choose to do considering England's brutal history around the world. The United States hoped to colonize the way England did and even tried to, but didn't achieve what England could. By the time the U.S. was coming to true power England was waving goodbye to many it's worldy possessions.

These differences are major pronents to the shifting tides on the War of Terror and our basic identity of racism at home. The United States has a chance to accidentally house terrorists, but their basic identity and history as a country is off setting those chances. The funny thing is that England and Spain are not major targets of current criticism, but yet because of their identity and older history they are more likely to be breeding grounds for terrorism.