Imagining a world without the US

Status
Not open for further replies.

bastiat

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
97
An article from National Review online. Relavent due to all the 'Bash America' sentiment at home and abroad.

------------------------------
It’s a Wonderful Country
A contemporary Christmas carol

Well, Clarence, we've got another assignment for you, the most difficult since you earned your wings.

What's that, Joseph?

Very similar to your last one. Only this time it's a whole country involved, rather than just one man. It's the United States.

But it's such a good country!

Oh, I agree. But a lot of bad things are said about it nowadays and about its role in history — that it took land from the Indians, and allowed the enslavement of blacks, and mistreated many others, and that it ought to make up for all those wrongs and remedy everything it did bad in the past, and just generally be ashamed of itself. Many people are saying that the United States should stop trying to export its values and its way of life, and should go stand in the corner for a good long while. There are even a lot of Americans who feel that way.

But we don't expect a person to be perfect, let alone a country, and it's really not fair to ignore all the good that a people has done and focus only on the bad.

Exactly, Clarence, and that's where you come in. That was really very effective, what you did for George Bailey. So we'd like you to do the same thing for the United States. Show what the world would be like if there hadn't been a United States.

Gee, that's a tall order — and remember that I have the IQ of a rabbit. Could you give me some examples?

Sure. Let's start at the beginning, with the Indians. It's always struck me as odd that the redistributionists, of all people, purport to have no problem with leaving half the world in the hands of a relatively few Indians. Show what the world would look like if the settlers had not come to the America, but had stayed in Europe. It would be mighty crowded in Europe, and it's not clear how well the Indians would have gotten along without Western technology and medicine. More to the point, though, is all the good things — for the Indians and everyone else — that would never have happened without a United States. I'll get to that in a second.

The United States is still getting a lot of criticism for the fact that it allowed slavery for its first 75 years or so — in fact, that criticism has stepped up recently. But you might ask whether there would be less slavery now, and would it have ended sooner, if the West — including the United States, at the price of a bloody civil war — had not existed, and had not acted to ban it. Show a world with a thriving Middle Eastern and African slave trade.

Many people have pointed out that African Americans would be much worse off now if they were just Africans. Show the reparations people what their lives would be like in Africa now, assuming they would even have lives there. And how would Africa be getting along these days without Western medicine, including the advances that have taken place as a result of American researchers and doctors? Show an Africa with all the old diseases still there, and no hope of containing the new ones, like AIDS.

But let's not pick on Africa and the Indians. After all, the people who owe the most to America are the Europeans. You could show the United States — and our European friends — what their little peninsula would look like if the Nazis had won World War II. And you can show what Europe would look like if the Soviet Union had won the Cold War.

Continued at link
 
Well,for one thing,there would be alot of Brits eating sauerkraut and summer sausages with the rythmic sound of goose-stepping in the background..;)
 
Without the British colonies that became the US, Spain would have dominated the New World and their record in dealing with the natives was one hell of a lot worse. The damage they did to Latin America is obvious for all to see - there's no REASON for virtually all the Latin American nations to be pestholes other than sheer bad government going on for so long, it becomes institutionalized.

Think a sec: only the two "British-derived" nations in both North and South America (the US and Canada) have consistently done OK for themselves.

The rest? With very minor exceptions, most are a disaster.
 
You left out Belize, a former British mandate/protectorate/whatever south of Mexico. It is supposed to be the next offshore banking center and tourist destination.

Sorry, Im bored and I'll jump on anything.
 
But you might ask whether there would be less slavery now, and would it have ended sooner, if the West — including the United States, at the price of a bloody civil war — had not existed, and had not acted to ban it.

Lincoln freeing the slaves (and only the ones in the South, btw) was a military decision, not because of politics or civil rights.

Some other points to consider:

There is a good chance the Germany would not have lost WWI. A direct result of that would be no Nazi Germany ever evolving. The USSR would never have become a superpower. They had already given Germany a good chunk of their land to get out of the war. Russia would probably have self destructed before the end of the '30s.

Of course, the altered path of history without the US may have been far worse than the one we had.
 
Imagine what would happen to all the third world contries without the military out delivering the pizza. They might have to solve their own problems.

Greg
 
Lincoln freeing the slaves (and only the ones in the South, btw) was a military decision, not because of politics or civil rights.

How could he "free" those in an area in which he had no political control? So Bush could issue a statement freeing those in Tibet, but it wouldn't mean a damn thing to those under the boot of the Chinese communists.

And what did it have to do with the Military? It was totally a political decision, kinda like Clinton helping gays in the military, getting credit for doing nothing.
 
Lincoln freed the slaves only in states that were "in rebellion" with the government (ie the Confederacy). The slaves in the states on the Union side of the war remained in slavery. The intent was military, to cause disruption in regards to acquisition and transportation of men and equipment to the front.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top