Modern States Are The Status Quo Essay

The often told story of America’s founding begins the Founding fathers waged a revolution and created a unique place called the United States of America. This story may include the early Jamestown colony and puritan colonists, and at times deal with the depollution and dispossession of the America’s native inhabitants. However frequently the complex nature of America’s prerevolutionary era is left out. Daniel Richter offers a refreshing non-teleological revision by showing that the United States has a much deeper history. Richter presents America as a nation with multiple pasts that stretch back as far as the middle ages. These pasts, he argues, continue to be felt in the present. Richter’s history utilizes a vast array of primary sources and his cultural history spans more than seven centuries. Richter works to recover the histories of an intermingling sort of individuals from North America, Europe, and Africa. The struggle for control of land and resources of these individuals took place in a global context. This multilayer struggle gradually gave rise to a distinctive American culture. Richter argues that by dissecting and understanding this culture on its own—and not as a build-up to an inevitable revolution—reveals the origins of American history.

Following the First World War, the United States went in search of a, “return to normalcy,” which many agreed was exactly what it needed. However, to the dismay of many, all the United States could find was a significant amount of tension that had developed between, “Old America,” and, “New America.” All in all, this tension that arose between old and new traditions and ideas did so in the form of religion, conflicts within society, and cultural values.

The journal asks what possible reasons Americans could have to begin to quarrel over our identity with the crown. We are not defiant because we simply have nothing else to do; rather we are defiant because we have been stepped on countless amounts of times by “Parliament (specifically, the House of Commons)” that insist that they are “the guardians of British constitutional liberty” only because of their victorious efforts against the “tyranny of the Stuart kings of England.” Yet, their understanding of a constitution is so much more different that they continue the same practices of the Stuarts.

Jingoism intwined with governmental policy and “a majority…of Americans…grant[ing] spontaneous consent to foreign policy militancy” influences policies related to foreign and national security in the United States.1 European history of colonialism and imperialism impacted the development of foreign policy and national security. In Culture, National Identity, and the “Myth of America,” Walter L. Hixson leniently critiques American foreign policy, while advocating towards a more “cooperative internationalism.”2 Melvyn P. Leffler in National Security, Core Values, and Power fails to formulate an engaging argument for national security policies reflection of America core values. In reference to foreign and national security policy, both Hixson and Leffler refer to the impact of hegemony, with Leffler’s mention succinct and without specific detail. In the United States, foreign policy leans towards jingoism, while national security policy develops from general core values.

People want to retain power instead of just letting go of the past. However, Steele argues that collective entitlements are bad for the country, so he believes that people need to step up and take responsibility for their own part in creating a separation. In “The New Sovereignty” Steele effectively persuades and informs minority groups and grievance groups about danger of collective entitlement and how it is damaging unification in the United States. He emphasizes his rhetorical choices of anecdote and tone in order to set a common ground and challenge his audience.

Throughout the course of history, Americans have changed the ways in which they derived the powers of the government from the consent of the governed, have changed their understanding of social and political practices concerning “rights”, changed “forms” of government, which have all led to a change in Americans’ “safety and happiness”.

The “state” is best understood in relation to a government’s power, influence and involvement with citizens’ rights in a given territory. The larger the state the more involved it is in the lives of its citizens.

From this paper, the reader will learn a lot about America, and the things that are often glossed over when trying to present the country a patriotic and free. It is important to take steps like these towards gaining a broader picture of our nation and perhaps also the human mind. Doing these things almost always have positive effects on people and their worldviews.

In recent years, there has been an attack on a basic American right, a right so fundamental and deeply rooted that it defines the basis of American culture. With the ever growing and sweeping power of the U.S. government, society is beginning to feel like this right has been crushed and forgotten. Wars were fought and people sacrificed their lives in the name of protecting the right worth dying for. What defined one’s livelihood, gave one a personhood, ensured democracy, promoted labor, and maximizes the happiness of the people will all come crumbling down. What was once an indicator of the elite leaders of a democratic society has become nothing more than a pawn in a political game.

A country born of laws, rights and citizenship with the idea of a free people to govern over themselves, was the original intent of the American experience. However, America did not inherit traditional bonds of a national identity, so it had to rely on a few cultural foundations that became critical in deciding who belonged in the American experience. The pillars seemed to be a common language of English, a religion based on a broad view of Christianity, and the notion of a traditional family. As more people were included politically, more people were excluded culturally if they did not conform to some version of those three expected characteristics. This weeks reading demonstrates how Constitutional guarantees take a backseat in the wake

After a long, exhausting, painful war for independence from Great Britain, the United States became its own nation, a nation of choice and rights, a nation of voice and strong opinion, a nation with freedom handed to humans by God. The birth of this glorious new state brought forth a new era of revolution throughout the world. Countries took America’s victory to heart, overthrowing their monarchial governments and establishing governments run by popular sovereignty. The existence of the United States, perhaps, led to the global fight for self-government.

The birth of a nation does not happen overnight nor with one word. One can clearly see how words and ideas have an impact on people’s thoughts and writing by examining “The Declaration of Independence” and Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense.” Basically, the two documents echo principles stated in John Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government,” and share a style of expressing their feelings on national issues; the authors examine and give reasons for colonial problems with the government and offer a solution. The tone and audience might vary, but the overall message is similar in its principles, showing the impact Locke and Paine had on such a vital document in our history as the “Declaration of Independence”.

Today, in the 21st century, English has become one of the most used languages around the world. It is so widely used that linguists have considered it to be the new ‘lingua franca’. Along with its language the United States is one of the most influential countries around the globe. There is no denying its presence in everything from international politics to entertainment. In fact, it is thought to be the only country that rivals the world 's once-great empires in terms of its global impact. In an article written by Mclean, she proclaims, “the U.S dominates world politics by providing the language, ideas, and institutional frameworks around which much of the world turns” (2). However, the United States did not just become an imperial power over night. From the middle of the 19th century till present time the U.S has been intervening in foreign lands. One country that has been immensely influenced by English colonization, to present day, is the Island of the Philippines. Whether it was consciously or not, the control of the Philippines by U.S after the Spanish-American War was a small step towards world power. A brief look into Philippines’ history shows how much different the island would’ve been without English rule. Although the Philippines were not pleased with the transfer of power over to America in the Treaty of Paris, the short 50 year rule proves to have had a major impact on Philippine culture, customs, and politics today.

Sovereignty is a norm of the International system upon which the ‘society of states’ rests. Territorial sovereignty refers specifically to the power of the state ‘the territorial limits within which state authority may be exercised on an exclusive basis.’ This essay will explore the concept and development of sovereignty within the system of states. Firstly, it will identify the state system before the ‘Peace of Westphalia’ in 1648, then it will compare the ever changing forms of sovereignty since, and the reasons for change, which have established the modern form of sovereignty which exists today.

This essay will describe the characteristics of the modern nation-state, explain how the United States fits the criteria of and functions as a modern nation-state, discuss the European Union as a transnational entity, analyze how nation-states and transnational entities engage on foreign policy to achieve their interests, and the consequences of this interaction for international politics.