Your point is true, though banal, but your history is hopelessly muddled.
In the late 19th Century, the world was perfectly justified to fear and resent British and European imperialism, and to a lesser degree American expansionism. It doesn't make us wrong now to admit that our forebears did much wrong then. I'm not proud of exploits like the Opium Wars, they offend every moral principle I hold dear!
The French gleefully participated in the 19th Century adventures, and have been our allies in every conflict since the Crimean War, so describing them as 'enemies', is just you falsely projected todays trivial disagreements into the past
Furthermore, to describe our culture is 'Anglo-Judaic' is flat out ridiculous. Modern Western culture owes a little something to all its wonderful minor contributors -- Irish, French, Catholic, the other Europeans, Jewish, where do you draw the line? But the foundation of all our political and legal institutions -- Common Law rights (the basis of the Bill of RIghts), Parliament, the balance of powers, equality under the law, and so forth -- are ancient and they are British (or Anglo-Saxon if you prefer an 'ethnic' term). They predate by centuries the influence of Jews in Western intellectual life.
Your argument is as simplistic and innaccurate as the terrorists calling us 'Jews and Crusaders'.
I hate Osama Bin Laden as much as the next guy, but does history have to be a casualty in this battle?
Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.
Other reader comments on this article
Comment
By
Date
This piece makes a great deal of sense to me. However as I think back on my own early years... [MORE]
Shalom Freedman
Jan 14, 2008 03:46
One explanation for apparent Anglo-Jewish symbiosis may be that lower levels of ethnocentrism among the British and Americans have made... [MORE]
James Russell
Dec 5, 2007 05:16
The other conjecture that Walter Mead failed to mention that binds the two cultures together is that they've both been... [MORE]
Drumond
Nov 23, 2007 05:48
I am unable to fathom what is in the mind of the author. He forgets that most wars that were... [MORE]
subramaniam shankar
Nov 21, 2007 10:43
If Osama Bin Laden and the Iranian leader were wrong about our morality, we could complain about it; but if... [MORE]
Marie Devine
Nov 20, 2007 12:49
who says public education failed? reading some of the comments here show that our educational system succeeded completely, if you... [MORE]
warren bacon
Nov 25, 2007 15:07
Let us reflect on the beginning. We have explorers that date back to the 1500's. We have the Moors and... [MORE]
Anne-Marie Arthur-Askling
Nov 20, 2007 10:08
It is quiet interesting to see how ideas are borrowed, within the world of research and outside.
Within the world of... [MORE]
lilian
Nov 17, 2007 16:04
Ever since I was a kid , terrorist have been attacking us and ALWAYS have said it was because of... [MORE]
Dale Legan
Nov 17, 2007 14:01
Mr. Mead comes off as Churchill without the charm here - his 'Anglo-Judaic synthesis' sounds like something that might emerge... [MORE]
Patrick Kennedy
Nov 16, 2007 17:13
"And as for the bragging about Britain and America's success in war, let's just say you guys chose your friends... [MORE]
dan
Nov 16, 2007 23:03
"Major land powers? Not so much on your own. Napoleon and Hitler both came a cropper in Russia - without... [MORE]
Tom Perkins
Nov 18, 2007 02:51
Sorry Patrick,
Stalin only fought a single front war. We had to fight on 3 fronts. Europe, Africa and the Pacific.... [MORE]
Dennis D
Nov 19, 2007 07:24
Nukes would have worked, but not American armies.
The notions of personal liberty that made America rich and technologically advanced have... [MORE]
Patrick Kennedy
Feb 17, 2008 12:43
When it came to the actual fighting, WWII was a war between Germany and her allies and Russia and her... [MORE]
Patrick Kennedy
Feb 17, 2008 12:54
On second thought, without Stalin they would never have got ashore.
Sea Lion would proceeded to conclusion in 1941. The big... [MORE]
Patrick Kennedy
Feb 17, 2008 15:34
Your point is true, though banal, but your history is hopelessly muddled.
In the late 19th Century, the world was perfectly...
Kip Watson
Nov 16, 2007 17:02
Yours does. Because where it isn't simplified to the point of absurdity, it's just plain flat-out wrong.
Where do you think... [MORE]
Slappy Joe
Nov 16, 2007 21:31
"the world was perfectly justified to fear and resent British and European imperialism"...
Having read much of the history of these... [MORE]
dan
Nov 16, 2007 22:53
The French continuation of the Classical Liberal movement in political economy in fact began its own abnegation. It is a... [MORE]
Tom Perkins
Nov 18, 2007 02:50
Saying the natives were lucky to be ruled by Britain for a reasonable length of time takes a fairly long... [MORE]
Patrick Kennedy
Feb 17, 2008 13:16
The author is incorrect about the Brits losing only one war since 1688. They did lose in two wars with... [MORE]
Michol
Nov 16, 2007 16:18
It should be noted that the main British strategy in 1814 was to gain as much land south even to... [MORE]
Dr. Thomas C. LaMar
Jan 30, 2008 22:32
Right now, we have two major problems:
1) The intolerant are intolerant of tolerance.
2) The tolerant are tolerant of intolerance.
As an... [MORE]
Dr. Ellen
Nov 16, 2007 13:28
Will China, the next great rival to Anglo-American-Canadian-ANZAK exceptionalism, recognize a distinction between Jews and Christians, the way the Europeans... [MORE]
G. Clarke
Nov 16, 2007 12:04
Since the establishment of the Hydraulic Civilizations of ancient Mesopotamia, the Ruling Strata of Civilized Society have utilized the Society's... [MORE]