Customer Reviews

Blood, Class and Empire: The Enduring Anglo-American Relationship (Nation Books)

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

I feel compelled to write a short review of this book in order to underscore how badly I feel that many of the leftist reviewers here have misunderstood it, probably based on no more than reading the title if history is any judge. This book IS NOT some bloated Noam Chomsky fairy tale about America and its misdeeds throughout time; it IS a very nice survey of the 'special relationship' between America and Great Britain, and its enduring components of blood, class, and nostalgia (as the original title that I own went).
So, look elsewhere for loony paranoid fantasies; here you will only find the usual intelligent Hitchens style.

Hitchens is both a polemicist and a comedian and this re-issue is a timely reminder of his wicked sense of fun. It probably shouldn't be taken too seriously. If read as an extension of an amusing hypothesis it's very effective, if read as a serious work of geo-political analysis it may be something of a disappointment.

I enjoyed it tremendously, but then I came to it mostly expecting to be entertained and reminded of some hazy anecdotes that might adorn the history of the 'special relationship' at a dinner-party level.

Reading the reviews that this book has garnered on amazon ironically demonstrated to me the very sizable difference in character between the two partners in this uneasy, but now very long-standing marriage.

The British Empire was an empire based on 'grace' (of necessity - that small temperate isle anchored off the coast of continental Europe could only enforce its 'imperium' by diplomacy and grace. Let's be honest: the Brits CHARMED the Indians into accepting their rule!)

In contrast the American Empire is based on 'power' and the projection overseas of American interests through financial and military 'might' based on a trans-continental nation with unparalleled economic and technological capability has been the exercise of effective, determined, aggressive self-interest.

It is therefore a not-too-surprising irony that your reaction to this work will be determined by your expectations based on whether you are looking for a Brtish-style work of charming anecdote illuminating by wit, or whether your need is really for a hard-headed geopolitcal analysis to satisfy the most self-interested Beltway policy wonk.

My advice: sit back and enjoy the charm. Thank God that we (eventually) went and saved Britain from Hitler and thus helped them secure Europe for civilisation and democracy. Life would be immeasurably less rich without these crazy Brits and their incomprehensible wit and, despite their all-too-obvious concerns of late, they have repaid that debt with interest in supporting us through thick and (recently) thin and adding their not inconsiderable weight to our strategies. You can just hear Harold Macmillan saying something like "Think nothing of it dear boy".

No 'serious' American writer would have produced this confection. That's why we serious Americans should read it.

It was surprising to me that "Blood, Class and Empire: the Enduring Anglo-American Relationship" seemed to jive with John Coleman's "The Conspirator's Hierarchy The Committee of 300." You can read my review of that book if you'd like.
Of course, most people (like myself) would say that Coleman's book went way over the top, but after reading Hitchens' book you start to wonder if some of the topics Coleman tried to tackle were sound arguments, considering Hitchens discusses two major think-tanks that influence foreign policy in Europe and the United States, which are The Council On Foreign Relations (CFR), and The Royal Institute of International Affairs (known to Europeans as Chatham House.) I also highly recommend reading James Perloff "The Council On Foreign Relations and the American Decline."

Anyhow, Hitchens manages to dime out "The Rhodes Scholarship and Ditchley Park, which all seem to be a part of the Round Table groups that rightwing conspiracy theorist such as Coleman, Texe Marrs author of "Circle of Intrigue," and G. Edward Griffin author of "The Creature From Jekyll Island" discussed in their books.

Hitchens argues in a sort of satirical fashion that these think tanks influence Western policy, and of course, Hitchens is spot on about this. According to Hitchens, the Rhodes Scholars schemed in South Africa, running "the Kaffir Compound System, [which was a] forerunner of apartheid operated De Beers diamond mines"[owned by Cecil Rhodes.] Moreover, they were behind the Boer Wars and the Filipino Wars.

Also, Hitchens said, "The British branch of the Institute of International Affairs, with Lionel Curtis as its secretary, swiftly took on the essential prefix `Royal,' under which title it flourishes to this day. Most outsiders know it by its less cumbersome name of Chatham house, and it is by no means unknown to receive a Foreign Office briefing under what are agreeably known as `Chatham House rules'-the surreptitiously, deep-background culture that informs so much British public life."

He then explains how America's number one think tank (The Council On Foreign Relations) is really a spin off of Chatham House. Furthermore, Hitchens goes on to say, "By 1922 the Council had begun to publish Foreign Affairs [magazine,] and it was not long before words like `judicious and authoritative' began to be applied to the magazine. Its launching was the brainchild of Edwin F. Gay, a Council figure and the first dean of the Harvard Business School." Hitchens then quotes Edwin F. Gay as saying, "When I think of the British Empire as our inheritance I think simply of the natural right of succession. That ultimate succession is inevitable."

Can you say "New World Order" three times fast?

Anyway, Hitchens parenthetically states, "Broadly speaking, the composition and character of the Council On Foreign Relations was one of post- [Woodrow] Wilsonian internationalism, with a self-conscious emphasis on America's duty to shoulder a global role. It ranged itself more or less explicitly against the isolationist, and drew strength from the more forward-looking and adventurous element of the business community."
It seems to me that Hitchens is in agreement with conspiracy theorist such as Anthony J. Hilder (founder of the Free World Alliance) who claims that the Council On Foreign Relations is really America's de-facto government, what the elite CFR would call the "Pax Americana" initiative.

Hitchens cites a bevy of points, but one in particular was when the CFR tried to persuade Franklin Roosevelt to extend the Monroe Doctrine to annex Greenland as part of the American Continent in the auspices of protecting it from Adolph Hitler, just in case he decided to usurp Danish colonies.

Also, Hitchens wrote about how Winston Churchill wanted to establish duel citizenship between The United Kingdom and the United States. Of course, this invidious idea would have sparked outrage among the American people. So this idea never saw the light of day.

Hitchens also writes about the backroom deals between Josef Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt during the Malta Yalta conferences.

Hitchens comes to the impasse as to why the Western powers are so xenophobic. The U.S. and Britain share a loving bond, but it seem that Britain in some respects has become the junior partner in the whole scheme of things since today the U.S. pretty much polices the territories the former British Empire usurped before World War II.

The conclusion I came to after reading this book is that nation building is not the answer as Hitchens put it, "it will be a splendid thing if, showing that countries can after all learn from history, [if] the United States decided to become less Roman, and the British decided to become more Greek, and both rediscovered republican virtues in a world without conquerors" then the world would be all the better for it.
In other words we the people need to embrace the ideas that embodies the Constitution and up hold it and set an example to the world. I think that's what Hitchens was trying to say throughout this book.

While I like this book quite a bit - vintage Hitchens -- he makes one dreadful error on page 138, when he's talking about English as the semi-official language of the US. He says that "as late as 1795, the House of Representatives narrowly defeated a motion that all its documents and proceedings be printed also in German. The tie vote was cast by the Speaker, one Friedrich Muhlenberg."

This ain't so. Muhlenberg was the Speaker, and a vote did fall one short -- but it wasn't to print in German, it was merely to table such a motion for consideration later. It failed, and thus the motion was dropped forever. It was never voted on at all.(...)

"Blood, Class and Empire" was originally published in 1990. This is a reissue with a new forward dated October, 2003, but with no other changes identified. That explains a lot. Christopher Hitchens has a well-earned reputation for writing succinct, witty, hard-hitting articles for Vanity Fair, as well as other prestigious and literate magazines. He must not have found his voice yet in 1990. The writing is entertaining only in patches and the book overall, other than being in chronological order, poorly formed.

The meat of the text is a series of anecdotes concerning relationships between Englishmen (rarely Englishwomen), Americans and English-Americans in the early days of the United States up to around the 1950's. The author has gone to some trouble to root out the most unsavory characters from both sides of the Atlantic. Based on this book, the "special relationship" between England and America was a series of behind-the-scenes deals between greedy, ignorant, self-serving politicians, businessmen and private individuals. Rudyard Kipling, an Englishman living in India who moved to the United States, is quoted most frequently. From this reading, he sounds both highly influential and a thoroughly loathsome racist. Since he gave the world the famous line "You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din", I'll reserve judgment on that. Although he certainly wouldn't be the first great artist who was a jerk in private life.

The "special relationship" between the United States and England has been a topic of heated debate recently in the United Kingdom because of the war in Iraq. The British Prime Minister has asserted that the relationship both required Britain to join America's alliance against Suddam Hussein and gave the British some influence over events. In that case, replied a goodly portion of the British electorate, let's be done with a relationship that costs so much and achieves so little. But according to Hitchens, it is the UK that is constantly pushing the US into ill-thought out wars.... It's hard not to be skeptical about that.

When it comes down to details, Hitchens' case that the "special relationship" is alive and well and only slowly dying, is based on the presence of a faux-British pub in California, a one-upmanship contest between two senators trying to outquote Kipling to each other, and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's reported (but unconfirmed) comment to George Bush Sr that "this is no time to go wobbly" when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.

For a student of the "special relationship" between England and America, "Blood, Class and Empire" contains a good deal of historical source material that is not well-known. In that respect the book is genuinely of interest. But those of us looking for a modern, balanced and preferably entertaining report on the current situation between the two regions will have to look elsewhere. Most of the items here are as out of date as the word "Empire."

I must first reply to some reader who says that the Americans came and saved us from Hitler. What a load of rubbish and highy insulting. It is the UK that saved America from Hitler by our powerful British Royal Navy. This person wants to read Roosevelts speach and they will see that he needed the power of Great Britain to stop the spread of Nazism to the Americas. Where do they get the impression that the UK is practically, one would think according to this reader on our knees. We are a very powerful country helping to back up the US as no one else will. I would not get too carried away by books and thoughts that this reader has obviously not really looked into.
I add this following piece from an American - not British - survey and this is what it reads. "Great Britain possesses one of the largest and most technologically
advanced militaries in the world. In 1996, the U.S. Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency estimated that Britain allocated over
$33 billion to defense activities ....." It goes on "As a result of its long-standing commitment to national defense, Britain
has developed the capability to produce indigenously virtually any kind of
armament. This ability has made Britain
one of the world leaders....." To return to the book, it makes entertaining reading but when reading it I would not get too carried away with it, enjoy it for itself and not what one might like to believe

Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and should stick to that. Need I say more?

This is undoubtedly the worst book I have read on this subject. It is pedantic, boring, and relies more on hearsay and opinion than confirmable fact. The bottom-line theory that "empire" is the foundation of the Anglo-American relationship is out-and-out false; there has been no "Anglo" empire in nearly a century. Don't waste your time on this trash.

If Chris Hitchens really believes all the pro-Bush, war on terrorism garbage he has been spewing since 9/11 he would halt the publication of this book--instead he's rushed to print it. Money is the only way a sell-out like Hitchens could rationalize re-publishing his old ideas that he now reputes. Unfortunately, the old Hitchens had it mostly right while the new one seems too inebriated to understand his new role propping up the empire.

If you want to read about the American empire don't buy this: buy Gore Vidal's latest book.

What trash and aimless drivel. You'll find more truth at a liars anonymous gathering. This book is not worthy of a long retort so I will simply say that it is TRASH! There, I've done it now. I've insulted trash. I didn't think that was possible...