logo
From Slave To Superpower – How The U.S. Rose From British Colony To Global Warlord

From Slave To Superpower – How The U.S. Rose From British Colony To Global Warlord

India.com4 hours ago
New Delhi: The United States now sits at the head of the global table. It calls the shots, launches wars, controls currencies and decides who gets sanctioned. But rewind the clock by 250 years, and this self-declared leader of the free world was itself under foreign rule – a British colony like so many others.
Every year on July 4, America celebrates its Independence Day. But the road from colonised to coloniser was paved with rebellion, blood, betrayal, expansion and an unrelenting appetite for power. The story of America's rise is about how quickly the freed can become the masters.
The Empire That Owned America
In 1492, Christopher Columbus set sail looking for India. He landed in the Caribbean instead and told Europe about this 'new world'. What followed was a flood of European colonists, traders and soldiers. Among them were the British, who built 13 colonies across the eastern coast of North America and ruled them under the British crown.
Native Americans, the original inhabitants, were pushed out, taxed and slaughtered.
By the 1700s, discontent had boiled over. Britain taxed the colonies for sugar, tea and alcohol. American anger rose with every shipment. In 1776, the 13 colonies declared independence. The Declaration of Independence was adopted on July 4, signed by leaders like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Roger Sherman.
War, Resistance and a New Nation
The fight was not easy. The British Empire did not let go without a war. With determination, rebellion and local support, the Americans broke free. By the end of the 18th century, the United States was born – a union of former colonies, now calling itself the 'land of the free'.
George Washington became its first President. Benjamin Franklin became a symbol of its intellectual rise. The United States now had its flag, borders and ambitions.
From Fields to Factories
In the 19th century, surrounded by colonial powers like Britain, France and Spain, the new republic knew it had to arm itself economically and militarily. Agriculture gave way to machines. Steamships, railroads and industrial factories became the engine of growth. America became a land of inventors, investors and immigrants.
By 1850, it had taken over several islands across the Caribbean and the Pacific. It was no longer hiding behind its Atlantic border.
The War That Changed the Game
In 1898, the United States clashed with Spain over control of Cuba. Spain sank an American battleship. America retaliated. Cuban revolutionaries joined in. Spain lost. America gained Guam, Puerto Rico and the Philippines. It also annexed Hawaii. The American flag now flew over distant lands. The empire had quietly begun.
World War I: The Global Arrival
When World War I broke out in 1914, the United States stayed away at first. But in 1917, Germany sank American ships and plotted with Mexico. That was the trigger. The United States entered the war, fought on the side of the allies and helped them win. Washington now a global player.
The Sleeping Giant Wakes
The real shift came in 1941. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, killing over 2,400 Americans. The United States went to war. It dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan, ending World War II. But this time, it did not retreat home. It stayed as a superpower.
By the war's end, Europe was broken. America was not. In fact, its economy had doubled during the war. The dollar became the anchor for global currencies. The United States gave loans to Europe and Japan. It helped form the United Nations, the World Bank the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).
It was no longer just one of the powerful. It was the power.
The Cold War and Control
Post-war, the Cold War started. The United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) divided the world into blocs. In South Korea, the United States backed democracy. In the North, the Soviets backed dictatorship. In Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and Syria, America backed or broke governments depending on oil, allegiance or arms deals.
In Vietnam, Afghanistan, Latin America, American hands pulled strings. Often, they built; often, they destroyed. Either way, they never let go of control.
The Moon, The Gulf, The Markets
In 1969, the United States put a man on the moon. In the 1990s, it dominated the Gulf after crushing Iraq. Wall Street controlled global finance. Silicon Valley controlled technology. Hollywood controlled culture.
The Business of War
Today, America runs the world's biggest weapons industry. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the United States is the No. 1 arms exporter.
On some days, it makes over Rs 7,500 crore ($900 million) just selling weapons. Sometimes, it sells to both sides in a war. It helps allies with aid, then sends bombs too. Friends become buyers. Enemies become clients. The game continues.
Digging Into Nations, One Conflict at a Time
Look closely, and you will find American fingerprints everywhere. The United States backed the split of Korea. It interfered in Iran, invaded Iraq, bombed Libya and destabilised Afghanistan.
In Syria, it claimed to fight terror while funding groups. In Ukraine, it offered aid and weapons while turning the country into a geopolitical pawn.
In Israel, it funds Tel Aviv's strikes while Palestine bleeds.
Somewhere, behind every collapsed state and every foreign-backed coup, is a strategy – sell weapons, win contracts, set rules and stay dominant.
Freedom, Power and the Price of Influence
America's story began with colonial rule, with British taxes and rebellion. But in rising, it became the very force it once fought against. Its independence became influence. Its diplomacy became dominance.
Every July 4, fireworks light up the sky across the United States. But behind the glitter is a long and ruthless history – one where freedom was won with a fight and power was preserved through pressure.
From being a British colony to building military bases across the planet, the United States did not only grow. It took charge. And that charge continues.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Express View: For India, is BRICS worth it?
Express View: For India, is BRICS worth it?

Indian Express

time13 minutes ago

  • Indian Express

Express View: For India, is BRICS worth it?

The 2025 BRICS Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil ended over the weekend with a wide-ranging declaration on global and regional issues. But few outside the hapless desk officers in various foreign offices around the world and policy wonks in think tanks would want to pore over the 126-paragraph, 47-page, over-16,000-word declaration. With such familiar phrases as 'multipolar world', 'Global South', 'inclusive', 'sustainable' and 'global governance', it will certainly impress the enthusiasts who see BRICS as a powerful instrument to upend the global order. Many in the West do fear BRICS for the same reason. There is no reason to believe that US President Donald Trump would have had the time to read the long declaration, but he has repeated his earlier claim that BRICS is 'anti-American' and threatened to impose additional tariffs on members of the forum. But the hopes and fears of BRICS engineering a global transformation are misplaced. For, the forum is riddled with several contradictions of its own and its grasp has always been larger than its reach. As irony would have it, if anyone is trying to build a 'post-American order', it is Trump. In less than six months, he has overturned many traditional assumptions about US global policies and is seeking to radically overhaul the international system that Washington built after World War II and that was modified by it at the turn of the 1990s. Consider, for example, the BRICS talk about reforming the Bretton Woods system; Trump is doing precisely that by pressing for change at the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The BRICS call to save the World Trade Organisation is a sad (and hypocritical) cry in the wilderness with Trump well on his way to demolishing the rule-maker for world commerce. Even more damaging is that leading members of BRICS have been queuing up in Washington to negotiate bilateral deals with Trump holding a gun to their heads. They are not saving the WTO but protecting their own national trade with America by looking for bilateral deals. China has cut a limited deal. Vietnam, another communist country, announced a trade deal of its own. India hopes that its intensive trade negotiations with Trump's Washington in the past few months will bear fruit this week. Equally far-fetched is the idea that members of BRICS can submerge their bilateral differences to collectively blunt American dominance. For India, the economic and security challenges presented by China are much bigger than those posed by American hegemony. Two BRICS states — Saudi Arabia and the UAE — are as worried as Israel and the US about the nuclear weapons programme of a third member, Iran. But here is the rub. Trump's actions to overhaul the global economic, financial, and security order have produced great global churn. The Rio declaration has no answers, only hot air, in response to the Trump challenge. The circumstances that persuaded India to found BRICS and promote it for three decades are no longer present. Yet the political groupthink in Delhi is so entrenched that no questions are asked about the virtue of India investing so much political and diplomatic capital in a forum that does little to serve the country's current interests. With India taking over the chair of BRICS, the time to ask those questions is now.

UN adopts resolution on Afghanistan's Taliban rule despite US objections
UN adopts resolution on Afghanistan's Taliban rule despite US objections

Business Standard

time19 minutes ago

  • Business Standard

UN adopts resolution on Afghanistan's Taliban rule despite US objections

The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on Monday over US objections calling on Afghanistan's Taliban rulers to reverse their worsening oppression of women and girls and eliminate all terrorist organizations. The 11-page resolution also emphasises the importance of creating opportunities for economic recovery, development and prosperity in Afghanistan, and urges donors to address the country's dire humanitarian and economic crisis. The resolution is not legally binding but is seen as a reflection of world opinion. The vote was 116 in favour, with two the United States and close ally Israel opposed and 12 abstentions, including Russia, China, India and Iran. Since returning to power in Afghanistan in 2021, the Taliban have imposed harsh measures, banning women from public places and girls from attending school beyond the sixth grade. Last week, Russia became the first country to formally recognize the Taliban's government. Germany's UN Ambassador Antje Leendertse, whose country sponsored the resolution, told the assembly before the vote that her country and many others remain gravely concerned about the dire human rights situation in Afghanistan, especially the Taliban's near-total erasure of the rights of women and girls. The core message of the resolution, she said, is to tell Afghan mothers holding sick and underfed children or mourning victims of terrorist attacks, as well as the millions of Afghan women and girls locked up at home, that they have not been forgotten. US minister-counsellor Jonathan Shrier was critical of the resolution, which he said rewards the Taliban's failure with more engagement and more resources." He said the Trump administration doubts they will ever pursue policies "in accordance with the expectations of the international community. For decades we shouldered the burden of supporting the Afghan people with time, money and, most important, American lives, he said. It is the time for the Taliban to step up. The United States will no longer enable their heinous behaviour. Last month, the Trump administration banned Afghans hoping to resettle in the US permanently and those seeking to come temporarily, with exceptions. The resolution expresses appreciation to governments hosting Afghan refugees, singling out the two countries that have taken the most: Iran and Pakistan. While the resolution notes improvements in Afghanistan's overall security situation, it reiterates concern about attacks by al-Qaida and Islamic State militants and their affiliates. It calls upon Afghanistan "to take active measures to tackle, dismantle and eliminate all terrorist organizations equally and without discrimination. The General Assembly also encouraged UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to appoint a coordinator to facilitate a more coherent, coordinated and structured approach to its international engagements on Afghanistan.

The great dealmaker is conspicuously short of trade deals
The great dealmaker is conspicuously short of trade deals

Mint

time33 minutes ago

  • Mint

The great dealmaker is conspicuously short of trade deals

The world's trading system is now a reality-TV show. 'We invite you to participate in the extraordinary Economy of the United States, the Number One Market in the World," President Donald Trump proclaimed in letters dispatched to many of America's partners on July 7th. Then he threatened them with tariffs set to take effect on August 1st: 25% for Japan and South Korea, 32% for Indonesia and 36% Thailand. How serious is this deadline? Mr Trump first announced 'reciprocal" tariffs on April 2nd, only to withdraw them a week later, and grant countries another 90 days to reach deals. As the new deadline of July 9th loomed, it became clear that the administration's boast of '90 deals in 90 days" would fall flat. Negotiators have lined up only two 'frameworks", with Britain and Vietnam. Rather than admit failure, Mr Trump has doubled down, issuing a new deadline and posting threats to the world. Trade deals, it turns out, take time. Japan jumped to the front of the queue in April after Ishiba Shigeru, its prime minister, had a friendly phone call with Mr Trump. Its chief trade negotiator even donned a MAGA hat for the cameras during a visit to Washington. But after seven rounds of talks in three months, America is learning just how slow trade negotiations can be. Deals typically take 18 months to strike because they are complex and politically fraught. Although Mr Trump wants talks with Japan to settle all of America's grievances, from the trade deficit and defence spending to non-tariff barriers such as regulations on cars, Japan has its own constraints. Its government has ruled out concessions that would anger farmers ahead of an election to the upper house of parliament on July 20th or put its car industry at risk. Meanwhile, American tariffs on Japanese autos are already in place under a separate measure, meaning they were never tied to the July 9th deadline. Trade negotiations also require clarity on aims, which is in short supply in Mr Trump's talks with South Korea. In March he claimed that the Asian country maintained tariffs four times higher than America's, baffling officials. South Korea has a free-trade agreement, renegotiated during Mr Trump's first term, under which its tariff on American manufactured goods is near zero. Last week, Lee Jae-myung, South Korea's president, admitted that 'the two sides are not really clear what they want." And the agenda has since sprawled. America has raised issues including digital taxes on its tech firms, cost-sharing for its troops, network fees for platforms such as Netflix, South Korean investment in shipbuilding and an Alaskan pipeline, and restrictions on the export of location-based data by Google and others. With Mr Trump's tariff deadline now, in many cases, extended by three weeks, America's trading partners face a difficult calculation. They suspect he may delay again if they fail to reach an agreement, but cannot rely on him doing so. Such an imbalance—with export-reliant partners suffering more than America in the event of a deterioration in relations—gives Mr Trump leverage. Most will try to defuse the threat by conceding where they can, promising to buy more American gas and farm goods or to tweak regulations. Where concessions are especially unpalatable, they will stall and hope that domestic politics shifts or that small offers buy time. The goal is to yield just enough to avoid the full weight of tariffs, while avoiding outright capitulation. Over a dozen tariff letters have gone out; more are expected in coming days. For now, one name is missing: the European Union. With Canada, China and Mexico enjoying separate negotiations, and Britain and Vietnam signed up, the EU is the biggest partner still in play. It is racing to secure a preliminary deal to lock in a tariff rate of 10%. The bloc wants exemptions for aeroplane parts, wine and better terms for its carmakers, including a deal that would allow those with plants in America to ship more vehicles from Europe at lower rates. Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission's president, has also hinted at granting leeway for American tech firms on digital rules and closer co-operation on China, even as the bloc has prepared an arsenal of counter-measures that it could turn to if negotiations head south. Officials are working on a slim 'agreement in principle". If it is signed in the coming days, others may look on in envy—and wonder if the EU's threat of retaliation helped seal the deal.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store