Anglo-Saxons also realized that the only way by which Anglo-Saxonism could survive is if it expanded and spread throughout the world. The expansion and spread of Anglo-Saxonism within the structural context of globalization and technology came to be known as “imperialism.” To borrow from one scholar:
“Politically, the process of globalization was synonymous with what was then called, and has since been called, imperialism. The world was divided into those who established control over distant territories and those who became objects of such control. A handful of imperialist nations appropriated among themselves the vast lands of Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and the Pacific Ocean as colonies, semi-colonies, or spheres of influence. This was a military-political process, since control necessitated that a power structure be imposed upon alien peoples. Without such a regime, it was feared that local instability would create a chaotic condition and threaten the interests of a particular imperialist nation or invite the extension of power by its rivals…”
Imperialism, however, is dual-faceted, in the sense that while Anglo-Saxonism sought to expand and spread, it sought to absorb and accommodate other cultures as well. In other words, Anglo-Saxons and Anglo-Americans were deeply and profoundly and sincerely interested and inclined towards other cultures and peoples. To borrow from the scholar yet again: “Americans had always been curious about other peoples and had cherished imports from distant lands. But in the age of globalization there arose serious interest not only in curios and exotica of strange peoples but also in the fine arts, religions, philosophies, and ways of life of other countries, especially in the East…”
Hence, Anglo-Saxonism and the Anglo-American people are a paradox, in the sense that they are racist but non-racist at the same time. Cultural diversity is something which Anglo-Americans embrace but equivocate from at the same time. Thus, the key question for the Anglo-American establishment is how to deal with cultural diversity and integration, especially at a time when cultural diversity and integration are occurring at breakneck speed as a result of advances and evolutions in globalization and technology. It follows that at the heart of the cultural dimension of American foreign relations is a “dualism” of sorts. To borrow from the scholar yet again:
“Sometimes globalization provoked opposition on the part of forces exemplifying cultural diversity, but this was a dualism that had always existed…What was remarkable as the century gave way to the new millennium was that the dualism was coming more and more to determine the shape of international political and economic, as well as cultural, affairs. Cultural relations were no longer marginal pursuits, if they ever were. For the United States as well as for others, culture was coming to claim center stage as they conducted their foreign affairs.”
In short, America and the American people give more to global charitable causes and purchase more goods and services from different countries than any other country and people in the world, yet espouse a racial hierarchy which in turn wields an array of rigid and uncompromising racial stereotypes. Yet another paradox, a paradox which we should note is situated alongside the aforementioned paradox of how Anglo-Saxonism is a culture and a worldview that imposes and forces itself on other cultures yet absorbs and accommodates them at the same time.
Adam A. Azim 