Because the United States is not, nor has ever been, a part of the British Empire.
Karma[0]:
the force generated by a person's actions held
in Hinduism and Buddhism to perpetuate
transmigration and in its ethical consequences
to determine the nature of the person's next
existence
Even when extending the definition from "a person" to "a country", karma[0] does not apply in this situation.
> the United States is not, nor has ever been, a part of the British Empire.
The United States, shortly before calling itself the United Colonies, and shortly before that calling itself the Continental Association was formed as a group of colonies in British North America with common grievances against the government in London that it initially directed to the King within, and backed by an embargo against much of the rest of, the Empire. That attempt to improve the government of their part of the Empire to their satsifaction failing, they subsequently declared and eventually secured independence.
Which is to say that while it didn’t change its name to the United States until it had decided to exit the Empire, the organization that became known as the United States was formed as an association and agenda within the British Empire.
More to the point, the US, while not a belligerent in the Opium Wars, was a participant in the unequal treaties imposed through them (and played “good cop” while the British and French used force after the treaties relating to the 2nd Opium War were signed to secure their ratification.)
> Which is to say that while it didn’t change its name to the United States until it had decided to exit the Empire ...
Hence my explicit use of United States, as it came to be after the colonies were no longer. Virtually all of the people who remained were previously British subjects, of course.
But designations before a nation exists are moot for those whom subsequently are a part of said nation.
Regarding the Opium Wars, I detailed in a peer comment my understanding of US involvement and responsibility. Even if one were to posit the US is equally responsible for supplying opium to China as the British Empire was, a position I disagree with, it would still fail to negate my original premise:
We know what you think you are doing but it's as dumb as a criminal believing that changing their name exculpates them from their past crimes. New name, different person right?
> Two wrongs do not make a right.
Punishments without cause is called a wrong, punishment with cause is called justice... or karma in the casual sense.
The US is what happens when you cream off the religious nutcases from the British Empire, put the greediest in charge and found a new Empire based on conquest, genocide and chattel slavery. Plenty of justice waiting for America.
I wonder how much of America today is actually descended from these "religious nutcases", is it not a nation of immigrants? I think its interesting that you think surreptitiously poisoning a population could be considered justice for crimes that population did not commit. Very spicy take though, me me likey.
They had like 20 marines involved in one of the opium wars, so they weren’t completely non-belligerent. But this came after the Taiping Rebellion that killed 20-30 million people, so the Qing dynasty was really weak at that point.
United States did partake in the Opium trade in China, even though they were well aware of the harm, and profited from the wars the British and French fought.
Drawing a distinction that the US is completely seperate from the British Empire is pretty dishonest. If you mean the "state" sure, by definition, but it's culture, origin, people, primary (though not official) language all came from the British empire.
> United States did partake in the Opium trade in China, even though they were well aware of the harm, and profited from the wars the British and French fought.
True, there were US merchants which participated in supplying opium to China. Sometimes representing themselves, sometimes as proxies for British concerns. Also, an argument can be made that the East India Company operated under the influence, if not control, of the Crown. I do not believe the same argument could be made for US involvement, though I could be wrong.
However, unlike the British, the US in the Treaty of Wangxia agreed that any American involved in the opium trade would be prosecuted under Chinese law. Note that this does not absolve those involved in the opium trade prior or subsequent to this treaty for their actions.
> Drawing a distinction that the US is completely seperate from the British Empire is pretty dishonest.
No, it is not. It is a matter of historical fact[0]. Just because one nation can trace ancestry to another does not mean the newer one is answerable for the older one's actions. Are there commonalities between them? Of course.
But they are as distinct as a child is from their parents.
Aren't Americans of German descent the largest group in the country? I didn't think that Americans of English/British descent were anywhere close (I would guess third at best, after Irish descent)
German-Americans are largest self-identified. But if we're talking about white people, US originated almost entirely by English people until the 1820 wave of German immigration. English are the largest, followed by German, Irish, Italian.
> How is that different than karma?
Because the United States is not, nor has ever been, a part of the British Empire.
Karma[0]:
Even when extending the definition from "a person" to "a country", karma[0] does not apply in this situation.0 - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/karma