Name Date Period Us History I The English Colonize In: Fill & Download for Free

Introduction and SummaryIt used to be believed that in prehistoric times the British Isles were invaded numerous times, with each wave of invaders overwhelming those that had come before. The last such group to arrive before the coming of the Romans to Britain (and thus the beginning of history) were identified as “Celts,” and held to be the ancestors of Picts, Scots, Irish, and Britons. Recent advances in DNA research, ethno-linguistics, and computer-assisted analysis of archeological findings have turned the previous certainties upside down. But this new research is still in its infancy, and ideas that seemed to be true the day before yesterday are already being debunked by today. Therefore, much of what I write in this answer is conditional and subject to revision as new discoveries are made.It is currently believed that the greater part of our DNA comes from Bronze Age farmers who arrived in the islands in or around 2000 BC, and largely replaced the earlier population that had been here perhaps continuously since the end of the last great Ice Age. These Bronze Age settlers may have been the same as the Beaker Folk who were culturally dominant in much of western Europe in the early Bronze Age: considerable quantities of Bell-Beaker artifacts are present in the archeological record of the islands from around this time. Others dispute this, and claim that the Beaker culture was brought to Britain and Ireland by Iberians who had adopted it from the original Beaker folk earlier.The Bronze Age culture flourished for almost two thousand years, before giving way to the Iron Age. It was long believed that the Iron Age revolution was the work of “Celtic” invaders who conquered (and perhaps wiped out) the descendants of the old Bronze Age settlers with superior weaponry. A modified version of this hypothesis may still be the established view, with it now being claimed that the Iron Age newcomers ruled as an aristocratic warrior class over the existing population (this would explain the survival of the Bronze Age DNA). A more recent theory suggests, however, that rather than representing a break with the past, the Iron Age revolution came about through trade among the peoples of the Atlantic littoral and the adoption of the new technology by the peoples of the islands. According to this way of looking at things, the people we have called “Celts” are still our ancestors, it’s just that they were here for much longer than we thought.After the Ice AgeThe pattern of invasion and settlement in Britain and Ireland was understood to have been as follows. In very ancient times, certain peoples came to these islands and settled; some of them left their impressions on the landscape (such as Scara Brae, Newgrange, and Stonehenge), and others left little trace at all. But as night follows day, one group of invaders had no sooner settled down than another arrived, with the newcomers wiping out or assimilating those who were already here. Each group brought with it its own language, culture, technology and of course genes, and with every invasion the story began anew.[FN1]With the exciting developments in DNA research, ethno-linguistics, and computer-assisted analysis of archeological findings within the past twenty years, however, almost none of this is regarded as true now. It is increasingly accepted that all the inhabitants of the islands (save for very recent arrivals) share largely the same DNA. In other words, today’s Irish, Scots, Welsh and English are descended from common ancestors.This theory was first popularized by British geneticist Stephen Oppenheimer, who proposed that the peoples of the islands were descended primarily from Mesolithic hunter-gatherers who had followed the retreating glaciers at the end of last great Ice Age, about 10,500 years ago. These ancient peoples crossed the land bridge that joined Great Britain to the European continent and later navigated the then-shallow sea to Ireland. According to Oppenheimer, although other groups had later added their genes to the mix, the vanilla in the British and Irish sundae came from those long-ago hunter-gatherers (who, Oppenheimer suggested, were related to the Basques).A map showing the estimated extent of Doggerland, which linked Britain with the European continent. Source: Doggerland - WikipediaMore recent research has thrown key aspects of Oppenheimer’s theory into question, although it appears he was right in his insight that the peoples of these islands share a common ancestry. There is now strong evidence in the DNA record of a major extinction event in the islands about 4,500 years ago, with the abrupt disappearance of about 90% of the population and their replacement by Bronze Age farmers who arrived in the islands by sea. (The land bridge to the continent had been obliterated by rising sea levels about 8,000 years ago.)[FN2]The great passage tomb at Newgrange in Ireland (ca. 3200 BC), where the central chamber is illuminated by a shaft of light at dawn on the Winter Solstice.It seems that it is from these (relative) newcomers that most of us get most of our genes. Apparently about 88% of the Irish DNA derives from these ancient people, slightly smaller percentages in the cases of the Welsh and Scots, and between 70% and 75% in the case of the English.What caused the near-total extinction of the people who had inhabited these islands for thousands of years at that stage? Was this an example to the type of invasion and extermination that had previously been believed in? Perhaps not: no mass graves or other evidence of large-scale massacres has been found so far, but as the saying goes, the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence. Other scholars suggest that the previous inhabitants died out because of some environmental catastrophe, but there is no evidence either way regarding this. I find plausible yet another theory, that our Bronze Age ancestors may have brought with them some epidemic disease to which they had developed an immunity but the insular inhabitants had not. Many epidemic diseases, it should be noted, begin as cross-infections from livestock. But the short answer is that nobody knows what caused the near-extinction of the earlier inhabitants.The Neolithic Callanish Stone Circle on the Isle of Lewis. Source: Callanish Stones - WikipediaWhat Do We Know About Our Bronze-Age Ancestors?Where did these, our most significant ancestors, come from? Ultimately, perhaps Anatolia, which their forebears had left thousands of years earlier, arriving in the British Isles after a slow progress northwestwards across Europe. Other researchers believe that they originated in the Asian steppes. Their arrival coincides, more or less, with the appearance in the archeological record of the distinctive Bell-Beaker artifacts, but academics disagree as to whether the beakers originated with these migrating farmers or if they picked up the technology from another early European population group along the way. A recent hypothesis suggests that while the Bell-Beaker culture may have originated in around present-day Switzerland, the technology was brought to the islands by ancient Iberians. (This is often labelled the “pots or people” debate.)A typical bell-shaped beaker, this one from Spain ca. 2000 BC. Source: Beaker culture - WikipediaWe do know a fair amount about their culture, however, because they left us a lot of artifacts. They were skilled metallurgists and smiths, and their legacy includes swords, shields, ornate jewelry, and farming implements and tools, all fashioned from bronze and other materials. They also left us of course many examples of the bell-shaped clay pots from which the Bell-Beaker culture gets its name. (The beakers themselves actually fell out of use by aboout 1700 BC.)A Bronze Age Shield from Britain, ca. 1200–700 BC. Source: Bronze Age Britain - WikipediaThey practiced inhumation, burying the dead in the ground, in contrast to the entombment practiced by the earlier Neolithic inhabitants of the island. We don’t know much about their religious beliefs, but the reverence with which they treated their dead, and their use of grave goods, suggests that they believed in an afterlife.The grave of a 16–18 year-old female and a 17–20 year-old male dating to ca. 2000-1950 BC. Both are buried with a fineware beaker. Photograph: Dave Webb, Cambridge Archaeological UnitThe Iron AgeThe next major revolution in the life of the islands was the arrival of Iron Age technology in the last few centuries BC. (The Iron Age is said to have begun in Britain in about 800 BC and in Ireland in ca. 500 BC.) This has long been identified with the coming of the Celts, but the term “Celt” is increasingly regarded by many scholars as unhelpful and misleading.[FN3] The fact that our collective DNA comes largely from the Bronze Age settlers is obviously at odds with the long-held belief that the Celts invaded the islands in about 300 BC, routed the previous inhabitants, and became our ancestors. But if there were no Celts (or, at least, no all-conquering Celts in large numbers), then where did the Iron Age technology and the Goidelic and Brythonic languages that we have traditionally associated with the “Celts” come from?Well of course, not all of our DNA comes from the Bronze Age farmers. Most of the rest of it can be accounted for by groups who came to these islands much later, in historical times: Anglo-Saxons, Norsemen, Danes, Normans, and so forth.[FN4] But researchers have discovered certain markers that seem to have entered the British and Irish gene pools before the historical period. These markers are not uniformly distributed throughout the islands, suggesting that small groups of Iron Age newcomers settled in specific areas and intermarried with the existing population. Some scholars have identified them with the Celts, who it is now suggested constituted a relatively small aristocratic warrior class who were able to dominate the existing population with superior Iron Age weapons and therefore impose their own culture on the majority.A spectacular gold model boat from first century BC Ireland, part of the Broighter Gold Hoard. By Ardfern - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, File:Broighter Gold, Dublin, October 2010 (03).JPGOne nagging problem with this theory, however, is that La Tène artefacts (supposedly a sine qua non of Celtic culture) are relatively sparse in Britain compared to central and eastern Europe (and, indeed, are limited mainly to southeastern England), and are almost unknown in Ireland. An alternative hypothesis proposes that the iron-working techniques that launched the Iron Age were brought to the islands by skilled metallurgists and smiths seeking business opportunities rather than conquering Celtic warriors. This jibes with the “Celts from the West” hypothesis associated with scholar John T. Koch and others, which holds that a proto-Celtic language emerged as a lingua franca for purposes of trade among the peoples of the Atlantic littoral and, among other things, evolved into Goidelic and Brythonic languages of the islands.[FN5]In other words, if this theory is accepted (and there is a growing body of evidence to support it), the Iron Age Irish and British “Celts” were simply the direct descendants of the Bronze Age folk who had been living in the islands for the previous two thousand years. They had traded in their old technology for the new, the way that we have moved from the horse and water power to the internal combustion engine and electricity. That is, what we used to think of as the Insular Celtic world may have been the product of traders, not raiders.FOOTNOTES:[1] In Ireland at least, we thought we even knew the names of these ancient peoples—Partholonians, Nemedians, Fir Bolg, Tuatha Dé Danann, and Milesians. Our source was Lebor Gabála Érenn (the “Book of the Taking of Ireland," now known as the “Book of Invasions”), an 11th century compilation that was long regarded as an authentic history but is now understood to be myth. The last named group, the Milesians, were said to have come from what is now Spain and to be the ancestors of the Gaels, the people of Ireland.[2] Agriculture had reached the islands around 6,000 years ago, ultimately ending the hunting-gathering culture that had characterized life since the end of the Ice Age. Complex agricultural societies emerged that bequeathed to us such wonders as Newgrange, monumental stone circles, and so on. It is not known whether Neolithic farming techniques were brought to the islands by a new wave of immigrants or invaders, or were adopted from farming communities on the continent. It does seem to be the case, however, that there was a fair amount of genetic continuity between the Neolithic farmers and the earlier Mesolithic hunter-gatherers.[3] The twentieth century belief in a Celtic people, originating in the foothills of the Alps and associated with the La Tène/Hallstat technology and the so-called Celtic languages, has been seriously undermined by the advances in DNA, linguistic and archeological research. Simply put: (a) there does not appear to have been a common genetic profile common to the peoples of western and central Europe during the presumed Celtic era; (b) there is no evidence that any “Celtic” language was spoken across much of the area where La Tène artifacts proliferated; and (c) La Tène artifacts are sparse to non-existent in much of the areas where the “Celtic” languages were spoken, including Ireland.[4] For example, it is now understood that the Germanic tribes (Anglo-Saxons) who invaded Britain in the fifth century AD did not exterminate or drive away the indigenous inhabitants but rather colonized them, took them as servants or slaves, and eventually interbred with them. Thus, while the genes of the Bronze Age settlers still account for the largest portion of the English DNA, the Anglo-Saxons contributed their share also—as much as a third in eastern England. Germanic tribes similarly settled in significant numbers in eastern and southern Scotland. In addition, a substantial percentage of the DNA of people in Orkney comes from the Norse, which is not suprising considering that this was an important part of the Norse world for centuries. In Ireland, Norman, Fleming and Angevin lords and their Welsh and English followers arrived in significant numbers in the late twelfth century. In the 17th century, Scots and English communities were “planted” in Ulster.[5] Wikipedia summarizes Koch’s theory as follows:Koch has been a leading proponent of the idea that the Celtic languages originated as a branch of the Indo-European languages not in … mainland Europe radiating westward, but rather arose in Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal) among the Celtiberians and neighboring peoples, as a combination of Proto-Indo-European, native non-Indo-European Palaeo-Hispanic languages (related to Basque), and some Phoenician influence, then spread back eastward to what was later Gaul (modern France, Germany, and surrounding areas), where early forms of Italic and Germanic languages would have already been developing independently from Proto-Indo-European. This idea – the subject of three edited volumes in a series by Koch and Barry Cunliffe called Celtic from the West (2012–2016) is controversial, but perhaps becoming less so over time. It is part of a general erosion of the Kurgan hypothesis, that a nomadic, chariot-warfare tribe from the Pontic–Caspian steppe swept inexorably into and across Europe, introducing Proto-Indo-European as they went, consistently in an east-to-west direction of invasion and diffusion. The more archaeological, linguistic, genetic, and other evidence that arises, the more complex the multi-cultural situation of late-prehistoric Europe appears to have been.John T. Koch - Wikipedia

Original Question: Is the populist anti-French sentiment in the US government prompted by the independent stances of France in foreign policy?The premise needs some historical perspective, back to the Middle Ages, before England, France and English existed as we know them today.The family split between Francophone Anglo-Normans (William the Conqueror’s descendants) and their Continental French cousins was the origin of a royal family feud as of the 14th Century, ending with the Hundred Years’ War in 1453 (two decades after the Anglo-Norman-led “English” killed Joan of Arc).Somehow, this Francophone royal family feud over land and power transformed into a populist anti-French prejudice even though most English inhabitants had no personal or material skin in the game.The schism was reinforced by Protestantism replacing Catholicism, the increasing power of lesser English nobles and the creation of a new hybrid language, Modern English, primarily used by English royals (who were, by then, Protestant and of Germanic stock) as of the 17th Century.In the 20th Century, such inanity illogically passed from England to the US. The prejudice made no sense as White Americans’ ancestors were not mostly of English, or even British ancestry, but German, and historically, France had been America’s supporter, ally and benefactor since the late 18th Century until the 1950sI. Timeline of France-England Antagonism11th-12th Century.1066. Norman William the Conqueror takes over the English Crown. Norman/Old French is the language of the Court and remains so for over four centuries. The English “Saxon” nobles chafe under Norman rule but intermarry with Norman nobles over the next centuries. Famous historical figure of this era is King Richard the Lionheart, and, in fiction, Robin Hood. The first vernacular of Old French/Old Anglo-Saxon develops into what will be termed “Middle English” out of London.13–14th Centuries - After 3 centuries of Norman control of the English Crown, the English dynasty are now referred to as the “Anglo Normans” with their power base in London, not on the Continent. While the Royal Family is educated in French and Latin, the local English who deal with them, mostly illiterate, develop “Middle English” grows, starting in London and over time is transcribed phonetically by authors such as Geoffrey Chaucer - hence, the reason why “English” is “descriptive”. While Haitian Creole took some 2 centuries to become a written language, English took 400 years before the first, but not universal, Chancery Standard spelling in the 15th Century.100 Years’ War. Populist Anglo-Norman-led English anti-French prejudice first arises out of a spat over lands and power between rival branches of French-speaking royal families, one of whom was the Plantagenets based in England (Anglo-Normans) and the other, on the Continent (the house of Valois, W. Frankish kingdom).Somehow, the estate feud between French-speaking royal cousins became populist among non-Francophone English inhabitants, despite the fact that most Englishmen should have been unconcerned an issue that had no direct effect upon them! The French-speaking Anglo-Normans became the “Anglois” and the French-speaking continentals were the “François”.“Middle English” is first recorded via written “phonetic” transcription, famously highlighted in the Canterbury Tales.15–17th Centuries. French-speaking royal family but split from Vatican and Catholicism led to inter-marriage with local Anglo-Saxons and Germanic nobles - The patois dialects around London were transcribed into Early Modern EnglishAlthough the English royal family continued to be educated in French, favoring intermarriage across Europe and being the “language of royalty”, the schism with their Continental cousins and the growing power of largely “Saxon” nobles in England, led to eventual formalization of the dialects spoken around London, posthumously labelled, “Early Modern English”.The first publication in the new language of Modern English in 1532 of the Bible was a landmark turning point for English, as it heralded the formal introduction of English as a written language, and spread its use by Clergy in Churches, no longer in obscure Classical Latin. Famously recorded by William Shakespeare, the “accent” or pronunciation was closer to the spelling of words as reconstructed by “Original Pronunciation” of his works by some scholar/performers.By the 17th Century, the first language of the royal family was no longer Norman/French but Modern English. English pronunciation drifted (The Great Vowel Shift) further away from the relatively faithful “phonetic spelling” of Early Modern English to become Modern English in the late 1600s.By this stage, Modern English became the first spoken language of the English royal family, even though French continued to be taught and used between European royals. Nonetheless, the English national emblem has Norman script and the Queen opens and closes Parliament in Norman French.18th Century. France supports American Independentists and develop intellectual, personal, political and military rapport from Benjamin Franklin to Thomas Jefferson.1707–11 The kingdoms of England and Scotland are united under a German-born king, controlled by Parliament, who promptly preclude any British monarch from marrying a Catholic. This is puts the final nail in the coffin of British nobles speaking French as their lingua franca, although it is still required for international discussion with other Europeans.1730. For the first time, English is adopted as the written language of record in Britain, displacing Latin and Legal French! Problem is that there is no standardized English vocabulary, grammar or syntax.1755. In this era of explosion of the first mass medium, printed newsletters and books, London publishers were sick and tired of no knowing how to spell and transcribe so they set about defining a standard; it took Samuel Johnson 7 years to do so, producing the first authoritative dictionary of the (Modern) English language.The American Colonists loved it as they had barely 2 million people spread over a geography as big as W. Europe, so they communicated by the printed word. Many regional English speakers criticized the Johnson dictionary as too “London centric”.The linguistic conflicts over standards meant that Britain was unable to produce a national English dictionary until the early 20th Century, the Oxford English Dictionary.Even today, there is no majority-spoken dialect of English in Britain as the most spoken dialect, Estuary English, is that of only 14% of Britons! (BBC English is not a natively-spoken dialect; it is a “broadcast network” synthetic, neutral manner of speaking; the first decades (1920s - 1960s) of broadcasters used RP, the “Queen’s English”, a minority dialect (1–2%) associated with Upper Class snobs who are out of touch with everyday life.“BBC English” has moved away from RP and is a national dialect that Britons can use if useful (speaking with foreigners, Britons from other regions or on a national stage or forum).Since US English had used the 1755 Johnson dictionary as it first “standard” but Britain did not produce its own standard until more than 130–170 years later (over a period of 40 years from 1884–1928, a very slow output due to the great diversity of dialects in Britain), it means that many of the spelling differences between American and British words reflects that the American usage more closely adheres to the 18th Century spelling. Since most Americans came from non-Anglophone immigrants in the 19th Century, they simply adopted the English of their schooling, whereas the hundreds of local dialects in Britain persisted until the advent of universal education/literacy and, especially, broadcasting (1922) so that everyone could hear how English was spoken in distant (> 50 miles) places.1765 The American Revolution begins, barely 10 years after the first standardized English dictionary, and the rancor between the Americans and the Britons thereafter precluded any agreement on a standards body for English language. Britain suffered secession of its American Colonies but took over 25% of the world thereafter.France, the most powerful and populous nation in Europe battles to contain the expansionism of the British, who seem to have a deliberate foreign policy of manipulating Europeans to fight among themselves as they focus on “world domination”. France sent material military aid, intellectual and legal support to American independantists, even before the American Revolution1778. Recognition and Treaty of Friendship USA-France. France is first ally, friend and defender of the USA, using its navy to keep the former Colonies’ trade routes open by hindering blockade by British naval ships. Britain declares war on France in retaliation.Frenchmen decide to join the American Revolutionaries from Lafayette to Pierre Charles l’Enfant. Several thousand troops were dispatched to be under command of Lafayette but France’ military effort is mainly naval and in materiel.19th Century. France, the USA’s first and closest ally, makes huge “gifts” of historic, strategic value to the US. Britain, now with the largest empire, is regarded as a supercilious entity bent on global expansion such as in the 1812 war with the former American Colonies.France nurtures the nascent American Republic, proving strategically- valuable gifts or virtual gifts and inter-governmental support largely to counteract British expansionism. Without France, the USA may not have been as large and successful as it is today. (Details below)France changes from a republic back to a monarchy under Napoleon and back again. Nonetheless, it remained mentor, supporter and generous to the rapidly developing USA that sided with France in foreign policy, partly as both eyed Britain’s imperialism with a wary eye.20th Century. WWII leads to a rapprochement of US-UK governments.The US continues its isolationist foreign policy outside of the Americas and has to be convinced by France and other Europeans to belatedly join WWI.The US and France are founders of the League of Nations, precursor to the UN to prevent wars through multilateral communication.Anglo-American Winston Churchill and WWII heralded the adoption of “anti French” prejudice in the US, as Churchill successfully place a wedge between the then US Administration and its traditional allies in France, that had been weakened during the German occupation.After WWII, the US President develops the precursor to the CIA relying upon the techniques and methods of Britain’s MI-6, then the most global spy network; this close sharing of “intelligence” is extended to the future “Five Eyes” spy system, further binding the US and the UK post-WWII. Meanwhile, General de Gaulle, wary of the imperiousness of the British government and their manipulative cosying up to the US Administration, was not invited to the spy network as he focused on rebuilding France and avoided the NATO alliance since it imposed American leadership.The rapid dismantling and loss of the Empire converted Britain from global power to middle-sized European country by the latter 20th Century. After de Gaulle’s passing, the British government finally is allowed to join the ECM and the Channel Tunnel creates the first rail link between London and the Continent. In the last decade (1994+), some 20 million travel to the UK via the Chunnel compared to 165 million air passengers from the rest of the EU (Ireland and Continental EU).21st CenturyDaily contact between Londoners/British and French/continental Europeans become normalized. Up to 300k Britons are French residents (retirees in the southern regions) and vice-versa (younger executives working in London region). London is now just over 2 hours’ rail travel from Paris.The most significant European trans-national projects in capital and infrastructure are now British-French (the Concorde, the Channel Tunnel)In the major cities, intra-EU migrants and Indian subcontinent-origin immigrants characterize modern Britain. Especially with the new EU nations from Eastern Europe, economic inward migration booms. Today, some 9% of active workforce is now by foreign-born EU nationals.While the obsolete anti-French prejudice still pops up in lower-class populist lore, no one really sees that it has any validity, given that Frenchmen in the UK and vice-versa are now commonplace.Ironically, mainly non-British-origin Americans represent the leading Anglophone community with the anti-French prejudice, probably as the US is isolated by distance, oceans and short vacation from more frequent contact with foreign-language speakers - and most Americans have very short memories or cognizance of their country’s history, with most not even aware that the Statue of Liberty was French.II. The Reality and History of France-USA Relations.France was the USA’s (even aiding in the philosophy, legal framework and military aid before the Revolution) first friend and ally and viewed as such from the run-up to the American Revolution until WWII. France, as an ally, was the only European country to give its honest opinion to the US government that invading Iraq was not only unjustified based on evidence, but also going to destabilize the entire region. Had the ideological madmen of the New American Century cabal (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al.) not manipulated GW Bush to invade, the US would not have had the hundreds of thousands of wounded warriors, thousands of deaths of US military, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, millions of refugees and the growth of dreadful ISIL.A. From the US nation’s birth, throughout the 19th Century up until WWII, France was key ally and friend from the success of the American Revolution and their international Treaty of Friendship. Benjamin Franklin and, especially, Thomas Jefferson, were both ambassadors and advocates in France. There was intellectual and moral cross-pollination and real military assistance. Most importantly, France has gifted the US several assets of strategic importance.1778 France was the first European power to recognize the USA, immediately sending it into war with Britain. Thousands of French troops were sent but the main benefit of the French, besides sending materiel and ammunition, was maritime, keeping trade routes open from British blockade. Lafayette, a Frenchman, enlisted in the American army.1791. The design of the new US capital, Washington DC, was under Frenchman turned Revolutionary soldier, Pierre Charles L’Enfant. The layout of the streets with wide avenues radiating from focal points was mirrored in the massive renovation of Paris by Baron Haussmann. Two maps show the similarities.1803 During the Napoleonic wars in Europe, the US sided with France. Drained of funds, France was led to the “Louisiana Purchase”, virtually a gift as it was “sold” at a few pennies per square mile. It was Jefferson’s continued relationship in Paris that led to France, in need of money for wars, to give what was the middle of the USA in exchange for some money; France was also unable to defend such a large area and fearful that Britain would invade. Without the Louisiana Purchase, the USA may not have developed into a a trans-continental country.1812. Britain and the USA “warred” over territory. France took the USA’s side and immediately was at war with Britain as a result.1886 The Statue of Liberty was the idea of an ardent French abolitionist and supporter of the USA. It was a gift, not from the government of France, but the people of France, meant to symbolize abolition and to celebrate the 1st Centennial of the US. It was, however, a bit delayed in inauguration. In 2015 dollars, I estimate it would cost:Donation by French citizens $25 MDesign and Architectural work. $50M to $1 billion. (Bartholdi for the statue’s external design; Eiffel for the underlying framework) Usually architects take 10–12% of the projects construction cost. So Beijing’s new airport that cost some $17 billion would have earned her $1.7 billion. A more modest endeavor would be the Guangzhou Opera House built for some $300 million, netting her some $30 million. Somewhere the value of the designer of the Statue would be between $30 M and $1 700 M.Construction and Engineering. $300M - $1 billion. Today, there are very few metalworkers who could repair the Statue of Liberty; for the US bicentennial France had to send master metal craftsmen from Companons du Devoir, a master craftsmen organization dating back centuries. Such skillset is just NOT available in the US.However, that may have been construction cost. The value of the Statue of Liberty is incalculable; it is not only on prime NY real estate but it has become THE symbol of the USA, featured in umpteen marketing and branding campaigns for nearly 150 years. The land and the construction of the pedestal were contributed by American funders. France also built a small replica on an island in Paris1904 The partly completed Panama Canal. The French group that had successfully built the Suez Canal, attempted to build the Panama Isthmus Canal. They failed miserably as a) tropical jungle was not as easy as excavating desert sand, b) tropical diseases felled workers, c) humid, tropical heat lead to heat stroke and low productivity. When the French company ran out of money, the then US Administration decided to take over for strategic national interest, since land routes between East and West Coasts were poor and costly, and a shorter sea route would greatly help the US. A significant number of French engineers remained working with the Americans on the Canal. For $40 million, the US bought the land, material (railroads) and plan from the French interests that had sunk $300 million in the previous decades.B. In the 19th Century, Britain was regarded with suspicion and disliked for superciliousness and its expansionist colonizing policy by Americans.As expected, there was no love lost for the former Colonial masters, now heading the largest empire ever seen. The US had only a few million inhabitants on the Eastern Seaboard, and only really developed with the advent of massive immigration in the latter 19th Century.The US was new man on the block. From a mere 4–5 million in the original US colonies, the US surpassed the population of the UK by 1845 and of France by 1855.Essentially the USA was isolationist, almost being forced into WWI unwillingly. It was only really concerned about activities in the Americas at a time when travel of weeks separated the USA from Europe or Asia.WWI reopened person-to-person contact between ordinary Americans and Britons for a generational phase. However, it was really WWII and the persuasiveness of Anglo-American Winston Churchill, that marked the change in attitude in favor of Britain to the detriment of France.Roosevelt depended upon “intelligence” behind German lines and the US had no such capability, so it relied on Britain’s, a multi-century global organization. France’s “intelligence” was hampered by the occupying Germans in north. America’s first modern spies were trained at a secret camp in Canada (face to face combat - mixed martial arts, and spycraft). After WWII, the US President decided to build a global US intelligence network, in the image of Britain’s MI-6; this gave rise to the Five Eyes network.C. Britain, a much reduced, waning global power after WWII, increasingly sought to cling to influence by adhering like Velcro the US foreign policy.It was telling that, in the face of millions of Britons demonstrating against the UK’s involvement in the ill-conceived Iraq invasion of 2003, Prime Minister Tony Blair became “Bush’s Poodle”. Here, democracy was not at work but a politician and a party system that sought to keep the gravy train running. Mr. Blair has had a very lucrative post political career from book deals, speaking tours and ‘advisory”, even as mere mention of his name elicits derision and condemnation.Since WWII, the British commoner’s centuries old populist prejudice against the French was adopted by Americans, who have been remarkably unaware of their country’s history. Even Britons, who now are the most numerous travelers to France and vice-versa, with 2h20 HST ride between London and Paris, now see that the 14th Century familial dislike groundless and obsolete.

British will never apologize. They don’t see a desperate need to. They are not interested either.Lets get this straight.Yes British came to India, colonized us. Made us slaves. Killed our people, looted our spices, silk, diamonds, gold.Yes British divided India into pieces based on religion and we are suffering till date.Yes British screwed us.Now - lets get this straight too.When I was born, and when a lot of us were born, British were not here. I was born independent. In a free world.A lot of Indians today are young and they are not the direct witness of what happened.The actual British people who screwed us, died ! Most of them atleast. Today’s British are young and they are also not a direct witness of what happened in the past.Basically now, we are screwing our own country by littering the streets, paying bribes without questioning the authorities, voting for wrong people, not paying our taxes properly, being lazy at work, aiming for a government job just to feel safe and reaping benefits, living in a victimized feeling the entire life, self pity, showing off too much for smallest of achievements, blaming government for everything, trying to pull down the person who is trying to do something good for the society, asking for dowry during marriage, aiming at higher studies because you get better dowry, desperate for easy money etc.Instead of asking British to apologize, first we must apologize to our mother land for the way we have treated her and start doing something good. We must stop being selfish and start giving back.Check this out too -The modern British government is sending a lot of Aid to Indian NGO’s (not the government, government isn't accepting aid from anyone) . May be their purpose is different (religious perhaps) but it is in some or other way beneficial for some sections of society.The modern British government is our ally and is supporting India.The British are not dependent on us in anyway except for cheap outsourcing. Why do you think they will apologize to us? They are still superior in terms of development, knowledge, discipline and most importantly - cleanliness.May be their fortune is built on tears of our ancestors. But we need to stop feeling victimized and move past that.Lets innovate. Lets build something new. Lets invent new things. Lets pay our taxes properly. Lets support young helpless children get educated and do their part to this society.We are a young country. We have potential. We are now also a powerful country. Lets be proud of that and lets not ask anyone to apologize to us.Edit - The purpose of my answer was to establish forward thinking and establish friendship amongst two modern world powerful countries. Shall we focus on the good part and remain friends for God sakes?A lot of Brit's who are commenting here think Modern Indian's are brain washed into believing only a part of history. You are absolutely and extraordinarily wrong!Majority of the educated Indians are well read, well informed people who do their research. We don't believe in our text books blindly. We don't solely depend on online material. We travel, we visit places and we listen to the first hand accounts of people who experienced the suffering and are still alive. A lot of our ancestors were freedom fighters (ground level) from Madras, Bombay, Calcutta & a lot of other places. We were lucky to have spent time with them. And all their stories matched. Their experiences were real. And they faced it. We do not want to comment on your text books or what you read. Both the governments must have distorted the facts to suit their individual agendas. But the colonization is a true story. If colonization was all about a leadership and setting up a government, then Indians wouldn't have had a problem. But it was not just that. And my ancestors did not deserve that kind of treatment. They put up a resistance and that was a true story. British not only colonized India. But a lot of other countries. And most of them were upset. So let's not worry about who is right and who is wrong.As some comments say, that there are Indians who think British colonization has only made India better and those Indians are a majority and the ones who think that British colonization only made things worse, those Indians are a minority - such comments make me laugh.British survived the period only because of some Indian Maharajas who were greedy & scared.India wasn't a perfect land. We had our own share of stupid and nonsensical laws like Sati etc, which British abolished after it was flagged muitiple times by some Indian freedom fighters. A British architect built a huge barriage for India. And he is till date worshipped.A lot of British leaders were good people who had empathy towards Indians.But there were also racist Britishers, who occupied the top positions, made decisions which disintegrated the country in many ways.You would justify it (or deny it) by saying, it's obvious to act that way.We Indians just say - we did not deserve that treatment.As ghandi always said - we want British to be our friends.We don't want to think of you as some ego centric knuckle headed enemies who keep justifying what your ancestors did was right and are proud of it.We want to think of you as warm people who are our friends, who aren't rude and think about how to build a better future.Let's just forget what our respective ancestors did.Why can't we be friends?We both speak English. We have so much in common. We learned so much from you. We have loads to offer you too (just good stuff). We remember the good your people have done for us. We remember their names. You remember the good people from my land. And you have been appreciative of them.Together we can change the world.There are bigger problems to deal with. And much more horrible and are real night mares.Like climate change, terrorism, arms race etc.Time to forget past and join hands. No more bashing each other, no more justifying ancestors, no more!The history is a funny thing.But the future is serious.