Europeans don't want to hear that though, they like to imagine they're just simply more civilized than barbaric Americans.
>hundreds of years by plundering, enslaving, and colonizing the rest of the world.
This has got to be the most egregous case of pot calling the kettle black I've read in a while.
Not quite. It's slightly less than the next 8.[1] Also, that number appears to include the $79B spent by the Department of Veterans Affairs[2], which is exclusively used to support post-service personnel.
There's a lot of shit we can and should cut, but let's not distort the facts.
[1] https://sipri.org/sites/default/files/2019-04/fs_1904_milex_...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_federal_bud...
I know Britain extracted lots of wealth from India tho, the European continent became quite rich through colonisation efforts and once they had enough stimulus to fuel their economies, they became industrial powerhouses.
Not all country have such dynamics, Europeans really need think it through. Why Europe is rich and India is not? Why US can't offer free healthcare when Europe can.
Both countries have terrible histories in these respects, but I think a fair case can be made for Europe having a longer period of this sort of method of wealth accumulation(/theft?) opposed to the US. The US shouldn't be cast as some sort of bystander in that same context--just a younger protege.
The US territory itself was conquered using exactly those European advantages you speak of. US history is not separate, it's a spin-off from the European one. The US history without Europe ended with the settlers and their expansion, and they brought "Europe" with them. You can't claim a US history that is separate and didn't benefit from European history, given what actually happened there and by whom it was done.
I agree and wouldn't claim such, but you also cannot claim all the wealth was inherited through past practices from European colonialism. Much wealth was obtained under policy and practice by a sovereign US government and population. Once the US declared independence and became an independent nation, anything thereafter was conducted on its own accord under its own independent governmental system, free of the history of Europe with respect to responsibilities of practices. I wouldn't claim people instantaneously dropped their past inherited cultural beliefs or acquired wealth that kickstarted the process, but from them on, responsibility falls on the US.
Several wars, atrocities and theft of land from native Americans during continued expansion (trail of tears comes to mind), african american slavery used for production, exploitation of various other immigrant populations for wealth production--those practices fall squarely on the shoulders of the US and, in many cases, led to increased wealth and land in US. It is an offshoot of European history but when it comes to pointing fingers, the separation can certainly be made.
Such practices could have been abandoned by the US but continued onward, largely due to the tightly interwoven history you mentioned. Again, neither group can claim a rosey history but I would argue Europe had a headstart (if nothing else, just due to the arrow of time...).
> This has got to be the most egregous case of pot calling the kettle black I've read in a while.
The point remains that the kettle is black, regardless of who calls it so.
It is exactly those plunderers, enslavers, and colonizers that, well, colonized the new world and built their economies on top of slavery which eventually became independent countries.