Hunt goes to what Westernized readers would think of as the “root” of empire, Rome, to use it as a standard by which to judge other empires. Particularly, he acknowledges Britain as an empire, and parallels its decline with that of Rome. He now anoints America as the successor empire to Britain. Hunt seems to accept empires as inevitable and therefore welcomes the rise of the United States. Sibley, on the other hand, is naïve in his views of empire. He points out that empires have always existed even though the word “empire” holds negative connotations and boldly confirms that America is, in fact, an empire. Sibley urges the English-speaking countries to come together to create an “Anglosphere”- an association of countries with similar cultural backgrounds that together create a powerful block. But he is utterly naïve in believing that “an Anglosphere empire would be an empire of freedom. Surely that is not the kind of imperialism any rational person would denounce.” After all, the British claimed that they were “bringing light to the darkness,” and look how that turned out (just ask Alibhai-Brown).
The Williams article differs from the previous two because it does not offer any author opinion- it is a clear statement of fact: In Wales, the teaching of the British Empire is controversial because of its dark practices like subjugation and slavery. The article includes quotations from proponents on each side. Alibhai-Brown, in contrast, is not neutral, nor will she accept any argument that the British Empire was a good thing for anyone. She argues that both Englishmen and their former subjects were hurt by the relationship. She calls modern historians like Niall Ferguson “imperial revisionists” because they are trying to make out the British Empire to be a good thing when it was nothing more than repression and oppression. In all, it appears that the only anti-imperialist view came from a woman who does not appear to be an Anglo-Saxon. In essence, a former subject rather than a former master. Hunt's article, while being devoid of almost any actual substance, I would disagree with in that to compare the causes of the fall of Rome with the fall of Britain was looked at far too superficially. I like the way that Williams remained neutral and used many quotes. It is a good way to do a survey of opinions and positions. As to Brown, her caustic wit brings welcome perspective to the debate: “If Ferguson et al were right, Iraq would be begging for a return to the glorious rule by the mother country. As far as I know, no such petition has been received by Her Majesty.”