#aph ukus

Abstract

The USUK (America × England) pairing, a fan-created coupling based on the manga Hetalia, has remained a popular and enduring favorite across international fandoms for many years. However, beginning in the 2020s, there has been a noticeable rise in ethical criticisms against this pairing—particularly the claim that “USUK is incestuous.”

While this paper does not seek to investigate the broader context or fandom dynamics that led to the spread of such claims, it will demonstrate that—upon closer reading of the original settings and narrative representations—accusations of USUK being incestuous do not hold up. The goal of this paper is to respond to such criticisms by presenting a clear, textually grounded argument based on canonical evidence.

1. Understanding the Background and Basis of Incest Accusations

1-1. Incest as a Religious and Cultural Taboo

In many cultures and religions, incest is considered ethically unacceptable. This stance is often rooted in concerns over familial role confusion and the preservation of social order. However, such norms are based on societal and religious conventions and do not necessarily reflect the emotional or relational complexities involved.

1-2. Incest as a Legal and Human Rights Issue

From a legal and ethical standpoint, incest is also criticized because it is believed that free consent between close relatives is difficult to ensure. Such relationships may entail coercion or dominance, especially when a power imbalance is present. In this context, the core concern lies in the freedom and fairness of mutual consent in romantic or sexual relationships.

1-3. Structure of the Incest Criticism Toward the USUK Pairing

In order to evaluate whether the accusation of “incestuous implications” in the USUK pairing is valid, we must examine the following three points:

Whether there exists a de facto familial (or sibling-like) relationship between England and America

Whether there is a power hierarchy or psychological dominance in their relationship

Whether their current relationship reflects a continuation of a “guardian and dependent” dynamic

2. Examination of the Elements Commonly Cited as the Basis for Criticism

2-1. Whether There Exists a De Facto Familial Relationship Between England and America

The official data book Hetalia World☆Stars Character Book Collezione (2021) clearly outlines the family relationships of each character. According to the book:

England's family: his older brothers Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland (members of the same union)

America's family: his adoptive brother, Canada

There is no mention suggesting that England and America currently share any familial or family-like relationship.

This supports America’s line in the episode “Cleaning the Storage Room” (2007): 「もう君の弟でもない」(“I'm no longer your little brother.”) Taken at face value, this implies that their fraternal—or familial—relationship is already dissolved.

What about before America gained independence from England? In the episode “Battle for the New Continent: America” (2008), England, France, and Finland visit the New World to see a newly emerged child representing a new nation—America. Upon seeing him, both England and France initially argue that he must be their younger brother due to his resemblance. However, when they notice that his mannerisms more closely resemble Finland’s, they both backtrack and say: 「似てるかどうかで決まるもんじゃないからな！」(“It’s not about who he looks like!”) This moment indicates a rejection of the earlier claim to familial connection.

In a post-independence episode titled “The African Front”, a common soldier remarks to them: 「お二人って兄弟？なのに似てないんですね」(“You two are brothers? But you don’t look alike at all.”) This implies that even to outsiders within the story, England and America do not appear to be related in any physical sense.

Returning to “Battle for the New Continent: America”, there is a scene in which England tells young America: 「今日からお前は俺の弟だ！」(“From today, you’re my little brother!”) America, who already seemed aware of his own identity, responds without surprise: 「うん。じゃあおにいちゃんってよぶね」(“Okay. Then I’ll call you big brother.”) However, England, recalling his contentious relationships with his own older brothers or other elder nations, quickly walks it back: 「いや…イギリスでいいよ…」(“No… just call me England.”) This exchange illustrates England’s own discomfort with being placed in a fraternal role.

The subtitle of the episode is “Flag-Crusher England.” In Japanese fan culture, the term "flag" refers to a narrative cue or setup that signals a future development—such as a romantic or familial relationship. In this case, the “brotherhood flag” (兄弟フラグ) would be a hint that England and America might develop a sibling-like bond. By “crushing” the flag, the episode title suggests that England himself rejected or undermined that implication. Ultimately, this leaves the status of their fraternal bond ambiguous at best.

In conclusion, there is no canonical evidence to support the existence of a familial or sibling-like relationship between England and America. Any such interpretation remains ambiguous, unsupported, or actively refuted in the original material.

2-2. Power Dynamics and Psychological Dominance in the Relationship Between England and America

Next, we examine whether a power imbalance exists between the two characters.

We will analyze the question of power imbalance from the following three perspectives: (a) Their historical relationship as countries (e.g., colonial vs. imperial power) (b) Emotional or psychological dependence or dominance (c) Narrative representations of superiority/inferiority or teacher/pupil dynamics

According to a comment by Hidekaz Himaruya, America was originally portrayed as “a kind of proto-country” (“Battle for the New Continent: America”), and subsequently became a colony under England. After growing up and achieving independence, America entered into a relationship with England as a fellow sovereign nation.

Thus, in terms of historical national status (a), their relationship transitioned as follows: Colonizer–Colony → Independent Nation–Independent Nation

It is important to note that America's independence was not something "granted" by England—it was something America actively fought for and won.

Therefore, in terms of (a) historical power dynamics, we can summarize as follows: While there was once a power hierarchy with England as the colonial power and America as its colony, this structure was overturned with America's independence, and their relationship thereafter became one between equals.

Now, let us consider how (b) emotional or psychological dependence/dominance and (c) narrative superiority/inferiority or guidance dynamics played out prior to America’s independence—when the historical power imbalance was still in place.

As mentioned earlier, their first encounter occurs in “Battle for the New Continent: America,” and their relationship develops further in “America and England” (2006). To understand their dynamic before independence, we will review depictions from these two episodes.

Depictions from “Battle for the New Continent: America” and “America and England”

In “Battle for the New Continent: America”,

England, after a prolonged rivalry with France, (A1)decides to let America himself choose who he wishes to align with . In his eagerness to attract America, England emits such a sinister aura that even France is frightened—causing America to burst into tears.

France, on the other hand, offers America his delicious-looking cuisine. America begins to approach France, and England—unable to present anything more appealing—assumes the contest is lost and crouches down, shedding tears of frustration.

Yet , (A2)America is concerned upon seeing England in tears and chooses to go to him instead. Witnessing this, France dejectedly concedes: 「あっ俺ふられた…」(“Ah... guess I lost.”)

Thus, England becomes (B)“America’s ‘big brother’ (maybe?)” and, while reflecting on the hardships America will face in the future, he resolves: (C)「こいつと二人支え合って生きて行こう」(“Let’s support each other and live together.”)

Then, (D1)America—who had been peacefully asleep in England’s arms—suddenly jumps up and runs toward a wild buffalo. Ignoring England’s warning cries, young America proceeds to lift the buffalo and swing it around as if it were a toy.

England watches in shock and mutters: (D2)「あれ…？もしかしてこいつ結構一人でもやってけるんじゃ…」(“Huh...? Maybe he doesn’t even need my protection...”) His expression reveals a sudden realization that challenges his assumed role as protector.

In “America and England”,

(E)France teases England: 「友達いないイギリス君」(“Poor England, no friends again, huh?”) England snaps back: 「う…うっさい！ケンカじゃ俺に勝てない癖に！」(“Sh-shut up! You can’t even beat me in a fight!”) —but he is clearly still in a foul mood.

When he visits America, the young boy greets him cheerfully: 「来てくれただけでもうれしいぞ」(“I’m just happy you came to see me!”) (F)England, momentarily soothed by the child’s warmth, notices France watching them smugly from the shadows and blushes in embarrassment.

After spending some time together, England prepares to leave. (G1)America desperately clings to him, crying: 「帰るなんて許さないぞ！」(“I won’t let you leave!”) He pleads: 「こんな広い所で一人は怖い」「心細いよ」(“It’s scary to be alone in such a big place.” / “I feel lonely.”)

England responds gently: 「心細いのは経験あるからよくわかるよ」(“I know what it’s like to feel lonely.”) 「またくるからお前もがんばって強くなれよ」(“I’ll come back again. Be strong until then.”)

(G2)Later, when England visits again, he finds America greatly changed. Now taller than England and speaking in a confident, casual tone, America welcomes him as if nothing had happened. England is utterly stunned by how much—and how quickly—America has grown.

Supplementary Analysis for A1–G2

(A1), (A2) – On the surface, the episode presents the scenario as a competition where America is “forced” to choose between England and France. However, the narrative clearly depicts that the final decision is shaped by America’s own volition and emotional response. In this sense, the initiative lies with America. Specifically, (A2) portrays a moment in which America, having already exchanged words one-on-one with England, approaches him of his own accord out of empathy, suggesting they were already growing emotionally close. France seems to recognize this and withdraws voluntarily.

(B) – In England’s internal monologue, he says that he “became America’s big brother (maybe?),” indicating his uncertainty. Although he was previously asserting, alongside France, that America was “his younger brother,” this line reveals England himself is unsure whether a sibling relationship truly exists between them.

(C) – This marks a moment where England becomes aware of a sense of responsibility as America’s protector. However, rather than imagining a one-sided guardianship, he envisions a future in which they will “support each other and live together,” implying a mutual partnership.

(D1), (D2) – When America falls asleep in England’s arms, he is presented as a vulnerable child, reinforcing the image of someone in need of protection. However, this expectation—held by both England and the reader—is subverted when America suddenly awakens, displaying tremendous natural strength by lifting and playing with a wild buffalo. This scene undermines even England’s own emerging sense of identity as “America’s protector,” highlighting how America’s extraordinary nature destabilizes traditional roles.

(E) – England tries to brush off France’s teasing by citing his superior fighting skills, but deep down, he is clearly affected by the jab about having no friends.

(F) – England is able to interact sincerely and comfortably with young America, who shows him open affection. However, when France watches this moment smugly from the shadows, England blushes with embarrassment. This likely stems from an awareness of the asymmetry in their relationship—a lonely colonial power finding emotional comfort in a much younger, innocent colony.

(G1), (G2) – From (G1), we can infer that America, though still a dependent colony, feels close enough to England to cry out: “I won’t let you leave!” This illustrates his emotional reliance on England, born from loneliness and fear. England, in turn, is touched by America’s sincere longing and hurries to visit him again. However, in (G2), that budding codependence is abruptly disrupted by America’s growth. When England visits next, he finds a completely changed America—taller, more confident, and emotionally independent.

Thus far, we have reviewed the narrative portrayals of England and America before the latter's independence. In summary:

(b) Regarding emotional or psychological dependence, it appears that England (as the colonizing power) and America (as the colony) were drawn to each other through their shared sense of loneliness. They began to form a relationship in which England sought to be needed and America sought someone to rely on—a kind of mutual dependence mediated by the power imbalance. However, this dynamic was disrupted before it could solidify, due to America’s precocious strength and rapid growth. He quickly outgrew the role of a dependent, undermining the structure before it could be fully established.

This reading is supported by a note from Himaruya’s Miscellaneous Setting Collection (2008), which describes America as: 「昔は泣き虫ですぐにイギリスやフランスを頼る弟体質だったが、厳しい西部の風に吹かれてるうち、いつの間にか精神的にも肉体的にも異常に成長してしまい、なんか甘えられなくなっていた。」(“He used to be a crybaby who clung to England and France like a dependent little brother, but after being exposed to the harsh winds of the West, he somehow grew unusually strong—both mentally and physically—and couldn't bring himself to depend on them anymore.”)

(c) Regarding portrayals of superiority, inferiority, or a mentor-pupil dynamic: while England is older, America is repeatedly shown to possess exceptional strength even as a child. Moreover, the narrative often depicts shifts in who holds the initiative, suggesting that no fixed hierarchy exists between the two. We can therefore conclude that a clearly defined top-down or teacher-student relationship is not consistently represented in the work.

It is true that in “Cleaning the Storage Room” and “Make a British Food” (2007), flashbacks show a younger America who is unable to push back against England’s fussing and instead chooses words that would please him.

However, based on the foregoing analysis, these scenes are better interpreted not as evidence of coercion or oppression, but as signs of America’s personal kindness and his desire not to hurt England’s feelings. In other words, they stem from his own volition—not from a forced or imbalanced power dynamic.

2-3. Is the Current USUK Relationship a Continuation of the “Guardian and Dependent” Dynamic?

In the previous section, we examined their relationship during the period prior to America’s independence, when a clear power imbalance existed. We found that even then, their bond could not be reduced to a fixed hierarchical structure. However, this was largely due to America’s exceptional abilities and rapid growth, and not necessarily the result of a conscious choice made by either party.

This section shifts focus to the post-independence period, in order to examine how their relationship evolved and to consider to what extent the “guardian and dependent” model was preserved—or perhaps transcended.

Let us begin with their first canonical appearance in Hetalia, the episode “Hetare 2: Allied Forces” (2006). As Hidekaz Himaruya comments, “Since America is a country formed by defeating England, they’ve had a bad relationship from the start.” In this episode, they are portrayed as bickering rivals with a troubled history.

During a strategy meeting, a quarrel breaks out when England rejects one of America’s selfish proposals. Their exchange—

「また君か。本当に昔からイギリスは否定が好きだね」（“You again. England’s always been a sucker for denial,”）

 followed by,

「俺が一番否定したいのはお前の存在自体なんだけど…」（“The thing I want to deny the most is your existence”）

—reveals the routine nature of their disagreements and reflects England’s pride as a former colonial power.

The quarrel escalates when England complains, 「だいたい恩も忘れて独立しやがって！ お前頭の中までハンバーガーなんじゃねーの？」（“You had the nerve to forget your debt and declare independence! Your brain’s made of hamburgers?”） America retaliates: 「…じゃ俺も言わせてもらうが、この間君の家に遊び行ったとき出されたスコーン、あれすごーくまずかったぞ」（“...If I may say something in return, those scones you served me the other day were absolutely awful.”） England shouts, 「てめぇ！ 人がせっかく作ってやったのにそういうかっ！」（“You bastard! I worked hard to make those for you!”） America, surprised, responds, 「アレ君の自作だったのか！？」（“Wait, YOU made those!?”） Their argument quickly derails from the meeting’s agenda into personal grievances.

This scene clearly portrays that the former colonizer–colony dynamic has already collapsed. Yet it also shows that America had recently visited England’s home, and England had baked for him—a personal gesture that America appreciated enough to keep quiet about, despite disliking the taste.

While this moment may reflect lingering traces of their past relationship, it also illustrates America’s agency: he visited England of his own volition, and despite his displeasure, chose not to ruin the mood. This is quite different from the passive behavior of a “protected child” indulging in a caretaker’s affection.

In the next episode, “Hetare 3: G-R Nonaggression Pact?”,

America proudly shows off a new fighter plane, which he says he developed specifically “to beat up England.” to which England responds childishly by brandishing a cursed chair “that kills anyone who sits in it.” They continue exchanging immature provocations.

Later, England invites America out for drinks to gather intelligence, but ends up getting drunk himself and blurting out his true feelings. Slurring and crying, he yells: 「俺のおかげで一人前になれた癖に、偉そうにすんなよなっ！」（“You only became a proper country because of me, so don’t act all high and mighty!”） 「一緒にフランスと戦ったときは いい友達になれると思った俺がバカだったよ」（“I thought we could be good friends when we fought France together—guess I was a fool!”） 「バーカバーカ アメリカのバーカ」（“You idiot, idiot, America you big idiot!”）

This outburst reveals that England does recognize America as an equal, but also shows his lingering emotional complexity. He once had hopes of building a genuine friendship with America, and even now he seems unable to let go of that desire.

This is reminiscent of their dynamic in “America and England,” where England, though strong and solitary, sought a relationship of mutual trust even before America’s independence. Though he often says things like “I helped you because you were pitiful” or “you forgot your debt,” these statements emphasize his role as a giver—but what he truly wanted (and still wants) from America was not deference, but recognition and connection.

These episodes are among the earliest in the series and can be interpreted as foundational to their relationship. However, as Hetalia continued over the years—with new episodes, illustrations, and variations—there were occasional depictions that seemed to contradict this initial framing.

For example, in some post-independence episodes, England’s resentful and somewhat overbearing behavior, stemming from his lingering feelings, fades, and he is instead portrayed as the “straight man” constantly overwhelmed by America’s antics. This could give the appearance of a mischievous child and a long-suffering guardian, though not necessarily reflect a true hierarchy.

There was also a period when Himaruya seemed to playfully exaggerate the idea that “England raised America.” In some cases, America’s outrageous behavior is chalked up to England’s poor parenting skills. In The Book Paper (2008) and Go Go Allied Forces (2008), characters like Japan and France imply that England’s leniency or incompetence is to blame for America’s behavior, framing him as a “failed child.”

These portrayals may have strongly influenced the fan perception that America is a product of England’s failed parenting.

However, it is important to recognize that the original context of this “failed child” narrative stems not from America’s immaturity, but from England’s emotional pain and frustration over being surpassed by someone he once cared for. America was not depicted as an underdeveloped adult, but rather as someone who grew too strong—so much so that England’s protective role was rendered obsolete.

Given Hetalia’s frequent use of gag-style exaggeration, it is more appropriate to treat these instances as inconsistent tonal shifts rather than canonical retcons.

There are also works that frame the guardian–dependent dynamic as a cherished memory. In the 2011 illustration titled “Before the Inevitable Farewell,” a young America and Canada are seen peacefully sleeping under dappled sunlight, with their heads resting on England’s lap. England gazes down at America’s sleeping face with a gentle expression, but a scar on his cheek hints at battle elsewhere, implying that his time with the children was a form of healing for him as well.

To readers, this may appear to idealize England as a loving guardian and America (and Canada) as children in his care. However, as the title suggests, the scene presumes that this gentle arrangement will come to an end with America’s independence. In this light, the dynamic depicted here cannot be applied to their current relationship.

Finally, it is worth noting the discrepancy that can arise between Himaruya’s narrative intent and how readers interpret certain depictions. As of 2025, the ongoing Hetalia World☆Stars: Gangsta is set in a parallel world, but many of its characters resemble their mainline counterparts. As such, it provides valuable insight into their canonical dynamics.

According to official character notes, Lord (the counterpart to England) “used to dote on Hero (America) like a younger brother,” but as Hero matured—becoming more self-assured and taller—a sense of distance grew between them. Now, they are “rival-like figures who trust each other and constantly challenge one another.”

This setting clearly frames the guardian–dependent relationship as something in the past, while emphasizing present equality and rivalry. It is a deliberate contrast of past and present.

However, some scenes in Gangsta still show behavior that appears protective: for example, Lord covers Hero’s eyes to shield him from the sight of France (Parran) writhing sensually in distress, or he offers to pay off Hero’s overdue tribute money. These actions could be interpreted as overprotective or “parental.”

What these examples reveal is this: Even when certain actions may appear to reflect a guardian–dependent relationship, they do not necessarily define the present relationship. If we interpret these behaviors consistently with the established setting, they are better understood as remnants of a past connection, rather than indicators of current roles.

The same interpretive lens can—and should—be applied to the original Hetalia canon as well.

3. Conclusion

As we have seen, the critique of the US–UK pairing as "incestuous" lacks validity from any reasonable standpoint.

Impressions such as "they look like a parent and child" or "they seem like siblings" are not being dismissed outright. However, using those impressions as grounds to ethically deny the possibility of the USUK pairing is unsubstantiated. And relying on impressions like that risks missing the point of how their relationship actually works in canon—it can seriously limit how we understand or explore their dynamic.

This is because their relationship can no longer be adequately understood within the former framework of "guardian and dependent." Rather, it appears to be a bond sustained by two independent entities who continue to choose to relate to one another through mutual intent.

While America has relinquished institutional ties through his independence from England, he has since actively chosen to maintain a relationship with him. On the other hand, England, after years of struggling with his own emotions, seems to have finally come to face them—and while he may still waver at times, he genuinely cherishes the bond he now has with America. The fact that their connection continues to this day suggests it is based not on hierarchy or dependency, but on mutual trust and understanding.

From this angle, labeling US–UK as "incestuous" fails to account for how their relationship has evolved—and continues to evolve—in canon. It risks flattening a complex and thoughtful dynamic into something reductive, which is ultimately a loss for any reader trying to engage with the story more deeply.