I’m well aware of the roots of the english language, being fluent in Latin and semi-flunet in Irish Gaelic, and am learning French, but that does not change the fact that English, as a language, was created by the British, from the roots of other languages, of course. Very little, if anything, is simply created out of nowhere. The fact that they had sources does not diminish the fact that they are the ones who took the sources and made them into a new language of their own.
Your logic is equivalent to saying someone did not create strawberry shortcake, since s/he did not invent whipped cream, pound cake, or strawberries. Nonetheless, s/he created strawberry shortcake, although the parts from which it was taken, as well as other ideas that influenced it, preceeded it, certainly.
Following with that analogy, American English is like using sour cream instead of whipped cream and saying that it’s perfectly correct strawberry shortcake. If we made a new language, called American or whatever, it’d be okay. As it is now, we’re taking someone else’s language and spelling a lot of it incorrectly.
Having just recently being thrown into the wonderful world of British phonetics, having been made to learn the entire phonetic framework in matter of days and having discovered that the way they write has little to nothing in common to the way they speak, I could actually appreciate some of these changes. I mean, what the hell is with the three “i”s? The long “i:”, the short “i” and the longer kinda-sounds-like-an-i-but-also-somewhat-like-an-e “I”? And the three ”a”s? And why make a separate symbol like “3:” for sounds that are really “er”? And who’s idea was to make the “j” the symbol for “Y”? Why the hell did they use a completely different letter that everyone associates with a different sound to symbolise another sound that already has an exclusive and much more recognised symbol attached to it? And don’t get me started on the symbol they use for the J, what the fuck is that?
If we made a new language, called American or whatever, it’d be okay. As it is now, we’re taking someone else’s language and spelling a lot of it incorrectly.
American English is a different language, to some extent. It’s pronounced differently, it’s spelled differently, and it uses many different words (elevator vs. lift, sneakers vs. trainers, raincoat vs. mackintosh, etc.). Yes, it’s called English, but then America and Australia both have dollars, and they’re not the same thing either. One could easily argue that American English is a “dialect” of English the same way Yiddish is largely a dialect of German.
Correct me if I’m wrong but the reason we spell words differently is because we wanted to prove that we were our own country, not just trying to act like UK?
Or it’s just tied to the fact that it’s slowly been faded out, seeing as the spelling changes don’t really make any audible changes in the sound of the word.
Many of the spelling changes were actually adopted by the US government in an effort to simplify spelling. Check out this page:
http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/spell/histsp.html
Ah, very nice link. Silly British u’s.
You really want to know who did it? Fine. It was Lee Harvey Oswald. That’s right, Lee Harvey Oswald, working alone, shot JFK. You can now shut up about the military or the mafia; it was just one guy with a gun.
This was funny, I’ll admit. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to prepare for the great second Revolutionary War.
Don’t you mean independence?
I have tangible proof that the United States does not exists and is actualy an global shared hallusination located in the people’s collective subconciousness.
But if you want details, I’d have to kill you, you Dream People.
Lunaris, would you bless me with a comment directed towards me?
When he mentioned Dream People, he meant you, Charl.
Do you think that’s air you’re breathing?
Notice how Yiddish isn’t called ‘German’ and doesn’t challenge German for correctness of German spellings? Yeah, that’s because it’s a different language.
American English is a different language, or it is Engligh spelled incorrectly.
I think the dollar thing is a little different, since two things can be different but have the same name under many circumstances, but I’m not sure if that works with languages.
Or, hey, maybe there can be two or more ways of spelling the same word and they’re both correct. 
That’s brilliant, I mean it’s just like mind blasting. I actually got a British version of a book and even with added u’s and different quotes used, not harder to read.
Dude, no. It’s like Highlander. There can only be one.
That was Highlander, right?
EDIT: And as an added slam, Booker’s getting his ass kicked soon.
Using different slang and idiom isn’t the mark of a separate and distinct language. A different dialect, MAYBE (I think that’s pushing it). But really, elevator vs lift or bathroom vs loo or Soccer vs Football, that’s no different than regional variation in accent and idiom and slang over here. (“soda” vs “pop” vs “coke”, what’s YOUR generic term for carbonated sugar water?) It’s attributable to cultural differences between regions. Just like southerners have different slang than new yorkers or californians. It’s all still english.
As long as we can still (basically) understand each other, it’s the same language, because the nuts and bolts of the language, the prepositions and verbs and grammar rules, are all the same. Just because we Yanks be all showin hella flagrant disregard for those grammar rules and shit doesn’t mean they aren’t still there, governing our language. 
Your understanding of the way languages form is misguided. The British did not “create” English. A group of Anglo-Saxons who spoke a Germanic language were conquered by France. It’s an awkward situation being ruled by people who speak one language and also maintaining your own, so they gradually began to speak a combination of Germanic and French. Five hundred years later, Shakespeare was writing his plays, and the American colonists were speaking the language they had grown up speaking. Four hundred years after that, due to the linguistic conservatism of colonies, Americans are speaking a brand of English closer to that of Shakespeare than that spoken in England today.
The idea of linguistic “possession,” that some nation can own a language, is quite ridiculous, especially given the bastard origins of English: a combination of something like German, and some words appropriated from French and pronounced like they were German. If the British had the right to mix and match languages till they got one they liked, we Americans certainly do too. The problem is that, we haven’t even done that much. Yeah, Webster changed some spellings a few hundred years ago, but the fact is, our English is significantly closer to the “original ideal” of English, if such an ideal ever existed, simply because it’s changed much less. Take for instance the weird “er” that is not pronounced like “er” in England. Originally, it was not a glorified “uh.” Some British aristocrats, however, fancied the sound of “uh” over “er,” and noted that it sounded more French, and therefore started saying “uh” rather than “er.” The lower classes wanted to sound sophisticated and imitated them, as did the rich people in Boston. If you have ever wondered how ‘r’ became ‘h’ in Boston, this is why. In any event, Americans have not “created” anything other than a few accents, even though doing so would be quite justified.
Therefore, to accuse America of “making a language of its own,” is entirely misguided. If anything, American English is more accurate to the vigorous English spoken by Shakespeare and his contemporaries, who indisputably represent something of a Golden Age in English literature. If anyone has “created” anything, the British have created a somewhat emasculated version of the language they spoke four hundred years ago.
And I’d also like to point out that some of the changes introduced by the US government were also accepted by Britain (e.g. changing “publick” to “public”).