Manifest Destiny

[kurabrhm]

The doctrine of Manifest Destiny in US history is, I believe, very significant in explaining current behaviour displayed by America in the field of foreign policy. Early examples of the usage of Manifest Destiny include the US-Mexican War and the sweep across the Pacific and into Asia. To what extent is the doctrine still relevant today?

 

[Agrippa]

I don't think Manifest Destiny is still at work today; it mainly called for an expansion of the US to the Pacific and, as you know, we're there now. You might be able to make a case that Manifest Destiny played a role in the imperialist policies of the end of the 19th century but to say that it plays a role today is incorrect. Manifest Destiny is dead to everyone but the historian.

 

[kurabrhm]

But surely psychologically the doctrine is still at work! Some argue that it's Manifest Destiny which has made American history what it is.

 

[Agrippa]

No, it's been too long. I guess my opinion could be biased as I've spent my whole life in New England, which has traditionally been the bulwark of anti-imperialism and pacificism (the only wars with real support in NE have been the American Rev, the Civil War, and WWII). Manifest Destiny never had a strong hold here in New England compared to other parts of the country.

Manifest Destiny really died in the bloodshed of the Civil War, which was in many ways a result of that idea. After the war, there was a strong desire for isolationism among the majority of the American population and little support for expansion a la Manifest Destiny. Some business leaders hoped to use M.D. to expand their markets, but except for some notable exceptions (ex. Hawaii) they were unsuccessful.

Today, M.D. is truly dead. I mean, look at Puerto Rico. It's currently an American Commonwealth. The vast majority of the American people couldn't care less whether its a territory, a state, or independent, so long as we could still vacation there. M.D. is about as important in American culture as the divine right of kings in European culture.

 

[kurabrhm]

Well, the divine right of Kings is something that teachers always teach History students in the pre University stage here in Britain. I was taught that in my History lessons. It's interesting though, this idea of a divine right that once took hold of the US in the shape of Man des and Godly Kings for Europe. But divine right is not limited to America and Europe. Would you agree? It's appeal is pretty much universal.

 

[Agrippa]

Either I'm too sleep deprived right now and didn't understand what you wrote or you misunderstood me. I was saying that manifest destiny in the US and the divine right of kings in Europe are two ideas that once had stong support but no longer do. Could you re-phrase your post?

 

[kurabrhm]

Agree.

 

[MatthewG215]

Behind Egypt and Israel, doesn't Coumbia recieve the highest amount of U.S. military aid? Hasn't overthrowing the Castro government in Cuba been U.S. foreign policy since 1959? Isn't the U.S. active in trying to oust Hugo Chavez? I wouldn't say Manifest Destiny is dead.

 

[Agrippa]

Behind Egypt and Israel, doesn't Coumbia recieve the highest amount of U.S. military aid? Hasn't overthrowing the Castro government in Cuba been U.S. foreign policy since 1959? Isn't the U.S. active in trying to oust Hugo Chavez? I wouldn't say Manifest Destiny is dead.

But those policies aren't being driven by Manifest Destiny, unless you argue that the War on Drugs and the containment of communism are part of the philosophy of Manifest Destiny.

 

[TheRealityOfMan]

Yes and no is the answer.

 

[kurabrhm]

Behind Egypt and Israel, doesn't Coumbia recieve the highest amount of U.S. military aid? Hasn't overthrowing the Castro government in Cuba been U.S. foreign policy since 1959? Isn't the U.S. active in trying to oust Hugo Chavez? I wouldn't say Manifest Destiny is dead.

Of course, it's not dead. Doctrines don;t just simply die away. They remain in the national consciousness.

 

[Agrippa]

Of course, it's not dead. Doctrines don;t just simply die away. They remain in the national consciousness.

Can you show me that Manifest Destiny is still active in American politics? The examples that MatthewG215 brought up were motivated by a desire to stop the spread of communism and drugs. Franklin Roosevelt's 'Good Neighbor Policy' would seem to suggest that Manifest Destiny is dead in the Carribean. If 'doctrines don't just simply die away' can you show me the influence of the Divine Right of Kings in French, German, and British politics?

 

[kurabrhm]

Yes and no is the answer.

I see that you're very excited about this topic!

 

[kurabrhm]

Can you show me that Manifest Destiny is still active in American politics? The examples that MatthewG215 brought up were motivated by a desire to stop the spread of communism and drugs. Franklin Roosevelt's 'Good Neighbor Policy' would seem to suggest that Manifest Destiny is dead in the Carribean. If 'doctrines don't just simply die away' can you show me the influence of the Divine Right of Kings in French, German, and British politics?

Ok, let me ask you this agrippa. What is the point of learning history if there's no truth in the belief that the past lives on in the present in one form or another. History is about assessing patterns in past years and centuries in order to trace that to the present day. I'm interested in the doctine of man des because it's a useful way of tracing the current expansion for oil program undertaken by Bush. Yes the Iraq war is also very much about US expansionism as was the US war against the Republic of MExico in the 19th century. In the case of Mexico the expansionist agenda was simply geared towards lots and lots of land and the achievement of america's continental destiny and then the world after that. But with Iraq the expansionist agenda for the US is different. WE live in a different world today compared to the 19th century. Today the US finds it absolutely imperative that the world's oil resources are made secure so that Americans don't have to be starved off oil. The US had to invade and overthrow Hussein's regime because there was no chance of America just standing by during an oil crisis that's brewing and let Hussein be in power in a region that has most of the world's oil. Hussein and the US just didn't get on and as long as he was in control the US had no ability to bargain with him for oil. Of course there is also the argument that the Iraq war is merely a side show to the real war that's going on, which is the war between the western democracies, USA & Britain in particular, against terrorist organisations around the world. The war on terror is difficult for the public to comprehend in real terms because it's almost as if you're fighting shadows, but give the public the war against Iraq simultaneously and what you have is seeming credibility for the injustice committed in invading Iraq in the first place and also what you have is a certain public belief in the idea that when the Iraq situation goes successful the war against terrorist is also simultaneously going successful. But obviously the down side is that when the Iraq situation goes unsuccessful then the public will assume almost automatically that the war against terror is also going the same way.

 

[Agrippa]

Ok, let me ask you this agrippa. What is the point of learning history if there's no truth in the belief that the past lives on in the present in one form or another.

Of course the past lives on in the present, but that does not mean that 'doctines do not just simply die away'. Doctrines sometimes fade away, sometimes they die an abrupt death. For example, before the American Civil War, it was widely held that the United States was a compact more than a nation. It was reflected in the fact that the US was a plural noun. After the war, almost immediately, it became a singular noun. The compact theory of the US died a very bloody death.

History is about assessing patterns in past years and centuries in order to trace that to the present day. I'm interested in the doctine of man des because it's a useful way of tracing the current expansion for oil program undertaken by Bush. Yes the Iraq war is also very much about US expansionism as was the US war against the Republic of MExico in the 19th century. In the case of Mexico the expansionist agenda was simply geared towards lots and lots of land and the achievement of america's continental destiny and then the world after that. But with Iraq the expansionist agenda for the US is different. WE live in a different world today compared to the 19th century. Today the US finds it absolutely imperative that the world's oil resources are made secure so that Americans don't have to be starved off oil. The US had to invade and overthrow Hussein's regime because there was no chance of America just standing by during an oil crisis that's brewing and let Hussein be in power in a region that has most of the world's oil. Hussein and the US just didn't get on and as long as he was in control the US had no ability to bargain with him for oil. Of course there is also the argument that the Iraq war is merely a side show to the real war that's going on, which is the war between the western democracies, USA & Britain in particular, against terrorist organisations around the world. The war on terror is difficult for the public to comprehend in real terms because it's almost as if you're fighting shadows, but give the public the war against Iraq simultaneously and what you have is seeming credibility for the injustice committed in invading Iraq in the first place and also what you have is a certain public belief in the idea that when the Iraq situation goes successful the war against terrorist is also simultaneously going successful. But obviously the down side is that when the Iraq situation goes unsuccessful then the public will assume almost automatically that the war against terror is also going the same way.

You've just explained why current American expansion is not based on Manifest Destiny. Manifest Destiny was based on the belief that America had a right and a moral obligation to expand to the shores of the Pacific Ocean. The expansion of the 20th century was based on a very different idea: security. The US didn't want to get involved in Vietnam but it felt it had to in the name of security (against communism). The US doesn't want Columbia but it is involved in the name of security (against drugs). The US doesn't want to take over Iraq but it got involved in the name of security (WMDs/terrorists/securing oil supplies -> notice all these excuses all involve security). There is no connection between Manifest Destiny and American expansion in the 20th century, especially the 2nd half of the century.

 

[Praetor]

I think we need to revive the concept of Manifest Destiny. If every nation we ever occupied in history became a US State, namely Japan, the Phillipines, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Mexico, Panama, Germany, Italy, Korea, Liberia, Afghanistan and Iraq, the USA would have a population of one billion people and a GDP of $40 trillion.

Also, 500 million less people would be living in poverty today because these occupied nations would have become industrialized along with the rest of the USA. There would also be 500 million more people in the world today who would be able to participate in real democratic institutions.

 

[TheRealityOfMan]

No doubt KickingSacredCows would like to comment on this as he believes Bush is a defacto Trotskyite pushing Americana Universalis.

 

[kurabrhm]

I think we need to revive the concept of Manifest Destiny. If every nation we ever occupied in history became a US State, namely Japan, the Phillipines, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Mexico, Panama, Germany, Italy, Korea, Liberia, Afghanistan and Iraq, the USA would have a population of one billion people and a GDP of $40 trillion.

Also, 500 million less people would be living in poverty today because these occupied nations would have become industrialized along with the rest of the USA. There would also be 500 million more people in the world today who would be able to participate in real democratic institutions.

I think I should refer this to Agrippa for his comments...

 

[kurabrhm]

OK, I know this has nothing to do with what we're talking about here but this is to 'the reality of man'. I had the most 'wonderful' lecture today on 'quilt weaving' in Alabama. The focus was on Black women in Alabama who led very fulfilling lives by making quilts as a group. This quiltweaving thing is quite a social activity for Black women in that state. Whilst they're doing the quilting they also sing rather joyfully good old slave songs from yesteryear. Professor Kleinberg of course was determined to argue that showing this documentary on quilt weaving in Alabama was a useful way of understanding the position of African AMerican women in rural AMerica. I thought the documentary was a good observation of a job that Black women in rural Alabama enjoyed but it hardly offered a critical social commentary that questioned why these Black women are so underpriviliged that they do such menial jobs that can easily be done by machines these days! I thought the documentary justfied the underpriviliged nature of some African Americans in the USA by saying that this is what they enjoy doing, so let them do it. Never mind the fact that no one with any decent education would take up such a job even if it was offered to them in any case.

 

[Brimshack]

In this book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/103-3655241-3157438?v=glance&s=books

Richard Drinnon argues that both the rhetoric of expanion under manifest destiny and the mechanisms of its execution were largely carried over into the Spanish American War, the Suppression of Phillipino resistance, and eventually into Vietnam. I think he would agree with the OP.