Manifest Destiny

[MatthewG215]

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.

How can a country have a moral obligation to forcefully take land from another? Are they not human enough, too stupid?

The US didn't want to get involved in Vietnam but felt it had to for security? Why did the US choose to help the French during the 50s, opposing their independence to keep them a western colony? And Communism? Wasn't that big piece of land north of Vietnam Communist, you know China? But national security was threatened by a country of peasant farmers? Or maybe it wasn't about national security and totalitarianism, but the tin, rubber, and oil resources that Eisenhower talked about in private.

American involvement in Columbia isn't about drugs. Do you know what Columbia does with that military aid? All that money gets spread around to different paramilitary groups, or death squads. You know about death squads right (We had them in El Salvador, Cuba, Nicaragua, Hondurus, Guatemala, Chile, I could go on)? They kill dissidents. They kill labor leaders. They kill reporters. They kill rival political candidates.

Just because the government says its about drugs, communism, or democracy doesn't make it so. Be more critical.

 

[kurabrhm]

I think the Vietnam War was orchestrated by the Americans in order to showcase it as the 'theatre of the cold war'.
How can anyone argue that the US had the ability to wage an actual war against China or the Soviet Union as part of the American cold war strategy? The answer - You can't! Vietnam, unlike the SU or China, is a small country that America should in theory have been able to manage. But the fact that the Vietnam war turned into a long and bloody conflict shows that perhaps the US should always think twice before meddling in the affairs of other nations.

 

[Agrippa]

How can a country have a moral obligation to forcefully take land from another? Are they not human enough, too stupid?

Do you see me justifying it? I'm explaining history. If you discuss the Holocaust, then you must support it, right?

The US didn't want to get involved in Vietnam but felt it had to for security? Why did the US choose to help the French during the 50s, opposing their independence to keep them a western colony? And Communism? Wasn't that big piece of land north of Vietnam Communist, you know China? But national security was threatened by a country of peasant farmers? Or maybe it wasn't about national security and totalitarianism, but the tin, rubber, and oil resources that Eisenhower talked about in private.

It wasn't Vietnam in particular, but the trend of the expansion of communism. The whole Domino (sp?) Theory. One couldn't do anything about communism in China and the USSR (at least not directly), so you try and stop it where it's developing.

American involvement in Columbia isn't about drugs. Do you know what Columbia does with that military aid? All that money gets spread around to different paramilitary groups, or death squads. You know about death squads right (We had them in El Salvador, Cuba, Nicaragua, Hondurus, Guatemala, Chile, I could go on)? They kill dissidents. They kill labor leaders. They kill reporters. They kill rival political candidates.

The money is intended for the war on drugs and drugs are closely related to the civil war going on (factions selling drugs for necessary funds) so they're able to get away with it. Once again, the reason for aid to Columbia has nothing to do with the reason for Manifest Destiny. They are two different concepts. It would be like comparing the British colonization of the American colonies and the British colonization of South Africa and India.

Just because the government says its about drugs, communism, or democracy doesn't make it so. Be more critical.

Please read what I write. The whole argument is whether modern US expansion is related to Manifest Destiny. I say no, the reason for modern US expansion is very different from Manifest Destiny and I provide examples to support it. If you want to argue the opposite, then feel free to do so.

 

[oldrooster]

Foreign involvement is not part of "manifest destiny". We had every right to expand on our continent and we did it.

 

[kurabrhm]

Foreign involvement is not part of "manifest destiny". We had every right to expand on our continent and we did it.

First things first, I believe that the notion that AMerica had a right to expand across the continent alloted by the doctrine of manifest destiny is absolutely false. There was no right. Americans simply went ahead and conquered the continent but at the same time pretended that they were not being imperialist. One can hardly argue that the US occupation of Mexico was not imperialist. Maybe a case can be made that US policies towards the Indians were not imperialist but not with MExico.
Mexico was a sovereign nation that did not deserve to be trampled by America's imperialist feet in the ante bellum period and neither so in the 20th and 21st centuries with the oh so wonderful Clintonian style NAFTA agreement. That was simply a disguise to cover America's ruthless exploitation of Mexico's backward economy. Canada may have benefitted from NAFTA but then it was waiting in line for this reward anyway for being a friendly partner of the US.

 

[oldrooster]

First things first, I believe that the notion that AMerica had a right to expand across the continent alloted by the doctrine of manifest destiny is absolutely false. There was no right. Americans simply went ahead and conquered the continent but at the same time pretended that they were not being imperialist. One can hardly argue that the US occupation of Mexico was not imperialist. Maybe a case can be made that US policies towards the Indians were not imperialist but not with MExico.
Mexico was a sovereign nation that did not deserve to be trampled by America's imperialist feet in the ante bellum period and neither so in the 20th and 21st centuries with the oh so wonderful Clintonian style NAFTA agreement. That was simply a disguise to cover America's ruthless exploitation of Mexico's backward economy. Canada may have benefitted from NAFTA but then it was waiting in line for this reward anyway for being a friendly partner of the US.

We had every right to exand on our continent, as you did on yours. It is just a natural extention of nationhood.

 

[cherokeehippie]

So you are saying America had a right to kill indians and put them on reservations and cheat and steal Indian Land???? Guess where Hitler got his idea of the concentration camps????

 

[oldrooster]

Hunter-gatherer societies are doomed, they will be wiped out or moved to make way for progress. Its just the way it is. Better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.

 

[oldrooster]

Indian land? Last count they walked over from Asia, no more their land than ours.

 

[Archivist]

I don't believe that anyone today would say that America had a right to kill Native Americans and put them on reservations. However, the "civilization vs. savergy" argument that supported Manifest Destiny was certainly used to justify such actions in the 19th century.

As to whether Manifest Destiny continues today: In 1893 Frederick Turner gave a speech to the American Historical Association in Chicago in which he declared the the American frontier was gone. If you accept Turner's thesis, then Manifest Destiny--the belief that America was ordained by God to overspread the continent--ended with the closing of the frontier.

 

[oldrooster]

It is kind of a moot historical argument, it only gets currency in the US because of the PC that has taken root here. Sorry for the natives, sorry for the slaves. Since there is no one left from that time the point is moot. Every nation expanded over somebody.

 

[cherokeehippie]

Manifest destiny was just part of the babylonian spiritual system--it's satanic to the core!

 

[oldrooster]

Please dont get me wrong cherokeehippie, I am in awe of the Native Americans. They are one of the most honorable people that ever lived on this earth. I have just started to study their culture. Unfortunatly modernization tends to roll over people like that. it is very sad. I for one could have never been a cavalry soldier back then, could never murder innocent people that way. My family is from Germany, we came here after WW2, even though they did not participate directly, still bore guilt for the holocaust. The people of the US I think have tried to make things right, not easy to do. It grieves me to see such a proud people decend into alcoholisim, depression & suicide.

 

[megan76291]

i think that the idea of manifest destiny still remains, but it will not progress any more. America is satisfied with what we have - now we're just to power hungry

 

[kurabrhm]

i think that the idea of manifest destiny still remains, but it will not progress any more. America is satisfied with what we have - now we're just to power hungry

"America is satisfied with what we have" - this is not true, in my opinion.
America is grounded on a greedy form of capitalism that wants more and more. As long as the third world keeps feeding the raw materials, American capitalism is going to continue. Capitalism does not guarantee satisfaction. In fact, capitalism breeds even more dissatisfaction than is healthy for an individual or society. Socialism may seem to provide an alternative but the forces of capitalism are such that socialism is seen as a weaker option. An option the third world may be forced to choose if they were not performing the role of suppliers for the first world market.

 

[Virgo514]

I say Manifest Destiny may be evolving and should evolve. BEYOND the limits of the Pacific Coast.

 

[oldrooster]

Name one country that the US has occupied that they have not returned.

 

[Archivist]

Name one country that the US has occupied that they have not returned.

The Kingdom of Hawaii

 

[oldrooster]

You got me on that one, I was speaking more in terms of countries we invaded for one reason or another. We always turn them back over to their people.

 

[kurabrhm]

You got me on that one, I was speaking more in terms of countries we invaded for one reason or another. We always turn them back over to their people.

how about giving California back to the Mexicans? By doing this you'll relieve the world of a major economical problem in the Western hemisphere.