Manifest Destiny

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

plan_D

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel
11,643
21
Apr 1, 2004
The phrase "manifest destiny," was coined by New York journalist John O'Sullivan in 1845, when he wrote that "it was the nation's manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us." That same year on December 2, U.S. President James Polk announced to Congress that the Monroe Doctrine should be strictly enforced and that the United States should aggressively expand into the West.
Click to expand...

The "Manifest Destiny" the US belief that it was their right and destiny to rule the lands of the Americas. An expansionist attitude, aggression used if required.

With this in mind, how possibly could an American attack Britain on it's expansionist and imperialist attitude?

No blame lies with America, it was a product of its age.
 
:lol: Alright, I'll stop. But leave these up, they are part of history.
 
I think no offense, the Spanish were meant to be the worst when it came to oppression of the population and slavery. The Spanish followed a Bible and the Sword mentality. The Spanish destroyed the Maya and Incan civilizations, perhaps because they were worried about how interesting they looked to study for others.
 
I couldn't agree more, HealzDevo. The Spanish had the largest empire on the planet before England took the top spot in the late 16th Century. By owning more land and ruling over more cultures you're naturally going to bring down harsh treatment on those that oppose. The larger the empire, the more that will oppose.
The Spanish could be said to be the worst, they followed the Catholic ideals to the extreme. Anything, or anyone not Catholic would be brought down under the sword or cannon. Really though, is Spain to blame or the Catholic church? After all, the Pope allowed and even encouraged these actions.

In my opinion, none are to 'blame' both were a product of their age just as England was with it's empire, as was France and ultimately as was the U.S with it's expansionist attitude.

These several threads I have started are to educate are few members on this board about the expansionist history of their nation, since they felt it so right to attack England for hers. And of course, because RG reckoned that America wasn't trying to take Canada in 1812.
 
"One day a Newfie goes down to the village carpenter and requests a wooden crate that is 1 inch tall, 1 inch wide and 50 feet long."

When the carpenter asks what he needs it for, the Newfie replies "The wife snapped her clothesline the other day, and I have to send it to Toronto to get it fixed."
 
Spain actually went out seeking bloodshed and conquest. A lot of the other nations didn't. Britain went out seeking more land for her expanding population. Portugal went out for trade. France was settlers as well. Even at that particular time the Spanish were seen by other races as being blood-thirsty. Spain as said was motivated by greed and conquest. She also may have given generously of that gold to the Catholic Church to get permission to do whatever it wanted. In 'The Mission' a film starring Robert De Niro it is about someone who becomes a priest after killing a man in a duel. He then founds this church amongst these natives which the Spanish decide they want to destroy for slavery. In the end the Spanish end up killing everyone. However, there is a scene in the movie where the Head of the Jerusits tries to get him to give up his project with the natives, for fear of upsetting the Spanish and other nations. Although the way it is phrased in the movie, suggests the primary worry was Spanish offence at the move.
 
plan_D said:
The phrase "manifest destiny," was coined by New York journalist John O'Sullivan in 1845, when he wrote that "it was the nation's manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us." That same year on December 2, U.S. President James Polk announced to Congress that the Monroe Doctrine should be strictly enforced and that the United States should aggressively expand into the West.
Click to expand...

The "Manifest Destiny" the US belief that it was their right and destiny to rule the lands of the Americas. An expansionist attitude, aggression used if required.

With this in mind, how possibly could an American attack Britain on it's expansionist and imperialist attitude?

No blame lies with America, it was a product of its age.
Click to expand...

No one is disagreeing that the USA was expansionist within the bounds of North America in the 1800's. However, a big part of "Manifest destiny" was also the need to repel Eurpean colonial powers from North, and eventually from South America, and the Carrabean. The idea that the native Americans would be displaced as suited the growing US population was a given. Manifest Destiny more was about the right to oust the Mexican's and Spanish from Florida, Texas, and California.

And there is a huge difference between colonial expansion and national expansion. Colonial expansion implies the domination and subjugation of foriegn cultures to your advantage and their disadvantage - effectively a form of cultural enslavement. National expansion consists of taking the land for the use of your own peoples. All 19th century cultures recognized the right of the strong to take what they needed from the weak, including the American Indians.

So what exactly is your point?

=S=

Lunatic
 
HealzDevo said:
Spain actually went out seeking bloodshed and conquest. A lot of the other nations didn't. Britain went out seeking more land for her expanding population. Portugal went out for trade. France was settlers as well. Even at that particular time the Spanish were seen by other races as being blood-thirsty. Spain as said was motivated by greed and conquest. She also may have given generously of that gold to the Catholic Church to get permission to do whatever it wanted. In 'The Mission' a film starring Robert De Niro it is about someone who becomes a priest after killing a man in a duel. He then founds this church amongst these natives which the Spanish decide they want to destroy for slavery. In the end the Spanish end up killing everyone. However, there is a scene in the movie where the Head of the Jerusits tries to get him to give up his project with the natives, for fear of upsetting the Spanish and other nations. Although the way it is phrased in the movie, suggests the primary worry was Spanish offence at the move.
Click to expand...

The Mission depicts the natives as having been happy subjects of a just regime. In fact, they were a culture of slave owners who themselves raided and plundered their neighbors for centuries, and who engaged in ritual cannibalism on a massive scale.

I agree, a lot of the Spanish cause was about finding treasure, but I have little simpathy for the Aztec culture. The Aztec's were about a corrupt a regime as the World has ever seen. Conquering and subjugating them was fair play within the rules of life they themselves believed in and lived by.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

=S=

Lunatic
 
evangilder said:
I think it is safe to say that every country that has been an empire or super-power has done some bad things. I don't think anyone can make a determination as to which country was worse.
Click to expand...

Well, I think you can.

Clearly the Romans were increadibly brutal. In the silver mines of Spain, they forced slaves to dig mines so they could divert water to tear down a mountain to expose the silver. Tens of thousands of slaves lived underground for years without seeing sunlight. When the Romans were ready to divert the water, they didn't even spend the two to three days it would have taken to get the slaves out of the mines.

There is evil and there is EVIL.

=S=

Lunatic
 
RG, you forget that we cannot judge the Romans by modern socio-political values. In fact, you're last two posts have been totally contradictory. First you said:

'The Aztec's were about a corrupt a regime as the World has ever seen. Conquering and subjugating them was fair play within the rules of life they themselves believed in and lived by.'

Good point - and we must accept that the Conquista, while bloody and brutal, was a product of it's time. But then you say:

'evangilder wrote:
I think it is safe to say that every country that has been an empire or super-power has done some bad things. I don't think anyone can make a determination as to which country was worse.


Well, I think you can.

Clearly the Romans were increadibly brutal. In the silver mines of Spain, they forced slaves to dig mines so they could divert water to tear down a mountain to expose the silver. Tens of thousands of slaves lived underground for years without seeing sunlight. When the Romans were ready to divert the water, they didn't even spend the two to three days it would have taken to get the slaves out of the mines.

There is evil and there is EVIL. '

By the Roman's estimation, slaves weren't even human beings, so there destruction in the mines was of no moral relevance. Why is it, when you argue about the Aztecs, you are willing to judge them in terms of thier own morality, yet with the Romans you insist on judging by a contemporary morality which the Romans would have found laughable?

You say you believe you can point to one country as being 'worse' than another in colonial history. Maybe you can: but only if you seriously believe you can impose your post-colonialist, Christian-based morality on 2500 years of colonial development. You simply cannot judge other cultures in other periods by standards which they had never heard of or explicitly rejected. The only place for contemporary morality in history is in contemporary events. To use it to judge the past is to condemn our predecessors for doing the right thing, as they saw it. And all any of us can do, is to do the right thing, as we see it. You should hope history isnt as damning of us as you have been of the Romans.
 
Well said bombtaxi. My main point was that all countries have ghosts in their past, including the USA. While National expansion may be taking from the weak for the strong as you put it, it is a cultural imprisonment that was done to the native Americans. So what is worse, cultural enslavement or cultural imprisonment? They are both bad.
 
True enough, evan. Canada has done our share of it too. Even long after autonomy from Britain. The attempt at the complete assimilation of native peoples into "Canadian" society continued right up into the 1960's, with native children being taken from their families and forced to go to "white" schools, while living with white families. Not pretty, but it happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back