Manifest Destiny

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by Panjandrum

Modern proponents use a theory of 'memes' to explain the mechanism of social evolution.

Gosh, that was coined by Hofstadter, must have been some time around 1980. I wonder what he thinks of the matter. I suspect Doug is aware that memes can replace memes without the medium having to be replaced.

Originally Posted by Panjandrum

As to your specific example- well, yes it was necessary for a white civilisation to dominate the americas. Had there been no indian genocide, much of the continent would still be under their control, and the white dominated area would not be nearly as strong as it is now.

This is a quite obviously racist justification. No, that doesn't mean it was a desirable thing, certainly not.

Originally Posted by Panjandrum

But a Social Darwinist would contend that societies, like nature itself, are harsh and amoral entities.

Societies are certainly all too harsh and amoral, when they choose to be. I have mostly seen Social Darwinism used by individuals as an argument to reject not only Socialism, which is when a society collectively chooses to be close-knit and protective of all, but even any form of social welfare. These individuals justify their own amoral harshness with SD, not that of society.

[Panjandrum]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

Gosh, that was coined by Hofstadter, must have been some time around 1980. I wonder what he thinks of the matter. I suspect Doug is aware that memes can replace memes without the medium having to be replaced.

I believe the idea of memes was first proposed by the biologist Richard Dawkins, which would give the idea a firm basis in evolutionary darwinian thought.

This is a quite obviously racist justification. No, that doesn't mean it was a desirable thing, certainly not.

Nonesense. In what sense is it not a desirable thing? In the sense that it conflicts with modern ideas of humanism and respect for other cultures? Neither of those ideas was prevelant at the time, and it could easily be argued that the appalling excesses of the colonial period are prescisly the sociatal pressures that allowed these ideas to spread. Simply because you find the idea abhorrent is no reason to blind yourself to the facts of the matter. In order to see the situation in SD terms, you must think in terms of the conflict of cultures and ideas, not people. In those terms, it was self-evidently desirable from the POV of western culture and ideas to eleminate another potential rival while it was still weak. Moral judgements do not apply, any more than they do in the case of a bacteria propagating at the expense of other bacteria.

Societies are certainly all too harsh and amoral, when they choose to be. I have mostly seen Social Darwinism used by individuals as an argument to reject not only Socialism, which is when a society collectively chooses to be close-knit and protective of all, but even any form of social welfare. These individuals justify their own amoral harshness with SD, not that of society.

And I have seen conventional evolutionary theory used to justify racsism and sexism, and the forced sterilisation of 'undesireables'. What is your point? That there are some people who will use whatever they can to justify thier beliefs? This is hardly unique to SD.

[HydrogenBond]

Back during the time of Manifest Destiny, SD was not even known. The movement was an SD experiment of suvivial of the fittest. Using 20/20 hindsight, one can see that a moral/religious motivation, instead of an animal/natural selection impulse, would have been much more humane. SD after that become a world wide threat leading to two world wars. It was the perception of religious morality by the US, or good versus evil, that helped set things right. We learned from our mistake and stopped our manifest destiny to include only the US and a few strategic territories.

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by Panjandrum

Nonesense. In what sense is it not a desirable thing? In the sense that it conflicts with modern ideas of humanism and respect for other cultures? Neither of those ideas was prevelant at the time, and it could easily be argued that the appalling excesses of the colonial period are prescisly the sociatal pressures that allowed these ideas to spread. Simply because you find the idea abhorrent is no reason to blind yourself to the facts of the matter.

If your racist asserts weren't meant purely as an example, then read what the rules say about these things.

Originally Posted by Panjandrum

In order to see the situation in SD terms, you must think in terms of the conflict of cultures and ideas, not people.

Exactly what I said, and it means that:

Originally Posted by Panjandrum

In those terms, it was self-evidently desirable from the POV of western culture and ideas to eleminate another potential rival while it was still weak.

doesn't require war and genocide.

Moral judgements do not apply to influencing other peoples ideas and culture, any more than they do in the case of a bacteria propagating at the expense of other bacteria, but war and genocide are a different kettle of fish.

Originally Posted by Panjandrum

And I have seen conventional evolutionary theory used to justify racsism and sexism, and the forced sterilisation of 'undesireables'. What is your point? That there are some people who will use whatever they can to justify thier beliefs? This is hardly unique to SD.

I did not say it was unique to SD, I had said SD has been used this way. Not the same thing.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Panjandrum

Nonesense. In what sense is it not a desirable thing? In the sense that it conflicts with modern ideas of humanism and respect for other cultures? Neither of those ideas was prevelant at the time, and it could easily be argued that the appalling excesses of the colonial period are prescisly the sociatal pressures that allowed these ideas to spread. Simply because you find the idea abhorrent is no reason to blind yourself to the facts of the matter. In order to see the situation in SD terms, you must think in terms of the conflict of cultures and ideas, not people. In those terms, it was self-evidently desirable from the POV of western culture and ideas to eleminate another potential rival while it was still weak. Moral judgements do not apply, any more than they do in the case of a bacteria propagating at the expense of other bacteria.

Incorrect, a large segment of American society were against taking Indian and later Mexican lives and lands. Because the US government policies supported Manifest Destiny does not make it moral. Even U S Grant instituted a Peace Policy in 1868 to try to help the Plains Tribes. Just because the policy failed does not mean it was not the correct one. Peace is the difficult road because compromise is hard and dictates produce resentment. War on the the other hand is easier because beating your opponent into submission can bring the short term gains you sought with a compromise and may eliminate the problem. In this particular case, Indians, were confined or killed and in the other case, Mexicans, those who were not killed were sent packing.

[Panjandrum]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Incorrect, a large segment of American society were against taking Indian and later Mexican lives and lands. Because the US government policies supported Manifest Destiny does not make it moral.

I am not talking in terms of morality. moral issues are irrelevant when dicussing a matter in terms of Social Darwinism. Whever I consider this genocide to be moral or not is beside the point.

Even U S Grant instituted a Peace Policy in 1868 to try to help the Plains Tribes. Just because the policy failed does not mean it was not the correct one.

Every single treaty made between the US government and the idnian tribes was broken, almost always by the US. I would say that the total faliure of such a policy does indeed indicate that it was the wrong one. Good intetions are all well and good, but it is results that matter.

Peace is the difficult road because compromise is hard and dictates produce resentment. War on the the other hand is easier because beating your opponent into submission can bring the short term gains you sought with a compromise and may eliminate the problem. In this particular case, Indians, were confined or killed and in the other case, Mexicans, those who were not killed were sent packing.

Agreed.

[Panjandrum]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

If your racist asserts weren't meant purely as an example, then read what the rules say about these things.

And what racsist staements are these, pray tell? I suggest you read what i actually said before slandering me.

Exactly what I said, and it means that:doesn't require war and genocide.

It requires the elimination of the rival culture. Wether that is thru a process of cultural assimilation or thru the annihilation of the bearers of the rival culture is a matter of the prevailing levels of 'tolerance' in a given culture. The culture of the Americans at the time of the Indian Wars was resistant to allowing the idians to assimilate, in large part because of the racsist attitudes predominant in US society at the time.

Moral judgements do not apply to influencing other peoples ideas and culture, any more than they do in the case of a bacteria propagating at the expense of other bacteria, but war and genocide are a different kettle of fish.

A bacteria may not have any conception of genocide, but its unconcious group action may lead to the same result. A Social Darwinist would say that is precisely the same way the genocide of the american indians occured, as a result of the not-genocidally motivated actions of individuals. Wether a genocide was deliberate, as with the Turks and the Nazis, accidental as with the early european colonists in america, or 'coincidetal' as in the case of Manifest Destiny, the end result is the same, and thus there is no moral diffrence.

I did not say it was unique to SD, I had said SD has been used this way. Not the same thing.

True, however you seem to feel that SD is particulary tainted by this misusage.

[Qfwfq]

And you don't call:

Originally Posted by Panjandrum

As to your specific example- well, yes it was necessary for a white civilisation to dominate the americas. Had there been no indian genocide, much of the continent would still be under their control, and the white dominated area would not be nearly as strong as it is now.

a racist point of view?

Why was it "necessary"? Why would it be wrong for the white control of the continent to be less strong? This is a forum on history, you can say that this didn't happen, that things went otherwise, stating facts, but the above statement of necessity has no grounds but racism, that I can see.

I granted the benefit of doubt, only because it was followed immediately by:

Originally Posted by Panjandrum

Does that mean it was a desirable thing? Certainly not.

and so might have been only a line of argument, but if you deny it being racist you should watch out. Such things aren't welcome here.

[Panjandrum]

You are continuing to misconstrue what I have said. I am attempting to present a Social Darwinistic arguament, not a moral one. In terms of SD, the entier purpose of cultural conflict is for one culture to dominate to as great an exent as possible the other. In these terms, it is indeed necessary for one culture to take whatever opportunity it is presented with to destroy a rival culture. If you find the specific topic of Manifest Destiny, about which this thread was created, too 'rascist' to tolerate, I would point out the cultural spread of the Han chinese culture, which has similarly obliterated all its rivals.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Panjandrum

I am not talking in terms of morality. moral issues are irrelevant when dicussing a matter in terms of Social Darwinism. Whever I consider this genocide to be moral or not is beside the point.



Every single treaty made between the US government and the idnian tribes was broken, almost always by the US. I would say that the total faliure of such a policy does indeed indicate that it was the wrong one. Good intetions are all well and good, but it is results that matter.

Applying the social darwinism approach to North America before Europeans arrive we find the local residents warring with one another to the best of their abilities, i.e. technology & numbers. They also displayed "moral" behavior in an effort to curb the violence as in the Iroquois Confederacy (Haudenosaunee, also known as the League of Peace and Power, Five Nations, or Six Nations) .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois
Inasmuch as things never get worse than war & survival, things must only get better.