Manifest Destiny

[Racoon]

Manifest Destiny was the philosophy that created a nation!
It would also be the end or destruction of other Native cultures...

Arguably a crucial turning point in history. The rightful destiny of Imperialistic expansion.

1845, John O'Sullivan
".... the right of our manifest destiny to over spread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federaltive development of self government entrusted to us. It is right such as that of the tree to the space of air and the earth suitable for the full expansion of its principle and destiny of growth."

Of course, this contributed to several wars, including that with Mexico.

any thoughts or ideas?

[HydrogenBond]

This is a science forum right, so I will treat it like science. If we look at evolution and selective advantage, if pioneers had been animals, who somehow migrated to this new continent and then spread out to became the dominant species, nobody would have a problem with that, because it would be an example of evolution in action. If we call these animals, humans, shouldn't the same evolutionary standards apply?

Most people don't mind evolution, if a natural disaster does the dirty deed. The adaptable are innocent but somehow find a niche to become the new dominant species. How would one feel if the clever mammals made the dinosaurs extinct via egg stealing? The dinosaurs breed once a year and the mammals overfeast edonce a year, until the numbers were decimated. Natural disaster is passive evolution and while egg stealing is an example of active evolution. Manifest destiny was an example of active evolution.

If we add religious and philosphical arguments to the picture, the mammals would be wrong to steal dinosaur eggs and didn't necessarily evolve on their own but by treachery.Their criminal actions would subjectively take away from the end result and bog our minds in the mistakes along the journey instead of the final evolutionary stop. It is good to learn from history, but those were different times that lacked 20/20 hindsight.

[Freddy]

The Mexican War was very unpopular at the time. Polk sent General Taylor onto Mexican soil, an act of war, as bait so the Mexicans would attack the Americans. Most Americans saw it for what it was, a huge land grab. We received what is now California, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, and parts of Colorado and Texas, which amounted to 40% of Mexican territory. A good book that describes American territorial growth is A Country Made By War.

[Buffy]

A few quick observations:

Manifest Destiny as a political doctrine essentially was spent by the Mexican-American War, and as Freddy notes, the war itself was unpopular. However this unpopularity was simply one of the swings toward isolationism that occur regularly throughout US history, driven mostly by concerns about the human and monetary costs of the war (cf. the Can Capitalism Survive Without War thread, which really has no justification).

"Social Darwinism" became quite popular in the late 1800s and drove much of the latter stages of pushing Native Americans to massacre or onto reservations (Little Big Horn, Wounded Knee, etc). By this time, Manifest Destiny was ancient history and the expansion and take over of lands were simply "the way things are."

In neither half of the 19th century was there any concern by any one about the plight of the Native Americans and the Mexicans were ruthless undisciplined proxies for Spain (Remember the Alamo!), and there was no love lost on either group, even those who opposed the policies....

Tippecanoe and Tyler Too,
Buffy

[Buffy]

...and for further reading the canonical work on this history is Fredrick Jackson Turner's The Significance of the Frontier In American History, which you can find online here.

Cheers,
Buffy

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Manifest destiny was an example of active evolution.

It has nothing to do with evolution and Social Darwinism is a hijack of science.

[Panjandrum]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

It has nothing to do with evolution and Social Darwinism is a hijack of science.

Why do you say this? I understood it was merely an attempt to apply evolutionary ideas to non-organic organisms, such as societies. I accept it is unpopular as an idea, and it may well be simply wrong, but I dont see why you should characterise it as a hijack, it would seem eminently scientific.

[Qfwfq]

Quite simply, the things at stake are hardly determined genetically. Social Darwinism is based on a merely "look-alike" reasoning and is a non sequitur. It's enough to examine the details, appropriately, and the whole argument collapses like a card house.

Was a genocide really necessary in order for the "white" civilization to prevail? I mean, the aspects of it that were advantageous to survival, which is the point of natural selection. These are based on knowledge, experience and ideas, which can be comunicated to those who aren't totally incapable or stubborly unreceptive (and this is only marginally genetic). It is quite unlike genetic traits which can only be inherited by offspring, if you except newfangled lab techniques. With time, even the most traditionalist Injuns, or at least their next few generations, would have appreciated certain benefits. Especially if they had been offered these things more than alcohol and new pathogens that take time to re-adapt to. Military conflict between Natives and ex-Europeans had exactly the same basis as that between nations and peoples of the Old World: contention of resources and power, tendency to subdue and exploit etc. This is due to the same instincts behind predation but, given the fundamental difference between genetic traits and that which can readily spread amongst most members of our species, the logical consequences are quite distinct.

Like the pretext of racial inferiority of Africans to Caucasians, Social Darwinism was just a comfortable pretext to justify wrong doing, except that it continues to be offered, since the fallacy is more subtle to spot (or, at least, still unobvious to many who follow the argument).

[Panjandrum]

You make a good point. However, I believe the ideas of Social Darwinism have moved on a little since its inception. Modern proponents use a theory of 'memes' to explain the mechanism of social evolution.

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. Does that mean it was a desirable thing? Certainly not. But a Social Darwinist would contend that societies, like nature itself, are harsh and amoral entities.

[HydrogenBond]

Manifest Destiny, was a idealist style marketing strategy to get people to go west. It sparked of partriotism and idealism and caused businesses and people to the leave security of the East for a chance to be part of the future. There was cheap land and tales of getting rich quick with gold and silver. The goverment make it easier with railroads and wagon trails. The original idea was not to kick butt on the injuns, but to escot the civilians. Many of the naive homesteaders were killed because they were in violation of indian lands. Some of the indians were the original terrorists killing women and children to spark terror and stem the flow of settlers. Manifest destiny open up a can of worms such that the pressure was on the miltary to make things safer for the increasing numbers of settlers. Many in the miltary went way overboard and used the bad apples to justify harrassing even the peaceful tribes that were being displaced. Many of these were force to take a stand against superior forces and did well but were under equiped.