Jump to content
Science Forums

Manifest Destiny


Racoon

Recommended Posts

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 7085 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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

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.

 

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

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:
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.

 

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...