NationStates Jolt Archive

Welcome to what I hope will become a serious, multi-part, collection of debates and discussions concerning with the development of human culture and in both its beauty and its deformity. The reason this thread has been given the above title is by no means an oversight; in this and future discussions, topics of contention will be introduced from a wide variety of nations and ethnic backgrounds. In the study of history the tendency is to identify issues of particular savagery or callousness and isolate it as culturally specific, thus forming irrational stereotyping. Once enough of these threads have been established hopefully a larger majority of us can come to agreement that no matter what culture we come from, we all have our fair share of black marks in the history of humanity.

Therefore I present the first topic of discussion...

"Is the concept of Manifest Destiny a national shame for the United States of America, or is it merely a chapter in the greater history of a nation seeking to expand with unfortunate circumstances?"

The topic at hand is a double edged sword and was intentionally chosen for the sake of argument. Remember, this is a discussion thread to not only argue the topic, but to gain an insightful perspective into the realization that no culture is without flaw or blemish. To keep the thread clean, here are some ground rules.

Although popular in many circles, it would be prudent and downright civil of every poster here to refrain from personal attacks. Personal attacks merely show a limited imagination and/or poor discussion skills on behalf of the perpetrator.


If you do post, please try to provide some evidence in the form of critical dates or events to support your opinions. While it might take longer than simply stating your position on the argument and keeping your peace, it helps to improve the overall quality of the discussion.


Please try to keep the topic within the frame of the question. If you are attempting to support or refute another poster's argument, please quote the section of the argument in your post as to eliminate confusion on behalf of other readers. Posts demeaning other cultures or cultural practices in this topic should be considered no better than personal attacks for the sake of argument, so please refrain from committing such acts.


Keep an open mind about what you post and whom you post to. After all, this is only one of hundreds of potential black marks throughout the course of human history. There are as many opinions about this topic as there are people currently living on the planet, so make sure to keep that in mind. In discussing historical human actions there is no such thing as a "right" answer, but there are reasonably educated guesses.
Thank you for your time. I now leave the floor open to debate

"Is the concept of Manifest Destiny a national shame for the United States of America, or is it merely a chapter in the greater history of a nation seeking to expand with unfortunate circumstances?"
It depends. I am ashamed by it, but it quite certainly is a chapter in the greater history of our nation. It's in the past.

Basically, i'm using long words to say I'm too wishy-washy to say either.
Although popular in many circles, it would be prudent and downright civil of every poster here to refrain from personal attacks. Personal attacks merely show a limited imagination and/or poor discussion skills on behalf of the perpetrator.
Personal attacks are also against forum rules.
;)

Manifest Destiny is crap. It's just one of the many ways to excuse destroying another culture. Mark Twain said some interesting things about it. He was a little ahead of his times. He wrote an interesting essay on it called something like "ON Enlightening those in the Dark"
He railed against missionaries coverting the "heathens." Lots of stuff like that. I haven't read it for a while, but I've got a book of his essays and letters called "Mark Twain on the Damned Human Race." Evidently he'd become a little disillusioned by time he was older.

Personal attacks are also against forum rules.
;)

-Note: Last piece of OOC guidance before I head off to bed.-

Yes I do know that personal attacks are against forum rules. However, I do not believe that has that ever stopped anyone from utilizing them in a debate format. (Nor will it probably ever while we still have names to call each other and a language in which to properly perform the action.) Granted I'm stating the obvious, but since the moderation staff has enough to worry about against people who can do more grievous harm to this site than simple character assassination I wish to state it for those who would have no sense to follow it otherwise.

the whole concept of manifest destiny is bullshit.
we have no rights to attack other people untill they attack us,EVER.
to claim to have a special/divine destiny,is merely to say "im an empire and im not gonna admit it" rome thought itself special,what happened to it?it collapsed upon its own stuipidity.britain thought it had the duty to convert others to itself,what happened?those people rebeled and crumbled that empire,AMOUNG THOSE REBELS ARE YOU OWN DAMN FOUNDERS.
how can you spit in there eyes,do you really think its ok to go and do the very things the founders gave there lives for?

OOC:
Grr, I can't believe this thread isn't getting more responses...
It's such a good original post.
I hope it doesn't up and die on you, Schultaria Prime, cause that would be sad.
*crosses fingers*

I have a really good history book called "The Peoples History Of the United States." It's got a lot of stuff you never learn in high school. Instead of portraying Rockafeller and Carnegie as great heroes it shows them as the robber barons they really were. It goes into the labor unions and the use of the Pinkertons against them. Talks about Mother Jones. Gives a lot more info on the Indian Wars than just how heroic the army was. The protests against the Spanish-American War and the Civil Wars draft riots. Great stuff.

I find it hard to be ashamed of something in my national history; (personally, I still consider the US in the time of Manifest Destiny as "my" nation even though my family wasn't in the US at the time) I have no control over what happened during that time period, nor did anyone in my family.

Neither I, nor anyone I know was involved in that period of "manifest Destiny" thus I can recognize it as a poor vision for the nation but I cannot find a reason for shame. National shame, would indicate a remorse on the part of the public for having concieved or implemented things it later regrets. This remorse would have to carry on to successive generations to be a true "National Shame."

In my experience, most of the US public is only vaugely aware of the manifest destiny period at all. There are many who find great shame in the many tragedies and atrocities that occured in that time period; there are few who would not consider the Manifest Destiny theory as bigoted. Yet it has never become a national shame.

On a side note, I would be hard pressed to find an issue of which there is a majority opinion within the US about the naiton's shameful conduct in ANY period. Slavery in the US is one likely exception, but there is a vocal minority who are apologists for the century of US participation in the Slave trade.

All of which leads me to the following assertion; the US public has no real concept of the Manifest Destiny period, if it were described to them they would find it detestable, but be shamed by their nation's past conduct? No.

I find it hard to be ashamed of something in my national history; (personally, I still consider the US in the time of Manifest Destiny as "my" nation even though my family wasn't in the US at the time) I have no control over what happened during that time period, nor did anyone in my family.

Neither I, nor anyone I know was involved in that period of "manifest Destiny" thus I can recognize it as a poor vision for the nation but I cannot find a reason for shame. National shame, would indicate a remorse on the part of the public for having concieved or implemented things it later regrets. This remorse would have to carry on to successive generations to be a true "National Shame."

In my experience, most of the US public is only vaugely aware of the manifest destiny period at all. There are many who find great shame in the many tragedies and atrocities that occured in that time period; there are few who would not consider the Manifest Destiny theory as bigoted. Yet it has never become a national shame.

On a side note, I would be hard pressed to find an issue of which there is a majority opinion within the US about the naiton's shameful conduct in ANY period. Slavery in the US is one likely exception, but there is a vocal minority who are apologists for the century of US participation in the Slave trade.

...


An interesting perspective on the entire subject; however, I personally feel that just because one does not have control over the actions of the past does not adequately equate into not possessing shame. Naturally the time frame of the subject matter is considerably distant for even the most observant of people, but then again our nation still touts the achievements of that era as major victories in the present. Victories such as the emancipation of slavery after the civil war and development of the transcontinental railroad can still be recognized by a great deal of citizens from the United States, even if the hard facts on dates and name places might be sketchy.

The point I make with the above statement is that if we can remember concepts such as the two above then we, as a nation that touts its progressive civil rights quite visibly, should also recognize that with our great societal and material victories during this era came at a direct cost to those on the rougher end of manifest destiny. Mulling about on the subject, I've come to the conclusion that Manifest Destiny is also more than just our less than honorable acts against the native tribes west of the Mississippi River; while it is still my main point of contention in this debate, I would also like to introduce some other concepts as well.

Manifest destiny (while I absolutely hate to sound anything remotely like an early Marxist historian) was about the American idea of profit by any means necessary. We can see it clearly in the seemingly explosive population booms in Nevada and California immediately following the trail of gold for a better life. That same collective goal can also be attributed to the expansion of homesteaders and unregulated business as well. However, we should perhaps look to the pursuance of this goal at all costs as our derivation of shame. Because of the desire of quick and plentiful financial gains, the American west was nearly stripped bare of some of its most plentiful animal species (1) and the nature of business in our country was reckless and, quite frankly, dangerous.

Perhaps our shame should not only be limited to just our knowledge of the subject, but rather because we are so vaguely aware about this portion in our history. This was an era of not only animal extinction and careless actions in the name of profit, but a willful destruction of culture as well. I am ashamed at the way our forefathers handled themselves during this period and I, as a disquieted American citizen, would personally love to find options to remedy our past trespasses.


(1) Using the obvious reference of the great Buffalo herds of the western American plains as an example, unregulated hunting for sport, food, and pure spite of the natives led to a horrifying decline in species numbers. The impact was significant enough to attribute (by many educated guesses) to the overall decline in living standards of the Native American population after the Civil War era.

I find it hard to be ashamed of something in my national history; (personally, I still consider the US in the time of Manifest Destiny as "my" nation even though my family wasn't in the US at the time) I have no control over what happened during that time period, nor did anyone in my family.

Neither I, nor anyone I know was involved in that period of "manifest Destiny" thus I can recognize it as a poor vision for the nation but I cannot find a reason for shame. National shame, would indicate a remorse on the part of the public for having concieved or implemented things it later regrets. This remorse would have to carry on to successive generations to be a true "National Shame."

In my experience, most of the US public is only vaugely aware of the manifest destiny period at all. There are many who find great shame in the many tragedies and atrocities that occured in that time period; there are few who would not consider the Manifest Destiny theory as bigoted. Yet it has never become a national shame.

On a side note, I would be hard pressed to find an issue of which there is a majority opinion within the US about the naiton's shameful conduct in ANY period. Slavery in the US is one likely exception, but there is a vocal minority who are apologists for the century of US participation in the Slave trade.

All of which leads me to the following assertion; the US public has no real concept of the Manifest Destiny period, if it were described to them they would find it detestable, but be shamed by their nation's past conduct? No.

Forgive the cynisim, but i believe that many will not know about that peroid in history as it has been changed into the legend that is fast becoming fact to many.

I mean, if you look at the art of the time, and that which is painted, it is of great trains of carts heading to the horizon, it was always forward looking and never taking care of the present. Manifest Destiny was a dream, that like many could never be realised in a perfect way, hence the destruction of Native Amercian culture and, as posted above, the annihilation of the Great Plains Bison herds. But what is taught now is the great expansion and the building of the foundations of what is now modern day US. Thus, because it is part of the legend of the building of a country, which was succesful, only the success is taught, and not the failures and the shame of how it was done.

The Civil War and the battle against slavery is seen as a far bigger step in american history, and is far more recognisable in its history to most people, but only because it was a success and a visible strong enemy was defeated. Not to mention it all being well recorded. But the expansion to the west skips past the genocide, if you will, of the native people and concentrates on the building of the american dream.


EDIT: Quality post by the way. Whats the next one going to be on?

A BUMP for more debate; I really appreciate those who have already come and expressed their opinions. Through channels like this it's easier to try and communicate the idea that no one society is perfect or possesses a higher standard of cultural morality.


EDIT: ... Whats the next one going to be on?

I'm assuming that this was directed at me; in order to insure a reasonably impartial and fair discussion of potential imperfection, I'm working out other topics within a more recent time frame and not necessarily focused on the "Western" world. I hope that I can post at least one new thread a week (maybe it might take longer if the debate on the previous thread is highly active and popular).

This is what I plan to have for the topic of next week's discussion (it will be in a different thread).

The cult of Bushido and the Japanese Army during World War II: A logical basis for cruelty and disregard for international law, or simply a reinterpretation of long standing cultural practices?

Perhaps if you look at the period in another light you'll understand the actions of the people of the period. I would suggest that there was a significant power vaccum in the West as Spain and other nations became weaker in Americas. The early American push west was part of a greater project to secure independant economies and political clout throughout the continent.

Manifest Destiny was after all a public relations campaign, I believe that the term was coined by a particularly zealous newspaper editor. Calling for America to expand rapidly eased many tensions at home, put brewing social conflicts on the back burner, allowed some of the recognized minorities (I'm speaking of religious and European minorities primarily) within the American population to expand with the public's blessing.

Don't forget that America was not strong economically, had little military power, barely forged anything resembling a national identity, was unfocused politically, and had significant minorities within its borders that were struggling for recognition.

The Manifest Destiny campaign allowed America to refocus its energies into the project of subduing the weakend Spanish interests in the area, remove the Native American population from their vast tracts of land, exploint cheap and easy to obtain material goods, thus creating economic stimulus, and spreading out the population to allow minority groups to graft themselves into the larger national identity that was becoming more apperant as the Manifest Destiny period continued.

In this light, the view of a "birth of a nation"; Manifest Destiny was very important. It had significant drawbacks, massive losses, and improper actions taken, but on the whole the project was important for the growth of America.

the whole concept of manifest destiny is bullshit.
we have no rights to attack other people untill they attack us,EVER.
to claim to have a special/divine destiny,is merely to say "im an empire and im not gonna admit it" rome thought itself special,what happened to it?it collapsed upon its own stuipidity.britain thought it had the duty to convert others to itself,what happened?those people rebeled and crumbled that empire,AMOUNG THOSE REBELS ARE YOU OWN DAMN FOUNDERS.
how can you spit in there eyes,do you really think its ok to go and do the very things the founders gave there lives for?

"Manifest destiny" is nothing more than a term to describe a specific instance of what has been happening throughout history. Any time a more technologically advanced civilization comes into intimate contact with one less technologically advanced, the more advanced nation always absorbs the less advanced one. It seems to be a law of sociology, at least until relatively recent history.

Even if one civilization ( Germany, for example ) even believes itself to be more technologically advanced than another ( France, prior to WWII ), conflict seems virtually inevitable.

Just for your information, the posts I read didn't indicate that the US currently advocates any form of "Manifest Destiny" involving geographical expansionism.

OOC:
Grr, I can't believe this thread isn't getting more responses...
It's such a good original post.
I hope it doesn't up and die on you, Schultaria Prime, cause that would be sad.
*crosses fingers*

I totally agree! This is a much needed respite from the "Abortion/Religion/Anti-US" crap! :)

Perhaps if you look at the period in another light you'll understand the actions of the people of the period. I would suggest that there was a significant power vaccum in the West as Spain and other nations became weaker in Americas. The early American push west was part of a greater project to secure independant economies and political clout throughout the continent.

...

Don't forget that America was not strong economically, had little military power, barely forged anything resembling a national identity, was unfocused politically, and had significant minorities within its borders that were struggling for recognition.

The Manifest Destiny campaign allowed America to refocus its energies into the project of subduing the weakend Spanish interests in the area, remove the Native American population from their vast tracts of land, exploint cheap and easy to obtain material goods, thus creating economic stimulus, and spreading out the population to allow minority groups to graft themselves into the larger national identity that was becoming more apperant as the Manifest Destiny period continued.

In this light, the view of a "birth of a nation"; Manifest Destiny was very important. It had significant drawbacks, massive losses, and improper actions taken, but on the whole the project was important for the growth of America.

For the most part, I do tend to agree that the American nation is something that developed significant importance during this period of time especially with the acknowledgement that perhaps America should be a significant continental power. Then again, the concept of a nation is something that's extremely hard to pin down to an exact series of specified guidelines. Even today if we were to ask the archetypal definition of a national identity amongst different geographical and cultural groups it would still be very difficult to have a comprehensive set of guiding rules. In my studies of history I feel there are only a few questions that possess as much befuddlement as "what makes a nation?", but I digress from the argument.

Perhaps we might wish to confer the dates on which we see the topic of Manifest Destiny in all of its grand developments and significant human rights quandaries. Since you mention a Spanish influence in your writings, I assume that you are considering the antebellum period (specifically the first three decades of the 19th century) when Spain had a direct influence on continental affairs(1). I think that while this portion of American history saw the birth of Manifest Destiny's economic and ideological development(2), it was more influenced under the auspices of the Monroe Doctrine in an effort to counter European expansion, specifically in the southwestern territories.

In the case of the refocusing of energies, I guess the argument, "Do the ends justify the means," must be presented and brought to light. In terms of the minority and immigrant culture, my own information is very limited but I feel that even though the integration of such cultures was more permissible after manifest destiny, since they were of European ancestry they would have integrated eventually into the greater social fabric of American society(3). While the economic argument is certainly permissible in this case, we must also examine our cultural developments in the nearly one hundred and fifty years since the heyday of Manifest Destiny's propagation. I ask, "Is it not hypocritical of us to ask for other nations to improve their human rights record when we have not properly acknowledged our own transgressions against dozens of sovereign nations on our own continental soil?"

-Just playing a bit of devil's advocate on the last sentence, but it also reflects my ideology of how a government should react to its trespasses. I'm a subscriber that unless we acknowledge that although we've all benefited from our actions in the long run, the "sins of the father are inherited by the son unless absolution is given." This is why I possess some shame on this issue; since our nation has never fully admitted in a fully sincere and thorough apology for our actions during this period this will continue to be a national shame in my eyes.

(1) Via the major colonies of Mexico and South America and excluding Cuba or any significant portion of the West Indies. I personally feel they don't play a major role of contention until the Spanish-American war; by then I feel that the United States evolved from local Manifest Destiny into a more comprehensive system of empire construction in the European fashion.

(2) By ideological development I mean the economic and political motivations to expand in the western territories in addition to the willingness to commit acts of forced repatriation of Native American tribes. I personally feel the first significant development in Native policy started with the Trail of Tears in 1838. Not only had forced relocation become inevitability, but was actually prescribed by national government authorities as standard practice.

(3) Even though the social status of many Eastern European / Irish / Jewish immigrants was tenuous at best (given the numerous first hand accounts of immigrant slums and tenements in many Eastern Seaboard cities), I personally feel that they were better off in terms of government toleration than most native tribes of the same era. In terms of rights as citizens, ability to move and mobilize themselves in the social ladder, and political franchise immigrants of this era wouldn't be exactly seen as full American citizens, but were still capable of integrating into the society at large compared to the native tribes west of the Mississippi.

In the case of the refocusing of energies, I guess the argument, "Do the ends justify the means," must be presented and brought to light. In terms of the minority and immigrant culture, my own information is very limited but I feel that even though the integration of such cultures was more permissible after manifest destiny, since they were of European ancestry they would have integrated eventually into the greater social fabric of American society(3). While the economic argument is certainly permissible in this case, we must also examine our cultural developments in the nearly one hundred and fifty years since the heyday of Manifest Destiny's propagation. I ask, "Is it not hypocritical of us to ask for other nations to improve their human rights record when we have not properly acknowledged our own transgressions against dozens of sovereign nations on our own continental soil?"

-Just playing a bit of devil's advocate on the last sentence, but it also reflects my ideology of how a government should react to its trespasses. I'm a subscriber that unless we acknowledge that although we've all benefited from our actions in the long run, the "sins of the father are inherited by the son unless absolution is given." This is why I possess some shame on this issue; since our nation has never fully admitted in a fully sincere and thorough apology for our actions during this period this will continue to be a national shame in my eyes.

(1) Via the major colonies of Mexico and South America and excluding Cuba or any significant portion of the West Indies. I personally feel they don't play a major role of contention until the Spanish-American war; by then I feel that the United States evolved from local Manifest Destiny into a more comprehensive system of empire construction in the European fashion.

(2) By ideological development I mean the economic and political motivations to expand in the western territories in addition to the willingness to commit acts of forced repatriation of Native American tribes. I personally feel the first significant development in Native policy started with the Trail of Tears in 1838. Not only had forced relocation become inevitability, but was actually prescribed by national government authorities as standard practice.

(3) Even though the social status of many Eastern European / Irish / Jewish immigrants was tenuous at best (given the numerous first hand accounts of immigrant slums and tenements in many Eastern Seaboard cities), I personally feel that they were better off in terms of government toleration than most native tribes of the same era. In terms of rights as citizens, ability to move and mobilize themselves in the social ladder, and political franchise immigrants of this era wouldn't be exactly seen as full American citizens, but were still capable of integrating into the society at large compared to the native tribes west of the Mississippi.

Perhaps when compared to the native peoples of N. America the status of Eastern Euopeans/Irish/Jewish peoples could be considered "tolerated" by the US government. I don't see this as particularly heartening for them, as rampant persecution and race riots still occured dispite the official toleration.

What I'm trying to say is that yes, they were better off than the native americans, but the native americans were being actively destroyed by the US government. Comparing persecution to genocide is a little tricky, no? They still were an under-class of people, and very likely to be used as scapegoats or targeted after the Native Americans were forced out. The Europeans managed to hate each other for a long time, despite their proximity, shared heritage, etc.

I should point out that these people's integration into the US social fabric was by no means assured! To say that it was is to claim that the later US civil rights movement was garunteed to succeed. That's a dangerous logical fallacy.

It may be time to point out that nations typically don't apologize, apologies are more the exception than the rule, and the father back in history they go, the less likely it is to occur. Nations will express regrets over what happened, but don't apologize for causing it.

For example; look at the rape of Nanking during WW2 (since this ties in with the next topic, one that I know MUCH more about), the Japanese Ambassador, when pressed repeatedly to offer an official apology simply offered his "regrets that excesses occured during the war." This is similar to the old, widely used US term for the Civil War, "The late unpleasantness."

I would like to argue that this is not entirely a bad thing, admitting guilt, culpability, or legal responsibility actually hurts the nation's ability to react to such problems later on. Admitting guilt opens the path to financial reperations, which are difficult to squeeze out of a government that had not participated in such actions for over a century.

The other problem is how far do you go? Formal apologies from Britain for burning the capital in 1812? Do American citizens offer apologies for the Boston Tea Party? I agree that the Trail of Tears was a lamentable occurance, but wouldn't formal apologies seem a little disingenuous if forced out of a reluctant government?

Your ends/means argument goes both ways. Is the American public/government (since in theory the second is made up of the first), remorseful over the Manifest Destiny period? No. Should they apologize anyway for what happened in the period...when they feel no connection to that period? When many of those in the government have no relation to those who perpetrated those henious acts?

Is your End (the apology) worthy of the means (asking a bunch of people to beg forgiveness for something they feel they had no part in)?

...

What I'm trying to say is that yes, they were better off than the native americans, but the native americans were being actively destroyed by the US government. Comparing persecution to genocide is a little tricky, no? They still were an under-class of people, and very likely to be used as scapegoats or targeted after the Native Americans were forced out. The Europeans managed to hate each other for a long time, despite their proximity, shared heritage, etc.

I should point out that these people's integration into the US social fabric was by no means assured! To say that it was is to claim that the later US civil rights movement was garunteed to succeed. That's a dangerous logical fallacy.

It may be time to point out that nations typically don't apologize, apologies are more the exception than the rule, and the father back in history they go, the less likely it is to occur. Nations will express regrets over what happened, but don't apologize for causing it.

...

I would like to argue that this is not entirely a bad thing, admitting guilt, culpability, or legal responsibility actually hurts the nation's ability to react to such problems later on.

...

Your ends/means argument goes both ways. Is the American public/government (since in theory the second is made up of the first), remorseful over the Manifest Destiny period? No. Should they apologize anyway for what happened in the period...when they feel no connection to that period? When many of those in the government have no relation to those who perpetrated those henious acts?

Is your End (the apology) worthy of the means (asking a bunch of people to beg forgiveness for something they feel they had no part in)?

I would like to point out that the greater civil rights movement was in no way, shape, or form related to the plight of many immigrants during the latter half of the 19th century. To make that association, given all of the related political causality for their creation in the 1960's is by no means reflective of the political situation of the middle third of the 1800's. I will admit that I am more than likely overestimating the social mobility of the European immigrant communities during this era; however, wouldn't it be easier for an ethnic group to integrate when the government does not issue warrants of forced relocation or military action? To this extent, I will say that perhaps my definition of "eventual" might have to be better defined in this instance (1).

-Please consider my concepts of apology as my personal opinion and as such I am more than likely not going to change them in any near future (given that I am a rather stubborn thinker and I will admit that to ease any potential frustration on all parties). Since we as a modern society feel it is necessary to follow by sets of morality codes, should we not be able to hold our own governments by the same ethical light? I understand the realization that admitting guilt does hurt national abilities in the short term, though I find it extremely hard to take that we can not admit to our mistakes for past transgressions.

If we as a people consider genocide as wrong, than we must look at ourselves and admit that we also stand among the accused and we have little more high ground in which to argue our position against other nations. I feel that by offering a sincere apology a government can do more to repay a moral debt that it incurred than I feel time alone can heal. By admitting guilt, I feel that nations are in a stronger position to react to items of similar brutality in other nations. With an apology we admit that our government is not perfect to be quite sure, but we also admit that we as a culture are willing to address our mistakes and insure that nothing of similar intensity should ever be incurred again.

The offer of relation once again ties to the loose overarching concepts of nationality I discussed in my previous post. Even though the majority of my family did not arrive into the United States until the late 1880's (although I have one relative that came from the original Jamestown colony), my idea of nationalism can differ greatly from yours. My personal nationalist feeling is that if you come to a nation and decide to integrate with it fully you incur its moral and physical bounties and debts. Although almost none of my family was ever directly involved with the more brutal aspects of Manifest Destiny, I feel guilt both as an American citizen and as a subscriber to the common ethical doctrines of the human race.

-Of course the majority of this post (if not all) was digressive in nature, and I apologize for that since it seems as though very little of this reflects the question at hand. Although, it looks oddly enough like we are about to start the beginnings of a 21st century version of The Republic...

(1) Consider the term of eventual as lasting three generations.

Generation 1: The immigrant community comes to the United States and establishes their livelihood. The greatest amount of intolerance would probably center on this generation as they would be considered truly foreign to the general society.

Generation 2: The first semi-nationalized generation to live their entire lives in the United States; while they retain a significant portion of their heritage, they are a transitional generational stage. By adopting both a mixture of old custom and American culture, intolerance is now less of an issue (since they've partially integrated into the society at large).

Generation 3: At this point, a significant portion of the cultural retention has been replaced with local (Americanized) facsimiles. People in this generation have little trouble integrating into a larger social fabric composed of many anonymous people.

Of course this can only work if the people in question are exposed to constant contact with other individuals outside of their nationality and their culture allows for a certain amount of openness in dialogue and discourse.

A BUMP for any and all interested parties; it's wonderful that this debate has not resorted to baseless personal attacks but rather opened up the possibilities of exploring individual ethos in historical situations. I can only hope that for those who are interested in posting that you find this debate enriching in expanding open-mindedness as well as being intellectually and philosophically stimulating.

Of course. I understand your point. I would like to point out that I was only using the Civil Rights movement as an example of "failing to achieve the inevitable", that certain social movements were not as undeniable as we often assume.

As far as digressions go, it wasn't an unpleasant one, and I view all coversations by how productive they are as a whole, rather than how laser-perfect they were in sticking to the immediate topic. :)

I BUMP this thread again to generate more debate. I hope that this thread does not die out due to disinterest; given the positive responses I've received so far I'll continue pressing onwards with the topic until next week.

Meh. Thread came off as schmuck-y.

A BUMP for any and all interested parties; it's wonderful that this debate has not resorted to baseless personal attacks but rather opened up the possibilities of exploring individual ethos in historical situations. I can only hope that for those who are interested in posting that you find this debate enriching in expanding open-mindedness as well as being intellectually and philosophically stimulating.

I don't really think I could keep up with this level of debate on something I know so little about. I'm certainly interested, and have definitely learned something. I'll try and read a little about what you are proposing to discuss next, and try to join in!

Agreed...it is a great topic but I know only what I was taught in high-school history, which hardly makes me qualified as anything like knowledgeable on the subject. I do think, personally, that manifest destiny was a rather strange concept dreamed up to justify the belligerent seizing of lands owned by other people (I mean how unethical was the Mexican War, come on!) but it's hardly possible to undo the damage - the government can't exactly tell everyone West of the Mississippi, "Sorry, we're giving this land back, you'll have to move East." Where would they all go? It's unfortunate that this displacement and so on occurred in American History but all we can do is learn from it, I guess (or not learn from it, and go round invading people left right and centre. Quelle joie.)

There's this painting I once saw titled "Columbia". I'm not sure the artist or when exactly it was painted, but it is the "thousand words" on manifest destiny. It's images portrait the 19th Century attitude of expansionism so perfectly.

In the painting the figure Columbia raises a lantern, lighting the way for stagecoaches, covered wagons and trains that are headed westward. Towns, fields and cities spring up behind her and thrive in her brightly lit wake. But to the far left of the painting is a dark area that the light is just beginning to reach. Indians and wild animals are portraited there as flinching from the light, being driven back into the shadows. The perfect representation of the mindset of manifest destiny.

Meh. Thread came off as schmuck-y.

Without any evidence to support your opinion I'll declare this point as moot. No one in this thread can learn from your insight unless you point out why this thread its corresponding posts are "schmuck-y" and possible ways to remedy the situation. Posts like this generate little overall contribution to the debate at hand; its vagueness leaves more demeaning intent on behalf of the writer than it does the targeted subjects.

...but it's hardly possible to undo the damage - the government can't exactly tell everyone West of the Mississippi, "Sorry, we're giving this land back, you'll have to move East." Where would they all go? It's unfortunate that this displacement and so on occurred in American History but all we can do is learn from it, I guess (or not learn from it, and go round invading people left right and centre. Quelle joie.)

The subject of reparations which, while good in its intent, means nothing unless the authorities that be acknowledge that they've done wrong in the first place. For the most part, the government of the United States (and other national states who have committed acts of similar unethical practice) have never acknowledged that they have committed ethical wrongs. While the situations have been varied and most people show some sort of distress over this topic I ask you is it not hypocritical that individuals are held to higher ethical standards than states? Does this mean that even though we can learn from our mistakes that states can commit whatever atrocities they desire and not face some sort of internal consequence? Of course it is essential to learn from our mistakes, but unless we directly confront the demons of our past than we are still at fault and possess very little clout in which to judge others of similar atrocity.

...We can't even hold Current states responsible to current ethical wrongs. I hardly see how we can convince the people of the world to condemn their ancestors. There's something called pride in this world ya know.

I would advise you spend some time talking to family memebers of Nazi's and/or war criminals, you'll learn something about the psycology of the guilty-by-association. Its very hard to describe, you really have to see if for yourself; a combination of remorse, defiance, love, very ambiguous emotions come to the surface. Its a difficult subject.

Its very hard to ask those who didn't commit the crimes to apologize for them, states are made up of many people, people who live out their lives and die. So its hard to justify making people apologize when they didn't do the cime, its hard to hold states accountable because often the perpatrator has long since died or left power.

History cares little for Justice, the past is buried under many layers of wrongdoings and forgotten lies.

...We can't even hold Current states responsible to current ethical wrongs. I hardly see how we can convince the people of the world to condemn their ancestors. There's something called pride in this world ya know.

I would advise you spend some time talking to family memebers of Nazi's and/or war criminals, you'll learn something about the psycology of the guilty-by-association. Its very hard to describe, you really have to see if for yourself; a combination of remorse, defiance, love, very ambiguous emotions come to the surface. Its a difficult subject.

Its very hard to ask those who didn't commit the crimes to apologize for them, states are made up of many people, people who live out their lives and die. So its hard to justify making people apologize when they didn't do the cime, its hard to hold states accountable because often the perpatrator has long since died or left power.


With the nature of pride, that's a touchy subject as well; pride in a nation is derived individually through personal circumstances and history. Although all individuals in a certain nation might share certain undertones that are universal, it is also true that pride is not consistent or coherent. We don't have to look too far to see derivations in national pride in the present American context; from the war in Iraq we see how polarized U.S. national pride and interpretation of history has become. Perhaps there is something to be said about cultural barriers as well over the course of history and this is probably the most significant point of the entire national shame / forgiveness debate. How do our cultural boundaries reflect our willingness to share shame with our descendants?

Naturally it would be a difficult subject to discuss, especially for those who were related by direct lineage to the perpetrators. After all, when an ethical quandary of this magnitude is inflicted on an individual I can understand that people can not help but be overwhelmed into silence by the subject (although I have never had the ability to directly speak with someone so closely related to an event of such magnitude). However, as a thought experiment, would you rather admit that your predecessors have done wrong and proceed with your life, or hold on to the information without committing forgiveness while public opinion on the subject builds pressure to the point of explosive hatred?

Understandably the stigma of being guilty by association is a difficult term to come to grips with, but then again most of us have inherited a stigma of sorts through our family lines; it's just a matter of how far individuals have to dig through the family records. What I'm trying to bring across is that no one party is more guilty than any other, but unless we address that we all have ancestors who have committed heinous deeds, we as a collective race will continue to hold festering animosities.

However, as a thought experiment, would you rather admit that your predecessors have done wrong and proceed with your life, or hold on to the information without committing forgiveness while public opinion on the subject builds pressure to the point of explosive hatred?

Understandably the stigma of being guilty by association is a difficult term to come to grips with, but then again most of us have inherited a stigma of sorts through our family lines; it's just a matter of how far individuals have to dig through the family records. What I'm trying to bring across is that no one party is more guilty than any other, but unless we address that we all have ancestors who have committed heinous deeds, we as a collective race will continue to hold festering animosities.

But here we return to an old theme. Who is building pressure to the point of explosive hatred? For what reason is this supposed pressure building?

It appears we have a disagreement over just how much pressure is on the US government to apologize. I have not read, seen, nor heard of any group calling for US apologies in the relm of "trail of tears" in recent years. If nothing else, I've noticed an easing of tensions as various tribes in my area have started to prosper a little.

So who is there to call for apologies? Is there a pressure group with this interest in mind that I am unaware of? SHOULD the US apologize when no such groups are calling for it? Is it possible that the problem has been laid to rest by the vast majority of society?

You speak of all people having ancestors who have done nasty things, if it is so universial, why not call the point moot? I honestly ask; why would every single person in the world would want to say that they have great shame in their family line? Is it not the point and purpose of dignity to avoid shame? Why be so eager to toss mud on everyone in the playground?

Even if someone apologizes, who's to say they will be forgiven? There are far too many people who can hold grudges in this world. If we go about "opening old wounds" by bringing these horrific episodes up all the time, are we not simply reliving the worst moments of a mixed past?

I think it comes down to specifics. You cannot say in good faith that all dirty laundry should be brought out in public. Some things are best left to disappear quietly. If certain cases come to light that are grevious assults on a person's or group's honor and dignity, THEN bring it up and lobby for official apology. Why conduct a witch-hunt? Some people can forgive others without them having to apologize, other would rather forget that events occurred and live their lives quietly. Yes, there are some who need closure, full and complete, but that's not everyone.

Perhaps if you do seek out such people as I mentioned before, you'll gain a little perspective on the issue. Touch these sensitive nerves too many times and you'll start to feel like a horrible person, or you'll become so jaded nothing will matter to you anymore. The young woman who brought the Rape of Nanking to light commited suicide last year; she couldn't bear the pain of not doing enough for the victims of that tragedy. Something to be wary of, no?

Btw; its "stigma" not "stigmata". Stigmata is the term for the wounds people develop that are reminiscient of the wounds Jesus sustianed on the Crucifix.

But here we return to an old theme. Who is building pressure to the point of explosive hatred? For what reason is this supposed pressure building?

...

So who is there to call for apologies? Is there a pressure group with this interest in mind that I am unaware of? SHOULD the US apologize when no such groups are calling for it? Is it possible that the problem has been laid to rest by the vast majority of society?

You speak of all people having ancestors who have done nasty things, if it is so universial, why not call the point moot? I honestly ask; why would every single person in the world would want to say that they have great shame in their family line? Is it not the point and purpose of dignity to avoid shame? Why be so eager to toss mud on everyone in the playground?

Even if someone apologizes, who's to say they will be forgiven? There are far too many people who can hold grudges in this world. If we go about "opening old wounds" by bringing these horrific episodes up all the time, are we not simply reliving the worst moments of a mixed past?

…

If certain cases come to light that are grevious assults on a person's or group's honor and dignity, THEN bring it up and lobby for official apology. Why conduct a witch-hunt? Some people can forgive others without them having to apologize, other would rather forget that events occurred and live their lives quietly.

...

Perhaps if you do seek out such people as I mentioned before, you'll gain a little perspective on the issue. Touch these sensitive nerves too many times and you'll start to feel like a horrible person, or you'll become so jaded nothing will matter to you anymore. The young woman who brought the Rape of Nanking to light commited suicide last year; she couldn't bear the pain of not doing enough for the victims of that tragedy. Something to be wary of, no?

…


To use a non-American example, look at the tensions between England and Northern Ireland since the mid 17th century until the present day; while I don't think just a simple apology might apply in this case anymore, the fact of the matter is that the Protestant English government perpetrated a series of injustices on Catholic Irish that have come back to haunt them in most terrible fashion. Without so much as a redress of grievances until just recently, grudges in this region have escalated to the point of domestic terrorism over generations. And it's the emphasis on generations that I wish to place; if a communal memory of cultural degradation is constantly reinforced, people brought up in this environment will more than likely bear animosity.

If history is used to laud the best moments of human society, than it should also embrace its worst and most destructive moments as well. The human condition, as we are so often told to believe, is one of gradual improvement where we learn from our mistakes. By sweeping everything that is nasty, vile, and disgusting from the cultural and historical landscape we are simply describing to both our ancestors and the future that we don't care about the wrongs society commits. By only waiting until the victims cry out for redress and retribution we are simply stating that the victor should have no ethical concern for their actions until the minority can actually be heard. By actively avoiding shame we are saying that our nation should lose face slowly as the facts of history become more evident to the world.

Perhaps we have become too complacent in our way of life and too ignorant in our past fallacies. To say that because everyone's family lineage has committed wrongs over the course of history is moot should be reconsidered (1). Also, I know of the suicide of Iris Chang and I feel that it was a tragedy, though I ask for unilateral apologies to prevent myself from becoming a vengeful person in my later years(2). I feel there is nothing horrible in looking for the truth, but I do realize that people who suffer though such events incur great emotional damage. Lest we forget the wrongs of the past, we are doomed to repeat our mistakes?

Are we truly willing to forget and let similar tragedies such as Rwanda and Sudan pass by us in one paragraph blurbs on the back page? I feel as though we've had our time to forget the lessons of the past, and we've squandered our chances in such instances since time immemorial. Maybe it's time that we pause for a moment and have a serious look at what we have done to ourselves as a species.

(1) To quote from the old adage: "Two wrongs don't make a right".

(2) I feel that such thinking is in poor form if we are supposedly a species that is distinct from the natural order. Personally I feel that there are many nations in the world that have serious moral debts to pay, but to how much to we place a value on a human life? Before that, are we emotionally mature enough to face that all of us have committed wrong on some level?

-I noted the spelling error, my spell-check program automatically assigned stigmata instead of stigma for some unknown reason.

The subject of reparations which, while good in its intent, means nothing unless the authorities that be acknowledge that they've done wrong in the first place. For the most part, the government of the United States (and other national states who have committed acts of similar unethical practice) have never acknowledged that they have committed ethical wrongs. While the situations have been varied and most people show some sort of distress over this topic I ask you is it not hypocritical that individuals are held to higher ethical standards than states? Does this mean that even though we can learn from our mistakes that states can commit whatever atrocities they desire and not face some sort of internal consequence? Of course it is essential to learn from our mistakes, but unless we directly confront the demons of our past than we are still at fault and possess very little clout in which to judge others of similar atrocity.

Well that's very true, I must admit I am a bit surprised that there has never been any official public apology to the Native Americans and anyone else who "was there first" and got kicked out or displaced as a result of Manifest Destiny. Some sort of reparation, however nominal, should definitely be made, even if it is impossible to completely right the wrong since so much has happened in the intervening period.

For the time, I can not see manifest destiny as being wrong. Plenty of European nations had been doing the same carving up the planet amongst themselves and it was pretty much thought of in the US that unless we expanded and grew stronger we were likely to have to face a hostile European power seeking colonial expansion again sooner or later. Yes it led to the destruction of the Indians but the US government and the Indian peoples have never been on good relations, hell they've never been on neutral relations. The US and the Indians have been at odds with one another since the revolution when Indians choose to fight with the British. It was made worse in 1812 when the British used Indians as proxies to fight for them.

This only helped to strengthen a dislike for native americans no matter what tribe.(Keeping in mind that education back then really wasnt as PC as it is today, or as far reaching to educate the masses in the differences of people). Its quite easy to be able to stand today with a whole new set of morale values and look back into the past and say, "OMG that was just plain awful", the hardest part is considering the circumstances of the time and whether or not it was needed. Do the ends justifiy the means? Depends. That response gets rather tiresome because its so vague..what means? What ends? Who's to say when the line gets drawn in the sand when at that time there was no line, no sand. Not anywhere in the world.

If anything, manifest destiny was the american way of converting European ideas of imperialism to suit its own needs. We didnt go the globe hopping route, no we internalized and decided to expand west quickly lest someone declare the west coast a colony of (insert random European nation here).Was it fair to the Indians? Of course not, life is full of unfair examples, however humanity at the time didnt take to kindly to the weak, especially if the weak owned or claimed vast tracks of land. The Indians made themselves unknowingly targets at first, and then knowingly did so on two seperate occassions.

Considering the possible alternatives to what may have happened had the U.S. not expanded westward I fail to see much reason to hold serious regrets on the matter. It was a period in history most likely never to be repeated by any civilized nation and it was done in an era when, when it did occur, it was the acceptable norm. As the saying goes...no use crying over spilt milk. As for reperations..bad idea..I'm all for letting the tribes have some of their original lands back, but it can start with where you live, and forgive me but not a dime out of my pocket. My family didnt move to the mainland US until the 1930s and 40s and before that we lived on Puerto Rico, and before that Spanish nationals. Now, I reperations come from tax payers...after 150+ years..there arent any original indians from that period to recieve any payment..its like giving money to black people for what occured with slavery. not every family had ancestors who owned slaves so why should they be forced to pay out of pocket? Not every family moved west..