NationStates Jolt Archive

Back in January I began a small thread to discuss a pointed and somewhat tenuous topic concerning the "shame" of certain national decisions throughout history, but certain events during the early third of the year prevented me from pursuing the topic past a few posts. While the debate was better than I expected, I do apologize for not continuing the thread; this time around I'll be taking a more "hands off" approach to the debate, only posing questions or bumping the topic if the arguments don't seem to pick up any momentum. In addition to reviving the topic, the title has been altered from "The Shame of Nations" to "Human Controversy" to represent that in less than respectable events often came from cultural groups rather than states.

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 and practice of Manifest Destiny a controversy that should be actively addressed in the United States of America, or is it merely a chapter in the greater history of a nation seeking to expand with unfortunate circumstances? Could this controversy be considered a national black mark to the culture of the period? If so, how and why is it such a malfeasance, and what can be done to countermand the historical damage?"

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.

-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.


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

A BUMP to bring the topic back into light and generate debate.

Hmm...Few people like to endorse the concept of Manifest Destiny-type policies, but few can argue with the eventual results.

The willfull destruction of another nation or nations to further another's material wealth is horrible...yet those who do it frequently prosper, grow stronger, and become the "new" reality.

And interesting problem. The worst methods to gain positive ends? Rome expanded in the most brutal of fashions, but it introduced the Pax Romana, Just as the Pax Tokugawa, or even the Han and Tang Dynasties, SOMEONE has to do the dirty work.

All empires that I can think of have been forged in war. All the great times of peace have been preceeded and will be succeeded by times of war. The "American Empire" that was Manifest Destiny allowed the US to take over the west, and many other key strategic areas. This gave the US the local breathing space it "needed" for continued growth and its eventual rise to become a world power.

Before Manifest Destiny, the US had no claims to great power, it was a weak, sparsely populated nation that was mostly backwater. The few cities worthy of the name were not impressive cultural centers, nor was its economy particularly fast-growing.

An interesting topic.

Although I genuinely believe that the expansionist doctrine of the 19th century is one of the saddest periods in the history of this land, there is a problem with actively seeking recognition of it as such in history. Americans don't like apologizing. They especially don't like apologizing for things done by their forefathers. There is no undoing or repairing what has been done, the dead can not be brought back, cultures can not be rebuilt, the land will not be stripped and restored to it's state before european descendants spread across it.
That said, I do believe in teaching history as it happened. Massacres should not be whitewashed as 'indian wars', Heros should not be made of those who exploited and murdered. It's not easy seeing through the fog of history and exposing the human frailties and weakness of those that came before us. It's a fine line between demonizing them and cantonizing them, a razors edge that most find it impossible to walk.

The notion of expansionism being God's will might be a bit out of fashion, but there's no question that controlling both coasts was an important step in securing real power and stability. I'm for it.

Trading massacres back and forth with the Indians might not mesh well with a religious justification, but politically, we'd be nothing without control of both coasts, relatively.

Americans don't like apologizing. They especially don't like apologizing for things done by their forefathers. There is no undoing or repairing what has been done, the dead can not be brought back, cultures can not be rebuilt, the land will not be stripped and restored to it's state before european descendants spread across it.

I propose a compromise. When the various tribes apologize for the Jamestown massacre and the massacre at Ft. Mims, we'll disarm ourselves of superconducters, the Polio vaccine, and silicon chips. That'd make it square, eh? ;)

Another BUMP of the thread, and a thank you to all the posters thus far; the contributions fit well in the spirit of the topic and I hope they'll be furthered by other interested participants.

Manifest Destiny would be wrong...IF...everyone else didn't do it. What I mean is that the concept of aggressively expanding your empire at the cost of innocent lives is wrong in a vacuum, the fact of the matter is that every nation was built on a throne of blood. If the Americans hadn't done it, someone else would. It's a dog eat dog world out there; if you don't kill your enemy, they will kill you.

Another BUMP for the topic, and an addition to the questions at hand:

"Given that some of the most important social policy decisions created by governing institutions are usually dependent on historical precedent (or willful the abandonment thereof), and the current government of the United States still maintains active social policies in Native American relations, is the concept of 'past transgression' merely a sideline in such affairs or does it still play an active role in determining the policy of the government today? How is this similar or different to other ethnic relationship problems in nations throughout the world (i.e. Aboriginal communities and Australia / Spain and the Basque movement), and can we apply concepts from other such conflicts in history to identify potential disparities in current Native American / U.S. relations?"

How right is it to 'civilize' or 'Christianize' so-called 'lesser races'?

Manifest Destiny was a great evil (though at the time it was as popular as anti-semitism; we don't realize it now but it really was the 'in-thing' to do, take the Dreyfuss case for example) that I think utterly tarnished the honour of America.

Cathenia

Expansion of more advanced technological societies into areas previously held by less advanced technological societies has been a recurring theme throughout human history. I daresay no people or era has been exempt.

To me, as well as to ( I am almost certain ) most other Americans, bringing up "manifest destiny" seems usually to be nothing more than an attempt to justify the current myth of an "American Empire."

"Manifest destiny" was a prize rationalization to give a rapidly rising immigrant population somewhere to go: West.

Well that's an undisputed fact but I just wish they'd stop hiding behind the banner of freedom and democracy while they trample other people's rights. At least the other empires called a spade a spade. America lies and lies with the mouthpiece of Hollywood.

Cathenia

Well that's an undisputed fact but I just wish they'd stop hiding behind the banner of freedom and democracy while they trample other people's rights. At least the other empires called a spade a spade. America lies and lies with the mouthpiece of Hollywood.

Cathenia

Its a bit much to say other empires call a spade a spade. Look at China, Turkey, New Zealand, Brazil, and many nations within Africa, perhaps Sudan to start. All of them have skeletons in the closets that they don't like talking about; namely at least historical incident called genocide.

Many incidents of cultural imperialism and the like go unrecognized, all over the world. Some are just left alone more than others.

Manifest Destiny would be wrong...IF...everyone else didn't do it. What I mean is that the concept of aggressively expanding your empire at the cost of innocent lives is wrong in a vacuum, the fact of the matter is that every nation was built on a throne of blood. If the Americans hadn't done it, someone else would. It's a dog eat dog world out there; if you don't kill your enemy, they will kill you.
So it's justified to kill innocent people if everyone else is doing it?

Since when were Western tribes the "enemy" that would kill the United States?

This type of logic is why unchecked realism is bad.

So it's justified to kill innocent people if everyone else is doing it?

Since when were Western tribes the "enemy" that would kill the United States?

This type of logic is why unchecked realism is bad.

Okay, so it IS bad. But, how else would we survive as a nation?

Now, show us how the US could grow powerful enough to survive WW2 without having control of the US's massive farmlands, mineral deposits, and stategic points.

How big would the border area around the US be to prevent the constant raiding that went back and forth between the US and the various tribes?

The US's biggest crime was picking a fight when it was strong enough to win, and using those winnings to become strong enough to pick a new fight. A slow process of taking out and taking over. However, how would it survive otherwise? I look for a suggestion.

What bothers me are incidents like the Trail of Tears, the incidents when entire Indian tribes were massacred (women and children included) and, once the continent was secured, the takeover of Hawaii and the Philippines. Wasn't the latter a betrayal of the ideals that America was founded upon?

Cathenia

What bothers me are incidents like the Trail of Tears, the incidents when entire Indian tribes were massacred (women and children included) and, once the continent was secured, the takeover of Hawaii and the Philippines. Wasn't the latter a betrayal of the ideals that America was founded upon?

Cathenia

Sure it was. I'm willing to give you that much.

Now, find out a realistic way to get power without trampling or subjegating other people. The US needed to grow in order to stand a chance against other, more powerful nations that could easily crush the fledgling democracy.

Europe managed to get into a lot of conflicts because many of the states were equal or nearly equal in power, and competing for land, resources, and their own ability to expand. The US did not exist in a void; it was reacting to outside stimuli as well as internal pressures.

So, how do you grow powerful enough to live if you can't expand? People stay alive by eating. Nations stay alive by growing. If your neighbor is much bigger than you, you might be in serious danger if they take exception to you.

This is certainly a difficult subject, how does one protect themselve and yet be virtuious and noble? The world is an ugly place, is idealism just a dream for the weak? Or is it something to remind the strong that they might be better than they are now?