Talk:Manifest Destiny/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →


Copyright (C) 2002 Bryce Harrington. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.

There was question regarding the copylefting statement used with this article, since most wikipedia articles do not have explicit copyright statements. The original statement included mention of the notice being an 'invariant section', which was confusing, and has been removed by the author to make it simpler. Since all work submitted to Wikipedia is by default copyrighted by its author, and licensed under the GFDL, this is exactly the same terms as all other Wikipedia material, except for being explicitly stated instead of implicit. It's exactly analogous to putting the boilerplate copyright and license grant in every source code file, as opposed to simply leaving it "assumed".

See Wikipedia:Copyright for more information.

It is the authors opinion that explicit statement of license grant is better for Wikipedia than leaving it merely assumed.

It was agreed by LDC and BryceHarrington that once suitable modifications to the Wikipedia software to include traceability to the original author and permanent attachment of explicit copyright notices to the article without making the original article appear "cluttered" with this extra info, this copylefting will be moved there.

I know nothing about the legalities of this question, so I can't comment on that aspect of it, but I can imagine a situation in which an initial article posted in this fashion could be edited to such a degree that it eventually is not recognizably derived from the original copyrighted material; meanwhile, the copyright notice (the "invariable" section) remains for the original source. This is an extreme case but is theoretically possible given the nature of Wikipedia. That means that the copyright notice becomes attached in perpetuity to an article name (and its editing history) rather than to the text itself, and bears no real correlation to the content of the article. Or am I misinterpreting what is going one with the copyright notice? soulpatch

Regarding having articles heavily edited to the point that they bear absolutely no resemblance to the original article, yes I agree that's a good question, and have wondered about that myself. Now, technically, in order for Wikipedia articles to be available under the GFDL, *someone* needs to hold ownership of the article copyright, so I suppose it makes as much sense that the article originator be that holder, as anyone. If Wikipedia were to be formally organized as a legal non-profit, it could receive transfer of copyright like GNU does, though this would be a lot of paperwork for someone (I wonder if GNU would be willing to accept transfer of copyrights for Wikipedia?) -- Bryce Harrington

--- Soulpatch commented "Article sas way too glowing in favor of Manifest Destiny. Tried to make it more balanced."

Hmm, while I am decidedly not a supporter of Manifest Destiny (is anyone?) I think the article will be difficult to make balanced. I may have made it too glowingly in favor of it to try to tone down my own opinions on it. I've revised it to hopefully eliminate aspects requiring balacing and to make it more neutral. For instance, I don't think the "supporters say / critics say" approach should be used, since its supporters have been dead for about a century.  ;-)

While I do agree and am of the belief that the effects upon the Native Americans by U.S. expansionism was genocidal and one of history's most (unfortunately) successful ethnic cleansing events, I'm uncertain if that's an appropriate slant for this article, and have toned down those statements. Like the Spanish-American War, while it was a direct outcome of Manifest Destiny, it's such a thick and deep subject that it really deserves its own article; I'd like this article to simply overview those issues and provide links to the more detailed topics.

Similarly, while I also agree and believe that a lot of the U.S.'s actions of the 20th (and unfortunately, 21st it looks like) century can still essentially be characterized by the philosophy of "Manifest Destiny", they're not conducted under that terminology anymore, so we probably don't want to go into details and instead leave those for Globalism or other appropriate topics, with links there from here. -- BryceHarrington

Proposal... I am new to the Wiki community and would like your thoughts on this idea. Would it be appropriate to add a link to this online novel about Manifest Destiny: [[1]] which is also available as a Quanta magazine pdf at: [[2]].

In the pdf introduction the author states: 'This work concerns the first days of the Mexican-American War, except in this story, Mexico is the Moon, and it takes balloons to get there. I have sought to express the ideology of the "Young American" movement of the 1840s using the unusual model of the solar system of Tycho Brahe. In Brahe's system, all of the outer planets of the solar system - Mars, Jupiter, Saturn - orbit the Sun, but all the inner planets - Venus, Mercury, and our Moon - orbit the Earth, as does the Sun itself. I see this model as an unusual attempt to appease the contradictory ideologies of science and religion of Brahe's era. Similarly, I see the hyperbolics of Manifest Destiny a product of the contradictions of democracy and slavery.'

'During the war, there was much proud democratic sneering at European monarchies and her class slaves, but a bizarre blindness toward the chattel slavery in the USA. This contradiction skews the universe of latter-day Jacksonian Democracy, which repeatedly calls to the American Revolutionary Heritage, expressed not as a revolution within, not emancipation and civil war, but as pyrotechnics of patriotism, as a mob demand to push the uncertain national borders onward into well-defined foreign land. This Napoleonic styled imperialism was an attempt to resolve the intolerable national contradiction through expansion, but only served to make revolution-within inevitable.'


I was noticing that the article needs some major organization. It is entirely void of headlines, and needs some care and attention. I might get back to it later, but could someone pick this task up? - Pingveno 03:09, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The war of 1812, and Canadian Confederation in 1867 should be mentioned in this article. The doctorine of Manifest Destiny was a driving force behind both events. See for example: National Library of Canada. I need to learn more about wikipedia and the historical details before making changes to the article myself.

From an American perspective, the War of 1812 was fought to prevent the British from kidnapping Americans of American-flagged ships, and to make the British leave the Northwest Territory, which they had ceded to to the US following the American Revolution. Of course, a former friend of mine, raised in Canada, said that she was taught that the war was fought to keep America from conquering Candada. Make sure that you do this in an NPOV fashion. RickK 03:22, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. Britain banned the slave trade in 1807 nearly sixty years before Lincoln. In 1815 in "The War of 1812 and Slavery" John Quincy Adams specifically complains that the War of 1812 was instigate by "British Naval Commanders" who "carried away from the United States " and liberated slaves". In 1856 Benjamin Drew documents the practices of the British giving refuge to slaves in the War of 1812 in "Narratives of Fugitive Slaves in Canada. Related by Themselves, with an Account of the History and Condition of the Colored Population of Upper Canada".

I can't imagine able to put that into the Wiki and it staying though! --Daedelus 10:20, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Britain and the United States officially banned the external slave trade at the same time (1807), though the extent to which the laws were enforced is questionable. Slavery itself was not abolished in the British Empire until 1834, following a massive Jamaican slave revolt. Canada never had slavery, but this had less to do with moral goodness of the people and a lot more due to the fact that its cold climate did not support cash crops like cotton, rice and tobacco. (This is also why slavery did not catch on in the Northern states.)

Contents

Section/Subject headings?

It seems to me that this article is long enough to be arranged by sections or subsections; does somebody want to perhaps restructure it and put the formatting in? Then it woud have a spiffy table of contents to make the article much more useful. Matt gies 21:17, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Divine?

that stated the United States was divine A preposterous remark!!. Wetman 07:51, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

What is so preposterous about it? Although "divinely-ordained" would perhaps be more appropriate. (Sept.)

People call it devinely inspired - that doesn't make it true. Peter Grey 13:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Not Dead

Some *@$%^!s will not give up the idea. 142.177.24.253 14:18, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Did you check that site out? It's interesting to read. It gives you the pros and cons of Canada being annexed into the Union. You have to admit, annexation is a mixed bag. It wouldn't be *all* bad for Canada--or else 20% of Canadians wouldn't support the idea, now would they? (see 51st state.)

What a ridiculous idea that would be. Also I know it states that 20 or so percent of Canada wouldn't mind joining the United States, but that depends on where you ask. There is a lot of Canada and with so few people spread across so much country, different regions have different opinions. The only way you could ever get a good estimate on this is to ask every single person in Canada, till that happens, I won't trust any poll from any company done in any part of Canada.

Large, mainly irrelevant section

Most of "Westward Expansion" does not actually fit under the headline of Manifest Destiny. In fact, the opposite is true. --YixilTesiphon

Philosophical Underpinnings

Its obvious to the most casual observer that the JudeoChristianization of the European colonies, including the New World, during the Age of Exploration was a result of a fundamental tenant of JudeoChristianity reflected first in the Covenant with Abraham, which is also the foundation of Zionism. My edits were toward this end but were reverted without comment. If it needs to be made more neutral that's fine but to ignore the referenc to the doctrine of world-wide dispersion and dominion make the section on philosophical underpinnings lack any real depth of philosophical underpinnings at all.

Here is the section I added and I'd appreciate it if people would describe how it could be more neutral and/or appropriate to the article.

The divine imperative of Manifest Destiny was rooted in the seminal Judeo-Christian_tradition tradition of Zionism as evidenced by this quote from the chief rabbi of Amsterdam, Menasseh Ben Israel, in his letter to Oliver Cromwell, petitioning for readmission to the United Kingdom:

My second Motive is, because the opinion of many Christians and mine doe concurre herein, that we both believe that the restoring time of our Nation into their Native Countrey, is very neer at hand; I believing more particularly, that this restauration cannot be, before these words of Daniel, Chap. 12. ver. 7. be first accomplished, when he saith, And when the dispersion of the Holy people shall be compleated in all places, then shall all these things be compleated: signifying therewith, that before all be fulfilled, the People of God must be first dispersed into all places and Countreyes of the World. Now we know, how our Nation at the present is spread all about, and hath its seat and dwelling in the most flourishing parts of all the Kingdomes, and Countreys of the World, as well in America, as in the other three parts thereof; except onely in this considerable and mighty Island. And therefore this remains onely in my judgement, before the Messia come and restore our ration, that first we must have our seat here likewise.

Indeed, the Puritans, who would prove instrumental in prevailing upon Cromwell to readmit Jews to the United Kingdom, were the first Protestant sect to settle in the New World, and they did so after having taken refuge, from religious persecution, in Amsterdam. Amsterdam was the same refuge taken by Jews when they were expelled by the Spanish Inquisition coincident with the start of Christopher Columbus's New World exploration in 1492. Thus Manifest Destiny's spiritual origin is to be found in the competition between Catholics vs the alliance between Protestant separtists and Jews seeking refuge in the religious tolerance of Holland at the dawn of the Age of Exploration.

Wikipedia does not publish original research, which includes novel interpretations and syntheses of primary sources. This is not a reflection on the merit of any given interpretations — Wikipedia is simply not the proper venue. We have to stick to material and interpretations already well-established in traditionally reviewed publications. —Steven G. Johnson 21:29, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
I'll agree that the section I added requires citations but so does the rest of the article. To call it uncited POV may be somewhat reasonable but to call it "original research" is rather ludicrous. Its de rigeur to link JudeoChristianity to western expansionism. Moreover Columbus's voyages in conjunction with the Spanish Inquisition's expulsion of Sephardic Jews to Holland, primarily Amsterdam, is frequently cited as the seminal event of western, hence, JudeoChristian expansionism. Jim Bowery 17:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree. (Sept.)

Jane McManus

There should be a reference to Jane McManus - Also known as Storms or Cazneau or often all three. She is sometimes credited with the phrase "manifest destiny" and is closley linked with the Young American movement in the 1840's. Yet there is no reference to her in Wikipedia. Perhaps someone can fill the gap.

There's a bit on her in the article on John L. O'Sullivan. She's an interesting figure, though perhaps a bit marginal for this short overview of Manifest Destiny (most full-length books on the subject don't even find the space to mention her). There's room for her in filibuster (military), the Young America movement article (still a stub, and a misleading one at that), and an article on her could be written as well. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 18:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

what?

How could the Madison administration hold that "doctrine" when the phrase was coined decades later?

Short answer: Because the article isn't very good and needs to be rewritten. --Kevin Myers 16:27, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Another answer: because the doctrine existed before 1845. People just called it different names.

An Active practice?

In the former years the U.S. spread from one sea to another. My grandparents may recall Hawaii and Alaska - but I've never researched that. It seems that Replication of government style is the only thing that's active. In my opinion, there's a lot of "white noise" the USA is harboring. I'm probly rambling, but is it important that Manifest Destiny stay alive, or is it truly fullfilled? Is this why recent wars have incited the media to imply new teritories will be developed? clearly not if we're only leaving them with their a copy of our government style.

Interesting analysis. What happens to a nation that has no expansionist ideals (or any other reason to "make progress")? Does it not flounder, without the driving energy to support and maintain it, or fight a failing battle to "maintain the status quo"? Also, what forces motivated the "innocent" (and supposedly "peaceful") native peoples to maintain the force and energy of their societies? Is not "contraction and decline" the opposite of expansion? What is so noble about these "decline and fall" values? There can be no doubt that competition, and self-interest are effective human motivators. (Sept.)

Shouldn't there be some more about more recent examples of Manifest Destiny? Manifest Destiny could also be interpreted by being an idealism of spreading a republican democracy over wider stretches of land. This does not specifically have to be about North America. The Vietnam and Korean wars showed Manifest Destiny because of the will of the people to expand democracy to prevent communism, just like how the U.S. expanded to spread democracy and to prevent European nations from colonizing North America. Even currently, the War in Iraq could be interpreted as a result of the Manifest Destiny idealism. The US is trying to spread democracy to other lands to spread "liberty" and "freedom."

Space

there isnt anything about intentions of taking the manifest destiney attitude into space . . .

The CSA and Manifest Destiny

Although the CSA was only around for 5 years, they managed to also expand westward with the "Confederate Territory of Arizona". Would this fall under Manifest Destiny? Actually what about the American Civil War itself? How long did this idea last?

POV

From article:

Some commentators believe that aspects of Manifest Destiny still form an underlying part of American outlook and policy.

And:

In actual fact, many American Indians already practiced democratic self government. They were slaughtered wholesale, rounded up, and stuck in camps or reservations where they would suffer from malnutrition, disease, and starvation. The American Bison were brought to the edge of extinction purposely in order to get rid of the food supply of large numbers of Plains Indians. This was part of a strategy of Total War learned in the American Civil War that was then applied to the Indians by many of the ex-civil war American military leaders.
As for non-whites they certainly were not encouraged to go forth and prosper. In fact the entire American Civil War could be argued to have centered on the question of how Manifest Destiny would apply to black people. This led to Bloody Kansas, the Missouri Compromise, and a whole host of other wranglings that brought the nation to its bloody knees in 1865.
Another desire of Manifest Destiny was the acquisition of new lands, since land could represent potential income, wealth, self-sufficiency, and freedom for the crowded urban masses pouring into the docks of New York City and other eastern harbors. Of course the fact that people were already living in the 'new lands' acquired was excused by racist depictions of Native Americans as 'savages' who were 'wasting' the land, and thus the whites were justified somehow in stealing this land from them.
Manifest Destiny as far as continent-to-continent wound down after 1907, when the last of the continental territories, Indian Territory, was invaded by whites seeking oil, and then turned into a state in 1907. This was soon after the government had stolen the land it gave to the Civilized Tribes living in Indian Territory via the scam known as the Dawes Commission.

Oh and:

Some can argue that Manifest Destiny still drives American politics.
Even as the policy wound down in the late 1800s, with the end of the Spanish American War and the statehood of Oklahoma, the US still felt the idea was a good one.
In the Cold War the idea of 'taking territory' was not quite so popular anymore, as colonialism had become rather unpopular among the intellectual elites of the time. However the principle of invading 'ignorant' and 'savage' peoples and 'converting' them to the 'american way of life' was used on dozens of occassions right on up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. And in place of 'taking territory' many American corporations instead simply set up extractive businesses to remove oil, minerals, rubber, and other natural resources from nations, frequently with the help of corrupt dictators who would suppress workers strikes and so forth.
In the 20th century this modified Manifest Destiny philosophy also came to include a large dose of anti-communism. Communism was considered a kind of 'savagery' and America was suposed to 'save people from themselves', just as it was supposed to save the Native Indians from their savagery. During the Cold War this philosophy led the US to murder or help the murder of many foreign leaders and foment coup d'etats in nations such as Chile, Angola, Zaire, Indonesia, East Timor, Vietnam, and so forth and so on.
This in order to combat Soviet Expansionism, a 'manifest destiny' of the Soviet's own making.

This too:

It should also be noted that the doctrine almost always described the white man as "God's chosen" who was bound to displace the "primitives" in his way.
In the 1840s young settlers started leaving the U.S. for the Oregon Territory because of economic difficulties in the U.S. Life on the trail was extremely difficult for them, with most people walking the 2000 mile journey as only pregnant women, the sick, and the elderly rode in the wagons.

And maybe this too :

The term "Manifest Destiny" is still sometimes mentioned in Canada when the subject of Canadian-American relations is discussed. Some Canadians believe that the United States has never fully abandoned its goal of fulfilling its Manifest Destiny by annexing Canadian territory. (See also: 51st state.)

So basically the whole article. Let's see what we can do. Most of this was added by this anon user. I'm going to assume good faith and not blindly revert. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 14:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted the recent POV additions. Much work elsewhere still needs done. This article is still not as bad as the POV essay known as American exceptionalism. --Kevin Myers 19:49, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Well I guess that's fine. Some of the info was okay, it just needed to be worded better. If I have time, perhaps I will re-visit this article and try to incorporate the content, without the intent. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 21:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

removed "claimed by"

The article had said "lands claimed by American Indians." But objectively, it was their land, as their people had lived on that land for thousands of years. "Claimed by" implies that it was land they coveted, and puts it on the same level as colonial powers "claiming" territories far away from their homelands.

How is Manifest Destiny special?

The article should say something about how Manifest Destiny is supposed to be different from any other form of imperialism. After all, just about every imperialist power justified its expansion with the same rhetoric, from ancient civilizations to Nazi Germany and Israel. Peter Grey 13:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Assuming this is a serious question, before answering it must be pointed out that you frame it with three debatable assertions, two of them mutually contradictory. To wit:
  1. Manifest Destiny is a form of imperialism
  2. Manifest Destiny is supposed to be different
  3. Others have used the same rhetoric
If we clear away the muddle and just ask, "How is Manifest Destiny special?", the answer is: because it was of a particular time and place, and had certain specific effects. Basically, the same answer for many topics. How is Tony Blair special? After all, there have been lots of Prime Ministers, and lots of people who were leaders, from Pericles to Hitler. Answer: because Blair is a particular one, and did certain specific things.
Hope that helps. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 15:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Is it an ordinary expansionist rationalization, or is it something new? Peter Grey 21:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Manifest Destiny....MYTH or REALITY?

what do you guys think? was the United States truly destined to govern and expand from sea to shining sea? were the natives destined to be pushed off their land? did america really have the god given right to push the natives off their land, and run over their rights, all in the name of "progress?"

~angrodnenharma~

Talk pages are not the appropriate place discuss what we personally think about a subject. This space is meant to be used for discussing how to write a good article. Thanks. --Kevin

sorry about that, is there a place on wiki to do that? ~angrodnenharma~

Maybe Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities? --Kevin
do i sense a little bit of sarcasm?  :P thanx, kevin. ~angrodnenharma~
Nope, that's really the right place, as you found out! --K