Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
manifest destiny was the european settlers' justification for violent overthrow of both native american and mexican territories. do you agree or disagree with the argument presented by manifest destiny as a means of land acquisition? why or why not?
I do agree overall it was a good thing. I mean do you seriously believe the southwestern part of the USA would be as developed as it is today had it remained part of Mexico?
I do agree overall it was a good thing. I mean do you seriously believe the southwestern part of the USA would be as developed as it is today had it remained part of Mexico?
Manifest Destiny was always a general notion rather than a specific policy. The term combined a belief in expansionism with other popular ideas of the era, including American exceptionalism, Romantic nationalism, and a belief in the natural superiority of what was then called the "Anglo-Saxon race," i.e., whites of English heritage.
long story short, it was white supremacist expansionism backed with a belief that god destined them to do so, by whatever means necessary.
familiar?
Hitler believed in Arthur de Gobineau's ideas of struggle for survival between the different races, among which the "Aryan race"—guided by "Providence" (defined as: God, esp. when conceived as omnisciently directing the universe and the affairs of humankind with wise benevolence.)—was supposed to be the torchbearers of civilization.
Mexian territories were native American territoties. Do you agree with the Spainsh policy of Manifest destiny as a means of land aquisition from Native Americans(I love the way Mexicans try to spin this one).
If we didnt settle in the land the Spanish, Russian, Chinese etc...would have. So Manifest destiny was a policy that ensured the aqusition of territory that would have ended up in the hands of political enmies
Well you still did not answer my question about the what would the southwest be today had it stayed part of Mexico.
I still firmly believe that all n all it was a good thing. The US would not be the nation it is today and would not have been able to influence world events if it only existed east of the Mississippi river.
Mexian territories were native American territoties. Do you agree with the Spainsh policy of Manifest destiny as a means of land aquisition from Native Americans(I love the way Mexicans try to spin this one).
nope. spain is a european country, btw. native "mexicans" have no need to spin the issue.
Quote:
If we didnt settle in the land the Spanish, Russian, Chinese etc...would have. So Manifest destiny was a policy that ensured the aqusition of territory that would have ended up in the hands of political enmies
we couldve used our resources to protect the land from acquisition by political enemies without overthrowing it ourselves. what a concept.
Well you still did not answer my question about the what would the southwest be today had it stayed part of Mexico.
I still firmly believe that all n all it was a good thing. The US would not be the nation it is today and would not have been able to influence world events if it only existed east of the Mississippi river.
if we never had european settlers in the modern north america, it most likely wouldve been how it was prior: full of people willing to live meagerly and work hard, respecting the land and staying neutral on a global scale.
manifest destiny was the european settlers' justification for violent overthrow of both native american and mexican territories. do you agree or disagree with the argument presented by manifest destiny as a means of land acquisition? why or why not?
California alone is the world's 7th largest economy.
Overall, Americans have made exceptionally good use of the western U.S. Our ancestors brought Christianity, the Calvinist work ethic, wealth, and prosperity to this land. They built vast and advanced civilizations in the middle of the barren desert, and developed ingenious methods of importing scarce resources from hundreds of miles away.
Could the same be said for the indigenous peoples? Well, they hadn't accomplished all that much when we arrived 200+ years ago, and they haven't done much since then either. So you make the call.
Quote:
if we never had european settlers in the modern north america, it most likely wouldve been how it was prior: full of people willing to live meagerly and work hard, respecting the land and staying neutral on a global scale.
Living meagerly, working hard, dying young from infectious diseases, no A/C or sanitation, poor medical care, high infant mortality, no education, no way to travel to faraway places, no creature comforts... Sounds a lot like modern-day Africa.
No Thanks, I'll take U.S. occupation any day of the week.
Since this is in the Immigration forum I will also note that the 10-20 million indigenous central Americans who have illegally entered our country have chosen the American way of life over the miserable existence back home.
California alone is the world's 7th largest economy.Since this is in the Immigration forum I will also note that the 10-20 million indigenous central Americans who have illegally entered our country have chosen the American way of life over the miserable existence back home.
Brilliant point---you'll get little coherent rebuttal on this. No one anywhere on earth wants to be "on the bottom"- but I think it's rather clear that, if you're going to be invaded, you're probably better off being invaded by Americans, than being invaded by the Russians, the Germans, the Japanese, the Arabs, etc. etc. Americans can be fun, too, because after they've "invaded" you, they'll actually LISTEN, and ACT, when you complain. Try complaining after you've been invaded by the Russians, or the Communist Chinese, and see how far you get...
Bottom line is, the "world" would have sooner-or-later "discovered" the American west. Might it have turned out worse than it did? I'm inclined to think so....
Brilliant point---you'll get little coherent rebuttal on this. No one anywhere on earth wants to be "on the bottom"- but I think it's rather clear that, if you're going to be invaded, you're probably better off being invaded by Americans, than being invaded by the Russians, the Germans, the Japanese, the Arabs, etc. etc. Americans can be fun, too, because after they've "invaded" you, they'll actually LISTEN, and ACT, when you complain. Try complaining after you've been invaded by the Russians, or the Communist Chinese, and see how far you get...
Bottom line is, the "world" would have sooner-or-later "discovered" the American west. Might it have turned out worse than it did? I'm inclined to think so....
Uh huh........
More and more post colonial countries in Africa are whispering about wanting the British back to run things-------especially after people like Mugabe muck 'em up.
So that boosts your argument that American culture, the child of British culture is arguably the best at the moment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
