In the article "Manifest Destiny and Mission in the 21st Century" , author Paul A. Janson argues that "Manifest Destiny's purpose was to dominate North America at the expense of not only of Mexico but of the Native American population as well. Today, in the name of the "free market" we believe it is not only our right to destroy any enemy we choose, it is "our obligation." We are fighting after all for "freedom." But once again, who will be free is not clear." He likens the 19th Century US conflict over Texas in the US- Mexican War with modern day efforts to promote free trade and democracy through what he views as questionable means of diplomacy.
The question this article raised for me, while controversial, is an interesting discussion for us to entertain on our current unit on sectionalism, expansion and imperialism:
Is the promotion of an American agenda (free market capitalism and deomcratic governments) justified or are US actions in nations like Iraq and Afghanistans examples of a new wave of Manifest Destiny?
Directions:
1)read the article cited in the introduction at: http://hnn.us/articles/534.html
2)Summarize the article and any new insight it reveals on the US - Mexican War.
3)Answer the focus question using evidence from this week's readings, discussions and your own knowledge of current events.
Please respond to at least one other post. 200 word minimum.
Due Sunday 12/9 by 7 p.m. (pluses will be awarded for responses posted by Friday 12/7 by 7:00 am.)
The question this article raised for me, while controversial, is an interesting discussion for us to entertain on our current unit on sectionalism, expansion and imperialism:
Is the promotion of an American agenda (free market capitalism and deomcratic governments) justified or are US actions in nations like Iraq and Afghanistans examples of a new wave of Manifest Destiny?
Directions:
1)read the article cited in the introduction at: http://hnn.us/articles/534.html
2)Summarize the article and any new insight it reveals on the US - Mexican War.
3)Answer the focus question using evidence from this week's readings, discussions and your own knowledge of current events.
Please respond to at least one other post. 200 word minimum.
Due Sunday 12/9 by 7 p.m. (pluses will be awarded for responses posted by Friday 12/7 by 7:00 am.)
19 comments:
Teresa Konopka
Block H
AP US
When many hear the term “Manifest Destiny,” they think back to the comical movie Night at the Museum. They recall a scene where the American toy soldiers invade the display case of foreign toy soldiers and claim that their actions are merely “Manifest Destiny.” However factious this may be, Paul Jenson’s Manifest Destiny and Mission in the 21st Century really articulates the very essence of Manifest Destiny. The article shows how Americans have forever yearned for what they do not have. First it was independence, then it was land. With Texas, many Americans lived there but were under Mexican control. Also, since slavery was outlawed in Mexico, there could be no usage of slaves for fiscal bliss in that area. With a desire for supremacy and a coveting of land, Americans invaded Texas so they could annex it. By taking away land from Mexico, they would be able to practice slavery in Texas, we well as be seen as sovereign for defeated their southern counterpart. Polk was perspicacious when he led troops to Texas. Fully aware of the transcontinental treaty of 1819, Polk knew that Mexico was likely to ultimately give up land to America as it had years before. Polk was right and even paid Mexico $15 million dollars for the land as to not seem bloodthirsty--even though he was. Motives for the Mexican-American war were far from democracy and capitalism. If they were, there’d be no desire for slaves, since unequal men were not democratic. Also, there was no capitalistic motive since less revenue would be collected (with Texas as a part of the Union, they would no longer have to pay America taxes to trade with other US states). In terms of American intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, those are just more attempts to fulfill Manifest Destiny. Even though America is not looking for slaves in Iraq and Pakistan, they are certainly out for their own fiscal happiness. Access to foreign oil is pertinent, and outsourcing makes it so that the American government gets to pay less for work. With the prospects of more land and higher profit margins, the United States of America is surreptitiously out to gain anything but other nations’ prosperity.
Question to AP peers:
Do you think the Mexican-American war would have been different if Mexico had not prohibited slavery in the first place?
*Yay! I get a plus for posting early! :)
Elizabeth Che
AP US History Block H
“Manifest Destiny and Mission in the 21st Century” by Paul A. Janson notes the similarities between the Mexican-American War and the War in Iraq despite the time differences between these two wars. As Janson stated, the Mexican-American War is often portrayed as “Texans are aggressively attacked by the cruel despotic Mexicans and are only fighting for freedom and in self-defense, just as Mr. Bush says we are attacked and now fighting for freedom today.” However, the “Hollywood” version of the Mexican-American war was not an accurate account of the Alamo but a corrupted truth; Americans were not “innocent” and “pitiful” as the movie may make them out to be.
Slavery and Manifest Destiny were the two dominating political ideas in the early 19th century and led to the expansion of American territory. “The battle over slavery prior to the Civil War was largely a fight over the extension of slavery into new territory.” Since slavery was the main source of labor in Southern agricultural states, slave states wanted more land to continue their practices of slavery despite oppositions from Northern states. Janson relates the spread and dying of slavery to the “spread of capitalism.” New territories were desired to further ideas. However, Manifest Destiny also comes into play as the “belief that the United States was ordained by God to rule the continent; that because we knew better how to use this land, we were ordained to have it even at the expense of the legal owners, Mexicans or Native Americans” was a common idea in American society. Such pompous beliefs led to the suffering of innocents and more blood shed than needed.
The Mexican-American War was a struggle to take away Texas from the authority of Mexico to show the authority and power of the emerging American nation. The actions of the American agenda in nations like Iraq and Afghanistan examples a new wave of Manifest Destiny. Iraq and Afghanistan are individual countries that already have an established government despite opinions by critics. There is no reason for America to intervene and cause needless violence. Even though President Bush states the War in Iraq is to guarantee the safety of the American citizens from terrorists and to bring “order” to a disunified country, the reasons are unjustified as many years have already passed since the war began. The fact that violence is used to enforce ideas does not change and only lowers the reputation of the United States.
Like the Mexican-American War, Janson notes that “instead of immigrants, it’s corporations that are relocating on foreign territory. Once there, conflict follows as the corporations come under attack.” Capitalist ideas are desired to spread throughout the world by economically power countries, America with no exception. As like slavery to the Sough in colonial 19th century America, Americans are forcing Capitalism onto other countries ignoring attempts to resist. Capitalism is depended upon to finance the economy of countries similar to how slaves were relied upon to work and produce wealth for their owners. And so, proving that history does indeed repeat itself if not in a similar, repetitive way, as with the Mexican-American War and the “war against terrorism.” “From A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn, “violence leads to violence” and large egos lead to conflict with other countries.
In response to Teresa’s question, The Mexican-American war would not have changed as slaves are not needed to trigger conflict. The Americans were already looking forward to gaining land from the Mexican territories and would gain it either way - violence and or negotiation. Manifest Destiny would have caused an inevitable invasion into Mexico so there would still be a war between Mexico and the United States.
John Harden
Block H
AP US
Posted on: Dec. 8th, 2007
“Manifest Destiny and Mission in the 21st Century” by Paul A. Janson is an article which successfully compares the Mexican American War to the Iraqi War and there is nothing wrong with that. The United States of America’s actions in Afghanistan and Iraq are justified, as they are actions of a new wave of Manifest Destiny. The government of Iraq was entirely corrupt before the United States of America decided to invade and liberate the citizens of the already war torn country. It is a shame that our President, George W. Bush, did not think ahead along with his Bush Administration as the government that has been set up in Iraq is already crumbling to its knees. After taking out Saddam Hussein, a man whom had led a genocidal rampage against Iranian forces and Kurdish separatists, a new government was formed in Iraq, promising Democracy, Liberty and Justice for all. The citizens of Iraq, if they all cooperate will learn of freedoms they have never even imagined of. Free-Market Capitalism can bring many of the Iraqi people out of starvation and poverty, but nationalist groups in the country such as Al-Qaeda still refuse to accept American Manifest Destiny. The people in Iraq and Afghanistan were both suffering greatly before and now more than ever for denying American freedoms.
One might ask why “United States Free-Market Capitalism and Democracy is the best government for any nation?” The U.S.S.R. crumbled because of Communism and millions of people died in their own countries at the hands of their own leaders, men such as Stalin. Fascism has lost all popularity and wind at the turn of the 21st century and no government has truly functioned well with such an autocratic belief system in hand. China, the only country to successfully bring itself to economic super power status under Communist rule, constantly violates human rights inside the country. These violations include denying homosexual rights; it is believed that the Chinese policy towards the gay issue remains the "Three nos": no approval, no disapproval, and no promotion. In October 1999, a Beijing court ruled that homosexuality was "abnormal and unacceptable to the Chinese public". This is only one of the many rights that China has denied to pay any positive attention towards, unlike the United States government, which discusses the issue, state by state, on a regular basis.
The United States government is an example to every nation as we were the first nation to successfully set up a Democratic, Free-Market Capitalistic society and become an international economic superpower. Our countries split of government into three sections, should be a practice accepted and used everywhere. It is Manifest Destiny that every nation who has not already accepted and realized the benefits of Democracy and Free-Market Capitalism on it’s own agenda, should be introduced to the benefits whether it wants to or not. The United States were ideal leaders from the day that the government was formed, fighting against the then extremely oppressive Great Britain. It is publicly known that the Bush Administration is in Iraq searching for raw materials such as Oil. There is nothing wrong with that, if we are working to liberate the people of a nation, we might as well be able to take some of their resources as a retribution payment for all of our sacrifices and hard work as it is only common courtesy.
The Mexican American war ended with the acquirement of the state of Texas. However, the United States should have continued southward and taken in Mexico as a state. It was a mistake on Mexico’s part to deny statehood and American Manifest Destiny. Today, the United States is facing an illegal immigration issue, respectively and majority wise from Mexico. Mexicans are trying to cross the border to the United States of America. They thirst for the freedoms and economic superiorities that can only truly be given adequately on American soil. We would not have this immigration issue if Mexico had not selfishly stayed an independent nation.
All of these examples are strong ground foundation for the opinion that the United States of America is the hegemonic world police. We are not imperializing or destroying the lives of the innocent citizens of Iraq and other foreign nations. This new wave of Manifest Destiny does certainly not support slavery as did the past one. The United States of America is liberating and freeing the people of foreign nations from the iron grip of their past governmental bodies and institutions. Manifest Destiny is the most giving and unselfish movement to date; an expansion of freedoms and human rights that we could keep to ourselves as Americans. Acquirement of new United States territory does not have to certainly be an action sought through the problem solver known by famous German politician of the past, Otto Von Bismarck, as “Iron and Blood”. If all the nations of the world were ruled by and gave into one supreme body of liberty, then war and other harmful conflict might become nonexistent.
In response to Elizabeth Che’s posting: “However, the “Hollywood” version of the Mexican-American war was not an accurate account of the Alamo but a corrupted truth; Americans were not “innocent” and “pitiful” as the movie may make them out to be.” I am not sure whether Elizabeth realizes that men on a battlefield do not at all have the treatment of the war generals and politicians. Most of the time, soldiers are malnourished and are in “pitiful” positions. If you are saying that the men who fought on either side of the Mexican-American War were absolutely fine and did not at all suffer, you are sadly mistaken. Lives were lost on both sides due to the Mexican’s not surrendering to United State's Manifest Destiny. And to quote John F. Kennedy in response to your or anyone's negative feelings towards those who fought in the war or any war for that matter, “The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at best, if he wins, knows the thrills of high achievement, and, if he fails, at least fails daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.” Kennedy made this statement discussing Theodore Roosevelt and soldiers in general in a speech that took place in New York City on December 5th, 1961. The point that he and I are trying to get across, is that to not support those who are out on the battlefield, is a foolish and selfish action. For those men and women who fight or have fought for American freedoms and values, are men and women who deserve the utmost respect.
In the article "Manifest Destiny and Mission in the 21st Century" , author Paul A. Janson argues that "Manifest Destiny's purpose was todominate North America at the expense of not only of Mexico but of the Native American population as well. Manifest Destiny is a 19th century belief that it was the obvious and certain idea of the U.S. to expand its territory over the whole of North America and to extend and enhance its political, social, and economic influences. The United States of American can be seen as the most successful country that has taken over and kept it's land through out it's history. Although short, this small period still can be seen as a great dominance over territory. Today, however Manifest Destiny has reached a new level. It is been seen outside the continent of North America as examples of the American agenda (free market capitalism and democratic governments) are present in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush's actions and those of Texas during the Mexican-American war are very similar. Ironic how Bush is from Texas. The United States needed Texas not only to expand their land but to even out the balance between the North and the South. Also, as the United States grew at an unstoppable pace more land was needed for the increasing population. As most of the United States population was farmers Texas would provide enough land for agriculture. As Polk's War began , Polk's first main point was to take over Texas and further increase the American land as did his predecessors. After taking over Mexico Polk paid $15 million for the land not to seem to aggressive and so it would seem as though he bought it and not took over. Today, President Bush has practiced similar ways as Polk did and has further defined Manifest Destiny. Bush has led troops to Iraq because of the money and power that oil good give him. He also sees himself as a hero because he executed Saddam Hussein and invaded a country that has done nothing to us. Just as Polk used the excuse for Manifest Destiny, Bush has used 9/11 as his excuse. Although, America back then and now has prospered, during both times in history the people of the United States questioned their government. The article shows how Americans have forever yearned for what they do not have in both the 19th century and modern times.
Response to John Harden:
As the United States means good by teaching Iraqi's of Manifest Destiny it is none of our business there. Afghanistan is out of the question as they had nothing to do with anything that has happened in the past decade. Forcing something upon others that don't want it will never be the right choice and will never work. Although we are the worlds most powerful country we are in serious debt and always have been. We have left the children of tomorrow to pay for our mistakes in allowing Manifest Destiny to get ahead of ourselves.
Questions:
Where did Polk get $15 million from? Wasn't the United States in huge debt.
Two powerful vids:
us debt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZy04Knmhgc
poland owns bush HAHA!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19yTLq5HmtA
Dominique D. Johnson
Block H. AP U.S.
December 09, 2007
“Manifest Destiny and Mission in the 21st Century” by Paul A. Janson suggested that history has yet once again repeated itself 180 years later after the U.S./ Mexican War. Within each war that the United States was involved in, expansion and economic domination has been the main focus. The forceful influence of democracy has also played a major role in America’s quest for domination. Slavery and territorial expansion was the main focus 180 years earlier and now oil domination is the main focus as well as the spread of democracy. Prior to the Revolutionary War between the British and the United States, the British were concerned with Americans expanding on the Native American’s territory. Following the victory of the Revolutionary War, the United States expanded further than the Native American’s territory. The conflict between Texas and Mexico arose when Texans refused to obey the authority of Mexico.America today is living up to their 19th century belief of Manifest Destiny by continuing to practice their mission to expand, spreading its form of democracy and freedom.
After Texas won its independence in 1837 from Mexico, there was a vote for consent to annexation to the United States. At first the U.S. refused the proposal was refused by Martin Van Buren because that might have anticipated a war with Mexico. Texas withdrew its offer in 1838 and stood as an independent nation instead. Slavery was illegal in Mexico and slavery was heavy in the southern parts of the United States. The south wanted to expand into Mexico since there was virgin land that was easily going to be profitable. When James Polk, a big supporter of expansion, became president in 1844 without a doubt his vision of expanding was becoming clearer. The United States targeted Mexico and set Mexico up to throw the first punch and in return the United States would defend themselves. The plan was successful and bloody. Mexico lost New Mexico and California and was colonized by the United States. Texas was now one of the states of America and slavery continued to expand.
The war in Iraq and Afghanistan was America’s continuation of living up to the Manifest Destiny credence. I don’t approve of the wars nor do I support America pressuring countries predominantly in the Middle East to have a democratic government. Instead of remaining neutral and suggesting ideas to make the governments of those countries to be sustainable we invade and believe that we are obligated to do. Afghanistan had control in their government although there were some unjust policies, but still they maintained control. After the USSR invaded and corrupted the government and left it besmirched, the United States felt that it was their duty to clean it up and make it a democracy. Yet there is more corruption and people wanting America to leave and allow them to build their government. After September 11th, The United States told Americans that they were fighting for peace but ultimately destroyed more. Often times 9/11 is used as an excuse for the reason why we ware invading countries in the Middle East. We use the incident in the United States as a crutch. We try to blame what happened on September 11th on terrorist when the American government is to blame; 9/11 may have been preventable. We talk about terrorism when we are the biggest terrorist of all. After Saddam Hussein was murdered by the United States government, what was accomplished but more problems now and in the future? When we speak about terrorism we fail to reflect on the incidents that happened in America such as the Oklahoma bombing by Timothy McVeigh.
Response to Jakub:
I absolutely agree with your statement that citizens of the United States questioned their government 180 years before when Polk was in office and now that Bush is in office. The connection is almost identical in the sense that both American presidents felt that it was their duty to start a war that was and is ultimately beneficial on their behalf.
Paul A Janson’s article, “Manifest Destiny and Mission in the 21st Century” delivers the comparison between the Mexican-American War and the War in Iraq. The article focuses mainly on two specific political ideas: Slavery and Manifest Destiny. While Slavery served as the source of labor that developed much of the United States, Manifest Destiny was the policy used to justify U.S territorial expansion. Manifest Destiny is the belief that the Untied States was ordained by God to rule the continent. Thus, since the United States ‘knew how to use the land of Texas better than anyone else’, the United States was bound to have the land. The article continues on to explain how the Polk administration launched the Mexican War, which led to Mexico losing Texas, California and New Mexico. These factors of force, bloodshed and violence were necessary for the United States to expand, however was it right?
Nevertheless, Paul A. Janson concludes in his article on how the United States has not moved away from the policy of Manifest Destiny, and how the policy is still used today. “The doctrine today is capitalism and freedom and, of course, the "open market." Through such an agenda, America is once again sticking its nose into other countries’ business. America is forever attempting to be the best of all possible countries. “Our foreign policy is one of domination, if not outright slavery, through economic control. This should not be surprising since slavery was always a racial and economic institution and Manifest Destiny's purpose was to dominate North America at the expense of not only of Mexico but of the Native American population as well.”
Americans are not bashing on their own country, however just revealing the straight honest truth. As one of the most balanced countries in the world, the United States is often promoting its agenda of free market capitalism and democratic governments. If this policy is working in the Untied States then it should be introduced and offered to other countries who are having a difficult time living in their unstabled governments. However, the promotion of the American agenda should definitely have its limits. Pushing the American agenda down other countries’ throats will only lead to conflict and a negative outlook on America. Overall, the United States has every right to promote the American agenda, as do all other countries.
In response to Elizabeth, I too believe that the Mexican- American War would have not changed whether slavery was prohibited or not. With the policy of Manifest Destiny involved, the United States was bound to take over Mexican land. This policy was often praised, as the foundation of America was based on the religious beliefs of Christians. The people of America came to the United States in order to freely practice their religion. So it seems only practical that nothing was to stop the people of America on doing what they believed was right.
Justin Lefkowitz
H Block
AP US History
"Manifest Destiny and Mission in the 21st Century" by Paul A. Janson talks about the origination of the belief in Manifest Destiny and how it can still be seen in the world today. In the beginning of the article, Mr. Janson connects the history of Texas to President George W. Bush and the war in Afghanistan. He also connects the view of Texas as a state to its views in the movie world. He compares John Wayne’s movie “The Alamo” to what really happened at the Alamo. These views are very different. Also in his article, Mr. Janson talks about two major ideas that created the state of Texas and led to the major events after its creation: Slavery and Manifest Destiny. Slavery was wanted by the Southern United States, but not the Northern. One of the major events that it led up to was the American Civil War.
Manifest Destiny is the belief that the United States was ordained by God to rule the continent. Shortly after the US “took” Texas, the idea of Manifest Destiny came about. According to the article, another belief of Manifest Destiny that goes along with Texas becoming a part of the United States was “that because we knew better how to use this land, we were ordained to have it even at the expense of the legal owners, Mexicans or Native Americans.”
In the end of his article, Paul A. Janson argues that "Manifest Destiny's purpose was to dominate North America at the expense of not only of Mexico but of the Native American population as well. Today, in the name of the ‘free market’ we believe it is not only our right to destroy any enemy we choose, it is ‘our obligation.’ We are fighting after all for ‘freedom.’ But once again, who will be free is not clear."
I believe that the promotion of an American agenda of free-market capitalism and democratic governments can be both justified and unjustified. After all the US is trying to make the world a better place to live. On the other hand, the world is not our land to control. US actions in nations like Iraq and Afghanistan do show some signs of Manifest Destiny, but in other ways, they do not. The reason why the US actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are justified is because both of those nations are attached to terrorism groups, like Al Qaeda, and they attacked us on September 11, 2001. Since they attacked first, we should do whatever we want. It is a war anyway, so who really cares about being morally or immorally correct in what one nation is doing, especially if they are trying to improve the world.
I agree with both Elizabeth and Heather when they say that the Mexican-American War would have not changed whether slavery was prohibited or not. As a result of Manifest Destiny, the land controlled by Mexico was going to be taken away by the US at some time. This raises many questions though. If the US still believes in Manifest Destiny, which is clearly stated in the article, then why wouldn’t we continue to pursue the land of Mexico? What about the land of Canada? Is there going to be another war over these lands in the future? Will we be successful? Only time could tell!
Ashley Aydin.
AP US – Block H.
“Manifest Destiny and Mission in the 21st Century", by Paul A. Janson, highlights the irony between America’s practice of expansion and rule. Interestingly, Janson pin points the nation’s true motives and wishes concerning the extension of land, capital, and production. Moreover, he expresses his views about the justification of America’s control over Texas and oppression against the indigenous Mexicans. “Texas, of course, won the conflict and at this point the expansionist doctrine of the United States took form in a policy titled ‘Manifest Destiny’: the belief that the United States was ordained by God to rule the continent; that because we knew better how to use this land, we were ordained to have it even at the expense of the legal owners, Mexicans or Native Americans” Accordingly, the impression of America’s status proved valuable, creating a sense of strong, national devotion. “Texas was born out of a racist motive and clearly involved the usurpation of the just authority of Mexico. The initial conflict was instigated by ‘surrogates,’ U.S. citizens who emigrated to Mexico. Ultimately, they used their grievances against Mexico to justify the annexation of Texas and the rest of Mexico's western and southwestern territories.” Many supported America’s aims, yet others claimed that the standards were exceedingly devious and imbalanced.
Was America really aiming to spread democracy and civilization through territorial expansion and subjugation of indigenous people?
During the first half of the nineteenth century, citizens of the United States began pressing deeper into the interior of the continent, expanding U.S. borders. U.S. settlers moved onto Western land, amassing in numbers to rule the majority people. The U.S.-Mexican War officially initiated America’s scheme of Manifest Destiny when the U.S. allowed Texas’s annexation without the consent of Mexico.
Nonetheless, the ideal that the United States was specifically concerned with gaining excessive land and influence was not new. America’s attempts became strong when President James Polk reiterated the Monroe Doctrine and the concept of Manifest Destiny in 1845 and 1848 in an effort to forestall attempts by Spain and Britain to establish colonies along the west coast.
The national desire of expansion and increased power truly jump-started the United States journey in becoming economically and politically prevailing. Due to public and political yearning, a further territory growth from East to West rang certain. Certainly, America’s land and wealth was begetting the county’s power and influence. As the U.S. exerted its control through expansion, patriotism and pride became popular. These two factors paved the way for future success and drive regarding international development and invasion.
In the nineteenth century, the acquisition of land was the root of economic and political influence. The idea of Manifest Destiny gave Americans a rationalization to increase standings, and thus begin their rise to prominence on the world stage.
Presently, America’s justification for happenings in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other dependent countries has yet to be approved. Is America truly aiming to aid the nations or just succeed in conquest? Many have come to believe that America’s foreign policy is one of domination, if not outright supremacy, through extreme, yet reserved control.With the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, America has again been labeled a forceful imperial power.
Quite frankly, our country’s actions are examples of a new wave Manifest Destiny. By practicing authority in other, less thriving nations, we are taking away each foreign citizen’s rights and freedoms. America is robbing third world nations of their abilities to command and achieve total stability. Furthermore, we are becoming more ignorant in our own status and statue as a nation. Manifest Destiny has corrupted America’s governmental aspirations and support alike. Today, it seems as if we only care about flashing our political muscle to the rest of the international community. As Howard Zinn’s “We Take Nothing By Conquest, Thank God” chapter in A People’s History of the United States poses, “How many poor creatures have been and are still to be sacrificed upon the altar of pride and ambition?”
* I agree with Dominque’s view about terrorism and the future of our country. The populace of America has yet to realize the crucial points in which Dominque has raised. We have accomplished nothing by killing and creating tension in other nations. The American people need a swift awakening - we our damaging our own beliefs about freedom and liberty while contradicting our promotion of full sovereignty throughout the world. It is likely that conquest is not needed to earn global eminence.
Sarah berfond
Block H
Manifest Destiny and Mission in the 21st century is an article by Paul A. Janson which compares the Battle of Texas and the concept of Maifest Destiny to America’s foreign policy around the world. Janson argues that Americans used the pretense of Mexico’s attempt to trample American freedoms as justification for the war to take Texas. On top of that the author claims that Manifest Destiny was just an attempt to assert American values over others. In the 21st century, Janson alleges that corporations have taken the place of immigrants and American economic domination has taken the place of Manifest Destiny. American actions in Afghanistan and Iraq present a conflict in the argument that America has embarked on a new Manifest Destiny. I believe America was justified in the invasion of Afghanistan because it was necessary to retaliate against the terrorists that attacked our country. However, I think that US involvement in Iraq is a form of Manifest Destiny. The war was commenced without justification. Had Iraq not had a large supply of oil, America would probably not have been interested in its activities. Janson’s arguments definitely hold true for Iraq. President Bush and the business leaders who support him were only interested in economic domination when they decided to invade Iraq.
Response to Heather’s comment- I agree with your statements regarding America’s actions in countries around the world. Although it is great to help countries in need when America becomes too involved hostility is created. When a certain idea is forced unto a people too much many will rebel.
Anam Baig, Block H
In the article Manifest Destiny and Mission in the 21st Century by Paul A. Jensen a very interesting point is raised. Jensen believes that the US continues to follow its mantra of “manifest destiny,” a term used to justify the US’s obtainment of liberty and land during its beginning years as an independent nation. The US felt that after winning the Revolutionary War, expansion was needed to strengthen the new democratic nation. Manifest Destiny is used to say that the United States has the God given right to rule the northern continent because it is by far superior to any other race of man living in it.
The article states how the US wanted to obtain Texas. When Americans started moving into Texas, it was still part of Mexico. These Americans wished to be independent from Mexico, and started claiming that Mexico’s government was hurting the freedom of the Americans. The Mexican-American war proved that the United States was willing to do anything to obtain more land. The war was a complete violation of Mexico’s rights to keep its own land. It is ironic that after winning the Revolution and being free from a tyrant nation, the United States in turn became a tyrant nation out to bully and fight to gain more power and land. The Manifest Destiny mantra took full force here, and by 1848 Texas was completely annexed by the United States with the help of James K. Polk, the president from 1844-1848. Adding Texas to the Union extended slave territory and Texas eventually also became a slave state.
Jansen believes that the United States is continuing to follow its policy of Manifest Destiny. He feels that the US seizes opportunities in the name of “free market” to spread its capitalist ideals and protect its freedom. The US pursues this dogma at the expense of the world.
The US is in a “new wave” of Manifest Destiny, where it follows its interests internationally. Countries like Iraq and Afghanistan have felt the full force of this belief. Oil is an extremely precious aspect of the American economy. This nation is willing to go all out for its obtainment, and if that means invading another country and harassing its people, the US is all for it. This is a question of morality. If the government feels that obtaining happiness at any cost is a God given right, then there is seriously something wrong with the United State’s ethics. There is no way that any god of any sort would want a nation to become a self serving, war mongering, domineering empire.
***Short response to Lefty: I disagree that the United States is attempting to make the world a better place. In my opinion, the United States is making the world a better place for itself, rather than the human populace. When the US invaded Iraq, the Bush Administration claimed that it was to expel a tyrannical leader, find and destroy weapons of mass destruction and free its people. However, some knew of an ulterior motive; oil. This was evident when WMDs were never found, and even though Hussein was executed, the US continues to occupy Iraq. Since we are a powerful, sovereign nation, it is our responsibility to uphold morality, not obstruct it in the name of safety and freedom.
Rachel Geissler
In “Manifest Destiny and Mission in the 21st Century”, Paul A. Janson discusses the examples of Manifest Destiny that can be seen in the modern-day America. He compares the John Wayne movie, “The Alamo”, to what actually happened and how different it is. Janson discusses the debate over the expansion of slavery into the new territories acquired by the United States in their fulfillment of Manifest Destiny. This debate played major roles in both the Mexican-American War and the Civil War. The expansion of the United States territory in efforts to fulfill Manifest Destiny had unclear justifications. These unclear justifications of the American push for influence on other nations still exist today. It can be seen in many situations the way in which the United States’ agenda is pushed and forced upon others. Although the United States was attacked on September 11, 2001, those attacks were made by only a few people. However, President Bush sees it as a sign that an entire nation must be completely revamped. It was definitely not his place to move into Iraq and start this “War on Terror”. It was completely unnecessary. Bush has only created more conflict. He tries to justify the war in Iraq as a revenge for September 11. That justification is similar to the justification of the American government for expansion of America’s territory in the 1800s. It seems like President Bush is attempting to take Manifest Destiny a step further by going across seas. It’s not his place to inflict a democratic government upon other nations. To each his or her own. President Bush simply needs to let the nations decide for themselves.
In response to the question that Teresa posted, had Mexico not banned slavery, there would’ve been less of a stir up of conflict. There still would’ve been a war because at the time America was just a land-hungry nation seeking expansion. Slavery would’ve just not been a motive for the war.
Marco Muniz
AP US History Blog Posting
12/9/07
Is the promotion of an American agenda (free market capitalism and deomcratic governments) justified or are US actions in nations like Iraq and Afghanistans examples of a new wave of Manifest Destiny?
Summary
“Manifest Destiny and Mission in the 21st Century”, by Paul A. Janson is about how Manifest Destiny takes a modern day form.
The Mexican American War has countless similarities to present day U.S policies. Janson believes Hollywood distorted Texas independence just like President Bush distorted the September 11 attacks on the Twin Towers. For instance, many Hollywood films depict Americans in Texas being aggressively attacked and only act out of self defense. President Bush claimed the U.S attacked Afghanistan out of self defense. In reality, Americans were visitors disobeying Mexican authority, as many had slaves which was against Mexican law. Americans felt their freedoms were being restricted and rebelled. Janson believes Americans wanted U.S annexation of Texas from the beginning, and this is why they risked bringing their slaves to Mexico. In the ensueing Mexican American War, Americans used the excuse of Manifest Destiny, the belief that Americans are obligated by God to have the north Amercain continent, because they knew how to use the land better. The conquering of Mexican land only shows U.S greed. In modern times, the U.S still illustrates this greed, as many U.S corporations move to foreign territory and out compete that nation’s corporations. Ultimately, U.S greed is shown by U.S ambition for domination of the economy, and thus the U.S hasn’t changed since the 1800's.
Question Answered
The promotion of an American agenda, free market capitalism and democratic government, is not justified. First of all, no nation should force another nation to change their economy or government. The U.S should only help nations to achieve this sort of economy or government if the people really desire it. The U.S has not done this well though. For example, U.S actions in nations like Iraq and Afghanistan were morally good. The U.S gave Iraqis democracy which most desired, and the U.S ended Saddam’s cruel rule. The U.S has overstayed its welcome though. Many Iraqis now want foreign influence out of its nation, but U.S forces are unwilling to leave. Similarly, quite the same happened in Afghanistan, as the Taliban’s cruel rule came to an end. However, the U.S has also overstayed its welcome, and many Afghans want U.S forces out of their nation. U.S forces should simply leave. The U.S has done its job, and now it’s time to let the Iraqis and the Afghans govern and take care of themselves.
Moreover, Manifest Destiny has taken a new form. Instead of the U.S forcibly taking land like in the Mexican American War, the U.S is trying to make every nation like itself and asserting its power over it. For instance, the U.S is not really helping Iraq or Afghanistan provide for its own people. Instead, the U.S is making Iraq and Afghanistan become dependent on U.S help, therefore, bringing U.S profits. Thus, the U.S is obsessed with economic power.
Question to AP peers:
Do you think the Mexican-American war would have been different if Mexico had not prohibited slavery in the first place?
Well, Americans used the excuse that the Mexican goverment was restricting freedoms by restricting slavery, and they ultimaely rebelled for this reason. If the Mexican goverment never abolished slavery, southerners, Americans, would've simply used other excuses for Texas independence which would lead to the same Mexican American War. For instance, southerners could've said they were being restricted unalienable rights, as the Mexican goverment was more centralized than the U.S goverment a the time. Therefore, the abolition of slavery would've done very little to affect the Mexican American War.
It's pretty stupid when the U.S goverment spreads ideas of equality and freedom, but only fights for these ideas when its attacked. Why doesn't the U.S militarilly aid conflicts in Sudan? Because it wouldn't benefit the U.S in any way.
The article Manifest Destiny and Mission in the 21st century by Paul A. Janson compares the current day American war with Iraq to the Mexican-American War. He notes that “Most of our current popular understanding of Texas and its history is via the "Hollywood" rewrite of these events.” He is saying that America is always portrayed as innocent and purely fighting for self defense, when in reality the APUS students know this is not true. Janson compares this with Bush’s explanation of the war today, by saying the United States was attacked and are now fighting for freedom today.
The article focuses mainly on freedom and manifest destiny. He said slavery was a part of the development of the United States, since it served as the source of the labor that built much of the country. The United States was also one of the last nations to abolish slavery.
After Texas won their battle with Mexico, the United States took form in a policy titled "Manifest Destiny," which is the belief that the United States was chosen by God to rule the continent because America knew better how to use the land. That actually seems like pure ignorance. As Teresa brought up, it is interesting how Americans just want what they don’t have. They didn’t seem satisfied with the country they already had, but rather wanted to take over the whole continent.
Michelle Shed
Block H
AP US History
“Manifest Destiny and Mission in the 21st Century” by Paul A. Janson exemplifies his personal belief that " Manifests Destiny's purpose was to dominate North America at the expense of not only of Mexico but of the Native American population as well." Interestingly, like John Harden stated in his post, Paul A. Janson compares the Mexican American War to the War of Iraq. He believes that that our country was looking to expand into slave territories just so we can have southern slave states.
I completely disagree with Mr. Janson’s comparison. The Mexican American war was based on the fact that our country wanted to expand democratic liberties. Our country did not acquire Texas for the purpose of domination. Texas achieved its independence from Mexico and wanted to live in a nation composed of democratic liberties. Mexico, similar to the British when America won its independence, still wanted control over Texas. As a result, the United States allowed Texas to join the union in 1845.The United States also acquired Texas for economic and trade reasons. Texas is better off with the U.S. compared to Mexico. Today, Mexico’s economy is extremely poor and they’re the ones who’re illegally coming into the United States.
The War of Iraq, on the other hand, was a war based on eliminating a despot, also known as Saddam Hussein. For those who don’t understand the definition of the term despot, a despot is someone is responsible for exercising power tyrannically. Saddam Hussein was responsible for the deaths of his own people, he invaded Kuwait and Iran in the 1980’s, and that led to the Iraq-Iran War. I understand that there are those who say, “ The US should mind their own business and not meddle in affairs that don’t concern them.” Hello! We meddle in affairs that concern us! The US went to War with Iraq because at the time of 9/11 we believed that Iraq had biological and weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein wouldn’t let the United States and UN inspectors in. As a result, we march in ourselves. It’s not like the United States is going into North Korea and trying to interfere with their communist ways and the United States is not changing communism in Cuba.
Manifest Destiny was U.S.A. expansion. Our country wanted to be recognized as a super power nation. However, the only way the US could be recognized as a super power was through economic power. Yet, the only way to achieve economic success is through a huge amount of territory. Now that the United States has a vast amount of territory, the country is not engaging into wars with countries such as Mexico. Texas wanted final freedom from Mexico. They wanted liberties and the United States had these so called liberties. I believe that any state/province/ or nation that wishes to join the United States should. Mexico also attacked the United States first. I understand that many people feel that the United States provoked Mexico, but Texas wanted to join the Union and Mexico was strongly opposed towards this. Mexico had no say in the matter because they had no control over Texas.
Response to John Harden: John, I've read your blog post and I agree 500%! We're liberating these people from despots like Saddam Hussein. There's nothing wrong with that!
Theresa: E
Elizabeth: E
John - E-: Yoru post is informed but maybe too long; in particluar your response to Elizabeth came off as unfocused. I'd challenge you to consider if your quote by Kennedy is absolute; does it mean that soldiers shouldn't be held accountable for their actions in a time of war?
Jakub - E: This is a compelling and detailed post. Great question about the 15 mil. It's my understanding that the national defecit is always a measure of the anticipated costs of federal projects and loans. I would assume the money spent on Polk's purchase came out of other federal programs.
Dominique - E: Thoughtful work; this topic seems to really strike a chord. I'm impressed with your sophisticated and informed analysis.
Heather- E: Thoughtful and detailed. Thanks for bringing up the blog in last week's seminar!
Justin- E-: Your post raises interesting points on both sides of this debate.
Ashley - E: All of your arguments are well supported througout the post.
Sarah - E-: Your arguments are clear and analytical but I found myself looking for more support on your thesis/ that we're riding a wave of new Manifest Destiny.
Anam - E: Unique persepctive. Yoru response to Justin was particularly compelling.
Rachel - G+: Solid summary and response.
Marco- E: Accurate, detailed and analytical. I particularly appreciated the question and response you posted in regards to how slavery affected the outcome of the war.
michele -E: You make a strong case for your views. I wonder what your views are on the US presence in Iraq since their recent elections. Many express concern that the US will only support an Iraqui regime reflects the US vision of democracy - how would you respond to that position?
This is Ms. Francis, Sarah, thanks for letting me post under your login. Jaclyn- G: Thoughtful and detailed - for a higher grade, indlude more analysis.
Post a Comment