In the article "Manifest DEstiny and Mission in the 20th Century", author Paul A Janson argues that "Manifest Destiny's purpose was to dominate North America at the expense of not only Mexico but of the Native American population as well. Today, in the name of "free market" we believe it is not only our right to destroy the enemy we chose it is "our obligation." We are, after all, fighting 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 efforts to promote free trade and democrasy through what he views as questionable means of diplomacy.
The questions this article raised to me, while controversial, is an interesting discussion for us to entertain in our current unit on expansion and sectionalism.
Directions:
1. Read the article cited in the introduction at: http://hnn.us/articles.534.html
2. summarize the artilce and it's new insights on US-Mexican relations.
3. Answer the following question based on the article, text and our recent discussion:
Is the promotion of an American agenda (free market capitalism and democratic governments) justified or are US actions in nations like Iraq and Afghanistan examples of a new wave of Manifest Destiny?
21 comments:
US actions in nations like Iraq and Afghanistan are in fact examples of a new wave of Manifest Destiny. In the invidious article "Manifest Destiny and Mission in the 20th Century" by Paul A. Janson, it talks about Manifest Destiny, and how that event which happened in the early 1800's is similar to the events happening in the modern world of today. To begin, Mr. Janson gives the readers a time frame of the historic periods of American history he is going to mention, and in his case, he talks about the early 1800's, and now. During Jansons' explicit discussion about the curtailing growth of slavery in the US, he mentions how supporters of slavery argued that "if slavery was not allowed to expand, it would die".
Hence, slavery was destined to expand further. Of course, the northern part of the United States were populated by many European immigrants, did not follow the customs of America, and had a minimal chance of planting its roots there. Nevertheless, in the South, slavery was a doubtless appearing reoccurrence, and would certainly expand South-Westward. With that being said, it is clear that slavery was not going to disappear any time soon, but it did cause problems as it spread beyond the Mississippi River. In the territory Mexico had back then, it was illegal to own, and use slaves. Of course, problems ensued, and eventually, the territory of present day Texas was annexed. So, it is quite clear that Manifest Destiny consumed the policies of America, and gave way to the geographic and territorial shape of the US today.
However, this leads to the controversial issue at hand: are US actions in nations like Iraq and Afghanistan are in fact examples of a new wave of Manifest Destiny? It is said in Janson's article that "We are fighting for freedom. But once again, who will be free in not clear." In today’s world, America has taken on a new shape, a new definition of the word Manifest Destiny. Back then, during the early 19th century, it was known as the Westward expansion of North America. Now, conversely, Manifest Destiny takes on the meaning of: expansion on different continents through economic advantage, strength and/or influence, wherever there is profit or power or land to be conquered, for the protection of the people of America". Such a bold statement, for myself I must say, but the truth of the fact is stated in Jansons article, and it says "The doctrine of today is freedom and capitalism and, of course, the 'open market'. Today, in the name of the free market, we believe it is not only our right to destroy our enemy we choose, it is our obligation". The actions made by the United States government just a few short years ago (going to war with Afghanistan and Iraq) seems to be the new version of American Manifest Destiny, with the spread of economic gain through the use of corporations in different countries. The spreading of territorial boundaries to the edge of California, and to the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan, there really is no difference basically, as the end result is quite the same: a gain of profitable territory. I am then certain, after all of the facts being said, that US actions in nations like Iraq and Afghanistan are certainly examples of a new wave of Manifest Destiny.
In every war that the United States becomes involved in, a main goal to achieve has been expansion and economic domination. Slavery and expansion of land was a focus many years ago and has now become oil and the continuing spread of democracy. “Manifest Destiny and Mission in the 21st Century” by Paul A. Janson sent a message that history continues to repeat itself over 100 years later after the U.S./ Mexican War.
Before their victory in the Revolutionary War, the United States expanded into Native American territory. Conflict between Texas and Mexico occurred when Texans refused to obey the Mexican authority. America today is only following in foot steps of the 19th century as far as belief of Manifest Destin by the continuous practice to their mission of expansion and spreading democracy. Texas won its independence from Mexico in 1837.
The United States denied a proposal Texas gained in dependence because they were afraid it was going to instigate a war with Mexico. Slavery was illegal in Mexico although it was very popular in the southern parts of the United States. James Polk, who became president In 1844, he became a supporter of expansion. The U.S. was determined to target Mexico and set Mexico up so that the U.S. in return to Mexico, the United States would be capable of defending themselves. The U.S. succeeded colonizing both New Mexico and California and Texas became and American state where slavery was still continuing to grow.
A way that Manifest Destiny is show in the world today is the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Afghanistan had control of their government until the USSR not only invaded but corrupted their government. After the attack on September 11th, 2001, Americans were told that the war was to be fought for peace but, ultimately they were looking to destroy more and this is often used as a reason as to why the U.S. is invading countries in the Middle East. 9/11 is not to blame on terrorist but on the American government, there are several ways it could have been protected. If security measures were as prodigious as they are now, which they should have been, September 11th would have never occurred and have to be remembered as such a horrifying day for many Americans.
Polk and Bush could be recognized as similar in a sense that they both started war that was not beneficial to the country. Both citizens then and now, question their government and even their president as a leader.
(I will respond to another post when more people post)
-Rosa Carucci
H-Block
"Manifest Destiny and Mission in the 21st Century "
By Paul A. Janson conects Texas's past to American President,George Bush's tactics to the war in Afghanistan. Janson compare's Texas indepence war to America's position in the Afghani war. He belives that they both were fought upon the want of freedom. The article informs the reader that during the 19th century, America was run by slavery and manifest destiny; Slavery was the number one source of labor in America till mid 20th century. America's civil war was fought between the Northern and Southern American on the idea of spreading slavery. As, the article says more slavery means more capitilism. Due to treaties and war, American territory expanded along with slavery. The South was more hungry for slavery than the North. They wanted to make foriegn states like Cuba and Mexico permanent slave territory. At the time, Mexico was apart of Texas. Mexico prohibited slavery; however, southern slave owners moved to Mexico which caused problems. Texas was looking to be independent from Mexico and Mexico was looking to be independent from the southern slave oweners. Conflicts and small wars happened between the two parties when Texas refused to obey Mexican law. The americans believed that they were trying to sabatoge their freedom. Due to advance technology, Texas always won conflict with Mexico. The U.S blamed their win on Manifest Desting. MD is a theory ," 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." America's wars defined her geographical shape. The article expresses a disaprovment in Texas annexation, calling it a "racist motive". Jansons compares America's tactic in Mexico as the same all around the world.America is motive is to dominate the whole world by sending corporations all over the world, global intervention. America's only goal in a " free market" is to benefit the most in the world with no consequence. From the article I suggest that Bush is labeling Afganistan as a terrorist nation just to invade it and claim territory ( oil).
Manifest Destiny developed upon American Greed. The American government came up with the idealogy to defend their actions to the American people. America's action is not justified. The American government's action under the Bush administration, at least is only intended to help certain Americans: nothing more, nothing less.
~~~ Khadijat.
In response to Roe. I feel that the wars or discions by Polk and Bush were beneficial in benefiting parts of America. They were just a disvantage to some parts of the world.
The Promotion of American agenda such as free market capitalism, democratic government, and the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan are examples of a new wave of Manifest Destiny.The articel "Manifest Destiny and Mission in the 20th Century",by Paul A Janson is proof of exactly what is going on in the US today. Janson's article is about Manifest Destiny which Janson explains as being "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". In other words America believes that the US a god send and for the Americans to rule and that the land was ment for them no matter who was there before. Jason uses the past as a key point in the article. He shows that the past helps mold the present and that we learn from the past. He explains that if we dont know or understand the past how can we understand the present. The article talks about when texas and mexico fought for what they thought was freedom.Texas won thier independance from Mexico yet mexico wasnt to happy about it. The reason behind the hole issue was the fact of slavery. Slaves need a place to settle after slavery became less and less in the United States. Since most of the northern area was Europeans the African slaves and their owners need some where to go. They decided to go to texas which at the time was a part of Mexico. The only problem was Mexico didnt allow slavery. The texans wanted independence and freedom. Independance from mexico and freedom from slavery.At the end of the civil war texas was annexd to teh United States. The reason the conflicts happened was because mexicans were ruining Amarican freedom yet the Americans were not following Mexican authority.
Like rosa stated in her answer the wars today in the middle east with America are usually said to be caused by September 11, 2001 yet there were many other choices that could have been made. If the government to terrorism as seriously then as they do now then maybe we would still have twin towers. The government is so worried about getting back they dont understand the consiquenses of thier actions in whish they take. So the government in America is arragent or in other words an new example of Manifest Destiny.
Khadijat, i completely agree with what your saying about greed and actions not being justified. However, your response to my post seems very similar to what you say about greed. Polk and Bush both went to war to made themselves look like big powerful people, but in the end ruined some of American and other coutries. So in some weird way our responses do relate...maybe? HAHA
-Rosa
Paul A Janson tries to connect the Manifest Destiny and the current problem on the American agenda which is to some what convert Iraq and Afghanistan to living a more Americanized life style. The argument in the Manifest Destiny was between America and Mexico, Mexico gained it's freedom from Spain and the question on all Americans minds was whether or not if expansionist would be able to take Mexicans as slaves. Of coarse the Mexicans would not want to taken as slaves because they just gained their own freedom why would they want to be enslaved again just by different people. This brought problems to the Americans because some feared that if slavery could not go with expansion then slavery would die out. The reason slavery dieing out with expansion was eve brought up was because as people moved father wet without slaves they could find they did not need slaves and slowly slavery would die. This article shows that America used the American and Mexican war so that if they won the war the Americans could do as they pleased in Mexico and take slaves. This is why Mexico denying Americans the right to take Mexicans as slaves was such a terrible ordeal for the American people.
Paul A Janson makes a interesting and true comparison between the current American agenda in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war between America and Mexico. This article shows how in both wars America is only fighting because if they win they would gain some-sort-of benefit by bettering this country. But the question is are Americans making the countries better for the citizens or just for themselves? In the war between America and Mexico, if America won they would have had new slaves. In Iraq and Afghanistan people are revolting against the American armies in their countries and as they revolt other innocent lives are taken. Would the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan be revolting if they were happy with the changes America has made within their government? No, America is not helping these countries, and America is changes these countries for the American benefit not for the Iraq and Afghanistan citizens benefit.
Khadijat I agree with your views on how America is only entered these's wars due to greed and I feel that is a valid point because in Iraq and Afghanistan oil is playing a major part in the war.
Katie McSherry
Block: H
Paul A Janson writes on how Manifest Destiny could apply to both the past and in the present. In the past Texas was a part of Mexico and America was seemed to be the ones facing injustice. But, in fact Americans were the ones that were unjust towards Mexican laws on the topic of slavery. Manifest Destiny was applied to the situation when America had fought to "liberate" Texas from Mexican control. The war seems to not be for liberation but for selfish reasons. Those selfish reasons being the use of slaves within a country where slavery was illegal. The events that took place in the past could be related to present times. Paul A Janson had once stated "Our foreign policy is one of domination, if not outright slavery, through economic control." Janson's opinion is obviously one that negatively denotes American Manifest Destiny. The United States current actions in nations such as, Iraq and Afghanistan truly seem to be in fact examples of Manifest Destiny. Though, president Bush had stated many times that the war was for both peace and liberations it seems that the war is only for economic dominance around the world. The actions in the "Liberation of Texas" and the actions taken in the Middle East seem strangely familiar. America seems to just want to assert it's dominance in both economy and territory. Khadijat statement seems to have deadly accuracy by saying "Manifest Destiny developed upon American Greed." I completely agree with Khadijat that Manifest Destiny was made on American greed. Manifest Destiny is basically a pathetic justification for taking territory unjustly.
In the article “Manifest Destiny and Mission in the 21st Century” by Paul A. Janson is about how people make decisions based on how they were raised. He uses the example of George W. Bush going to war after September 11th. Bush had a couple of options after 9/1, but he chose military action. Janson believes that what Bush chose was based on the fact that he grew up in Texas; he thinks that you do what you are used to. 180 years ago Texans were attacked by Mexicans, and had to fight for their freedom, which is how George W. Bush feels now. Bush thinks that the United States is fighting for their freedom against Afghanistan. Texas wanted to be free form Mexico, because slave owning was illegal there. Also the United States believed in Manifest Destiny, which means that the US was ordained by God and that it was great. The United States and Mexicans did not get along because they have different beliefs. The US-Mexican war and the war going on today are sort of similar, but not entirely similar. In the US-Mexican war there really was no choice but to fight back because the Mexicans were invading the US. Where as today Bush sort of had a choice since a whole army didn’t come to the US and attack us. Although, if Bush didn’t send an army to Afghanistan how many times would they have attacked us since 9/11. With the US-Mexican war I can see why it was Manifest Destiny, because America thought they can do whatever they want even if they weren’t following the rules of the place where they were. Americans thought they were the best and they could do what they want. When Bush sent us to war he thought he was doing good for our country, and keeping the United States safe. I don’t think that power was going through his head, because his decisions don’t only affect us they also affect him. This war with Iraq and Afghanistan has nothing to do with America being great of all powerful it has to do with Americans being safe. I agree with what Khadijat said the was helps Americans nothing more nothing less.
-Brianne Hannafey
Manifest Destiny and Mission in the 21st Century by Paul A Janson relates the Mexican American War to the War on Terror. The Mexican American War was caused by American immigrants to Mexico. The immigrants came from the Southern States and brought their slaves with them. However, slavery was illegal in Mexico. The Americans revolted against the Mexican Government, claiming Mexico was trying to harm their right to free economy.
The current situation in Iraq is very similar to the Mexican American War. The United States sent troops to occupy Iraq. This was illegal according to Saddam Hussein. Hussein then led a revolt against the American soldiers. The United States help the Iraqis fund a democratic government. Hussein was later captured by the United states and turned over to the Iraqi government.
Both situations involve people from one country going to another country and violating that country's laws. The Mexican American War gave the United States Texas, California, and New Mexico. The War in Iraq gave the United States control over Iraq's oil supply. Both conflicts were caused by American expansion, affectionately known as "Manifest Destiny"
I agree with Khadjiat that the United States wants to take over the economic world. Manifest Destiny is based on greed. In regards to President Bush, if the Democrats weren't so closed minded, the United States would not have lost respect from other countries due to the War in Iraq because there would have not been internal conflict within our government.
"Manifest Destiny and the Mission in the the 21st Century" by Paul Janson is a very critical article, focused on revealing the corruption of American policies in foreign affairs. Janson provides readers with a heavily interpreted version of Unites States' expansion into Mexico as resulted from so-called "Manifest Destiny". Though presented in an opinionated manner, truth behind Janson's accusations are true, as they correspond with historical data. Tensions between Mexico and the United States was also inevitable because of the differing views each shared about slavery. He puts the blame of the events of the early nineteenth century on these two political policies- manifest destiny and slavery.
Janson uses this interpretation of American history to explain the action of the United States' foreign policies under George W. Bush. After providing his interpretation of nineteenth century and the motives behind them, he says "How similar to our current policy in Isreal, in Africa, and in Central and South America." He replaces modern corporations for nineteenth centuries American immigrants. Using the Persian Gulf War, he "proves" America's ambition of dominating the oil producers of the world. To him, domination is equivalent to economic control, as one will inevitably results in the other. The military response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 only further evince that Americans feel they have been divine power to fix and correct the world.
So, are the actions of the American government justified by manifest destiny? The war in Iraq, relocation of corporations to foreign territories, and even the Persian Gulf can all be explained by manifest destiny. However, I don't agree with any people here who agree with Khadijat when she said that manifest destiny was simply an excuse greed. Though greed undoubetly plays a big role in American foreign policies, I think a genuine feeling of superiority is more to blame. Compared with areas like the Middle East and South America, America is considered to be more advanced and better. To be fair the the American government, I don't believe our involvement was in any manner malicious or driven by pure greed. Instead, American foreign policies have been focused on spreading the culture and world we know, which may be narrow-minded and egocentric but not wrong.
Aleksandra Makowska
The article Manifest Destiny and Mission in the 21st Century by Paul A Janson compares the differences of the Mexican-American War and the War against Iraq, still currently occurring today. Although it maintains the facts of these two wars, it mainly targets the two problems during these times. They were Manifest Destiny and Slavery.
Slavery developed more in the United States than anywhere else as a starting place for slaves. On the other hand, Manifest Destiny was the policy applied when validating United States territorial expansion. Manifest Destiny was known as a belief that the U.S was created by God to rule the land. The United States claimed to have “known the Texas more than anyone else,” so they were prohibited from using it. When Polk was in office he started the Mexican War, which led to Mexico losing most of their land: Texas, California, and New Mexico.
“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.” Janson states this in his article to explain how the United States is still using policy of Manifest Destiny today. This statement does not try to show how Americans are criticizing the U.S but showing how they truly feel. Freedom of speech was given in the first Amendment.
Many believe that this policy that we, Americans, uphold stabilize the country. If it does take in effect, then how come people are still living with hard, difficult lives? If it is working then, it should be given to other countries and governments who are struggling. Promoting the American agenda should have certain limits. This is because if we brag about our country it will over bring more conflict and hatred on our country.
I, along with Rob Keller, agree with Khadjiat. This because the United States feels as if it should be in everyone’s business, and takes over every economic situation that occurs.
Webster’s Dictionary defines the term “Manifest Destiny” as an ostensibly benevolent or necessary policy of imperialistic expansion. This explanation of the Manifest Destiny has been exceptionally true as seen in historical events in U.S. history. According to Paul A. Janson, U.S. expansion during the 19th century was primarily due to the southern states desire for slavery and new territories for America to claim. Janson explains how the northern states did not want anymore slave states, but the south continued in its exploration for new land. As Americans from the southern states moved into Mexico, conflicts arose because Americans brought their slaves into the Spanish land, a concept opposed by Mexico. Janson also points out that while Americans were living in Mexico, under Spanish authority, the Americans believed that the Mexicans were trying to endanger the freedom of America. This feeling of insecurity is what Americans in Mexico claimed was the reason for their fight for independence. However, this was not the case as Americans in Mexico refused to obey Spanish power. As war broke out, the Americans ultimately won the area known today as Texas, and expansion in for the west continued. Also included in the Manifest Destiny and Mission in the 21st Century article, Paul A. Janson relates the events that occurred back in the 1800’s to the proceedings of today’s society. The War on Terrorism has taken a drastic affect on the way many Americans live. After the actions on September 11, 2001, the United States has in several approaches taken the ideas of Manifest Destiny and has used it for the nation’s economical benefit. President George W.Bush issued the War of Iraq in response to the attacks on America back in 2001, but were his ideas for war based on the saying “ an eye for an eye” or were his methods for Middle Eastern oil to increase the economy of the United States? For many years the U.S. has had a history of invading and taking control of other countries’ territories. Back in the 1600’s when settlers from Britain moved to the “New World”, land was taken away from the natives who rightfully called America their home. Roger Williams stands correct when he preached that colonists had no authority to take over the land of the Indians. Also, in 1790 the U.S. instituted the Indian Intercourse Act, a policy that stated that the United States would not seize the Natives’ land without their permission. This Act was completely abolished during Thomas Jefferson’s presidency as his ideas for an agrarian republican and westward expansion took hold of the country. During Jefferson’s years as president, he decided to buy the area of Louisiana from France, thus known as the Louisiana Purchase. Although Thomas Jefferson knew it was unconstitutional for him to buy the land, he did it anyways because he knew it was an offer he could not refused. Much came out of the purchase such as economical increase and much land for crops; still invading other people’s land because one feels the need to is extremely immoral. In today’s society it seems as if “old habits die hard” from the American point of view. In agreement with Alex, the U.S. government is in a stage of being superiority towards other countries. More oil produces increase in businesses and Manifest Destiny enhances America’s supremacy on the rest of the world. However, free market capitalism and democratic governments do not seem to be justified. The present day War in Iraq is not completely based on all the people who lost their lives on September 11, but it is also based on the American government’s desire for Middle Eastern oil. Is it Constitutional for the U.S. to occupy a nation that is not there own? Did not the Monroe Doctrine state that America would stay out of foreign affairs? The tactics of today’s United States does not differ so much from American society nearly 150 years ago. It appears to be that if there is economical benefit or profit involved, the United States always finds a way to advance the nation.
By: Racquel Wood
Paul A. Janson in his “Manifest Destiny and the Mission in the 21st century” compares the expansionist motives of the U.S. in the 19th Century to the modern foreign policy of America. Jason claims that regardless the differences in the country’s overall political and social structure of the country, the foreign domination, and territorial expansion principles still impact the current U.S. relations to south American and Middle Eastern countries.
Janson explains how the U.S. was dependent slave labor and how westward expansion would favor the dependence on slave labor and increases the number of slaves used by the Europeans in America. This clearly shows the Americans were merely concerned with their economic profits along with the desire to control the entire American continent.
In the modern day, Janson states that through war, and the free market the U.S. is a strong world power that seeks to eventually gain control of the world’s oil sources, and with goals of peace secretly attempts to enhance its own power.
Based on Janson’s description, the U.S. is still motivated by its greed for market-wealth and political control globally, by questioning the war in Iraq and movement of corporations to countries outside the U.S. Janson proves the U.S. still possesses that need to impose its own political views on other countries, while benefitting from their sources of wealth.
Although Racquel is entitled to her own opinion regarding the congruence of modern U.S. foreign policy to the one 150 years ago, it seems that Janson doesn’t elaborate enough the modern foreign policy of the U.S. and emphasizes the past in his article. Based on “Manifest Destiny and the Mission in the 21st century” there is not enough evidence that show that U.S. is still the same as during the 19th century.
In Paul A. Janson's article, he refers to the US's eastern expansion and Texas's so called "independence" from Mexican authority. The act of both promoting and preventing eastern expansion was brought up by the idea that slavery, used widely in the south, can only thrive if more territory for its institution is provided (expansion). So, more land was available to both the north and the south but not only for slavery. Expansion was also necessary for the doctrine known as Manifest Destiny, the idea that the US had the right and was "obligated" to own all the territory in the continent. Many immigrants were entering the northern half of the nation, so there was not much establishment for slavery nor did anyone think it necessary to promote the institution of slavery. Eastern expansion led to southerners bringing slaves into Texas, which was still Mexican territory, and slavery was illegal in Mexico. When Mexico started a conflict with the new settlers in Texas about the use of slavery, the southerners thought of this as a way to "trample upon the freedom of decent Americans" (Janson, page 3, Paragraph 4) even though they were the ones who started the entire conflict in the first place by disregarding Mexican authority. Texas still won the conflict when Texas was added to the Union, along with California and New Mexico from the US victory in the Mexican War.
It is believed that US actions in nations like Iraq and Afghanistan are examples of a new wave of Manifest Destiny. The events occurring in these countries are the same as the events preceding Texan independence from Mexico. The only differences are that the victims of our "Manifest Destiny" are different and, instead of immigrants entering these foreign countries, powerful corporations are entering, thus still following the idea of domination, as mentioned in the Manifest Destiny doctrine, because the corporations won't leave; just as the southerners with their slaves wouldn't leave the Mexican territory. We are stealing both the power and freedoms of other countries, as stated in the last paragraph of Janson's article, Manifest Destiny and Mission in the 21st Century, when he writes "We are all fighting for 'freedom.' But once again, who will be free is not clear."
Michael Appelgate
H block
Comment for Simit: You're opinion shows much insight and evidence to support it. I just believe you're forgetting to mention how the ideas of the Manifest Destiny doctrine are being used as jurisdiction to dominate foreign countries through the establishment of large corporations in those countries.
Vincent- E: I'm impressed by the higher order analytical skills you employed here. Keep up the good work.
Rosa - E: Insightful comments, yet I'm wondering if you believe the US war with Mexico/ "Polks War" was unjustified; should the US have never annexed Texas? Do you view US influence in Afghanistan and Iraq today as similar aims to expand US political influence or is it economic resources we're aiming to gain through modern-day foreign policy?
Khadijat- G+ : Strong presentation of US history, though I wish you expanded on your modern-day analysis. Also, you made a few grammatical/ word choice errors. Remember to proofread before posting. (Was slavery the "#1 source of labor" or PROFIT in the 19th century?)
Brianna - S+: Solid analytical effort but there are several factual errors in your post... how did Mexico threaten American freedom in the 19th century? Also, the American desire to annex Texas wasn't about slaves and their owners having no where to go (keep in mind 1/3 of the nation was American "owned" Indian Territory, inhabitable and open to settlement). Please proofread your work to avoid grammatical and word choice errors.
Alexsandra - E: Thoughtful and informed work. You make an interesting point about a feeling of international superiority and responsibilty have influenced US foreign relations. To what extent do you think these motivations align with the democratic principles that our nation is founded on?
Raquel: E+ While you had a few minor typos and grammatical errors, you really went to infomred editorial town with this blog and I commend your passion! I am left wondering a little about the notion of global superiority. Is it possible that inital expansion was about strengthening the US in an effort to prevent foreign attacks (like the war of 1812?) If so, does that type of Manifest Destiny make sense for the US to enact in regions of the world that some view as hostile towards the US?
Rob - G: I'm left a little unclear on the position you've taken on the Democratic Party's response/ position on the US' role in Iraq. otheriwse this is a thoughful post that reflects a solid understanding of the US war with Mexico.
Dana- G-: I'm taken with your insight that the US' role as a dominating world power has not benefitted a majority of Americans. I wonder if you think the US War with Mexico benefitted or harmed more Americans at the time of the conflict. Some of this post was lacking focus but overall, interesting work.
Brianne- G-: I'm inclined to note that neither the governments of Afghanistan nor Iraq were responsible for the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Also, Texans weren't attacked by Mexicans, they had a civil war in order to gain independence from it. Fo you think that ultimately this decision beneffited the Texan cause of independence? (It only lasted one year, but in part because the US promised security from Mexican invasion and then added the region to the union in exchange.) Be sure to review the facts before posting :)
Simit- G: Thoughtful and logical work. You are wise to point out the lack of supporting evidence provided in the article on the notion of 21st Century Manifest Destiny. I would have been even more impressed if you hade provided evidence proving this concept untrue. (Franci$ Fund$ challenge!!!)
Michael - E- Your post mirrors an issue many of your classmates mentioned, though none of you really expanded on it... is the aim of US intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan to take over these regions completely? You make an interesting point that new expansionism is mainly rooted in profit motives... do you think this was also the case it the battles for Texas? (I didn't take away points for the late post as I know you were having technical problems with the hyperlink)
I'm very impressed with everyones work. We will have a seminar soon to put all these emerging analytical skills to good use.
Katie - G-: Solid analysis of the article but there is a major inaccuracy in your post; slavery did not simply "die out" as people went west. In fact, westward expansion caused a great deal of controversy over wether or not slavery should be expanded into new states and territories.
Ho - G: you raise some extremely unique points, I just wish you wrote more.
Manifest Destiny is the belief that America was delegated by G-d to expand westward. In Paul A. Janson's article, "Manifest Destiny and Mission in the 20th Century" Janson talks about how during the 1800's the idea of Manifest Destiny, are similar to world events today.
During the 1800's there were two main examples of Manifest Destiny. One in which the Indians were involved and the other involved slavery.
Farmers began expanding westward during the Adams Presidency. The farmers moved into Indian territory, and the Indian Removal Act was passed. This said that Indians can not be lawfully moved further west out of their own land.
During Jackson's presidency, the demand for land grew and without the consent of Congress, Jackson forced Indians to move westward claiming that it was there land to be used.
Slavery was the main use of free labor in the United States. Texas, at this time was not a part of the United and was under Mexican control. Many Americans living in Texas were not allowed to own slaves. Many Texans did not follow the Mexican law. In 1837 Texas won its independence from Mexico.
Today in the world an example of Manifest Destiny is the US War with Iraq. Today Manifest Destiny is the expansion of a country to other continents through economic advantage or wherever land is to be taken over. "We are fighting for freedom. But once again, who will be free is not clear," says Janson on the War on Iraq.
The War with Iraq is a modern day example of Manifest Destiny. The concept has taken on a whole new meaning from the 19th century.
I agree with Simit's response to Racquel. Theres no evidence in the article to prove that the United States is the same as the 19t century.
Post a Comment