American Manifest Destiny & the "American Indian"

[Shindekudasai]

You are still keeping your head pathologically up your ass...time has brought no new perspective to your rigid opinions.

My opinions are rigid? Are you sure you're using the right word here?
Sorry, but after everything I've read by you and about you I can't take anything you say serious. Seeing as provocation and douchebaggery are your fields of expertise I don't know why I should give a rat's ass about what you're saying. Your opinions are across the board unfounded and sometimes even absurdly ruthless and your postings are mostly insulting and uncalled for. You're either clinically insane or one the biggest wastes of space and time I've ever encountered. So, please, just go bother someone else with your nice and shiny personality.

 

[Jagger69]

Jagger, you should be very careful with the use of the phrase "manifest destiny". That term was coined by a contemporary journalist and used by politicians and (ideologically and subjectively biased) American historians of that time and it was used to conceal the atrocities purposefully commited at that time (Reginald Horsman gives some interesting points in "Race and Manifest Destiny: The Origins of American Racial Anglo-Saxonism"). Generally I'd say what makes the "killing" of Native Americans especially abominable is that it was tolerated and even in part executed by a nation/government that considered itself to be a free democracy with equal rights for all. In that respect the treatement of the indigenous population is a bitter affair. Someone mentioned the "Nazis". The Nazis were at least so honest about their affairs that they propagated from the start who they'd kill and why they'd kill them. And the difference is: The Third Reich constructed a legal framework within which their actions were legal, no matter how vile. The US on the other hand were a democracy which makes the killing of Native Americans plain and simple murder.

An excellent post. :thumbsup:

The term "Manifest Destiny" was employed during imperialistic times that were occurring on an unprecedented global scale so, while, in retrospect, obviously a brutal and disingenuous policy as it relates to the supposed "freedom" and "justice" tenets of the emerging United States, it remained justifiable as far as those in charge were concerned. This belief easily translated to the masses. It was felt that it was the destiny of the nation to dominate the North American continent from coast to coast. The Indians were portrayed as bloodthirsty savages; little more than animals really. This image, while untrue in the larger sense, had innumerable examples that served to reinforce this perception. Therefore, it was easy to justify their wholesale slaughter.

As someone who has Native American bloodlines, I can't forgive those who committed these atrocities any more than black Americans can forgive the slave traders. However, I think it is part of the liberating process to find a way to move on, as Johnny (Ace for you noobs) suggests. What's done is done and cannot be undone (much like the atrocities of Nazi Germany). The fact that "Manifest Destiny" led to the eradication of the American Indian and was done under a much more disingenuous pretext than Hitler's "Final Solution" really becomes superfluous in a modern context when one realizes that the facts and ambitions of the times were distorted enough to justify the ends that were attained. As they say, "perception is reality"....whether right or wrong.

 

[Philbert]

My opinions are rigid? Are you sure you're using the right word here?
Sorry, but after everything I've read by you and about you I can't take anything you say serious. Seeing as provocation and douchebaggery are your fields of expertise I don't know why I should give a rat's ass about what you're saying. Your opinions are across the board unfounded and sometimes even absurdly ruthless and your postings are mostly insulting and uncalled for. You're either clinically insane or one the biggest wastes of space and time I've ever encountered. So, please, just go bother someone else with your nice and shiny personality.

You are spitting...calm down or you'll have a stroke...oh, never mind. Get crazy...
So...either you're an idiot arguing with someone clinically insane, or I'm so lame even Will won't discuss anything with me...but you do. Hmmm. You seem to really put a lot of effort into letting me know how much you don't care...you are a funny guy. Not as smart as you think you are, but over the top silly in a funny kinds way.
Your comparisons to the Native Americans and the millions serial murdered by the Germans (aren't you German?) pale in comparison to your assertion that the poor Native Americans were so mistreated...boo hoo. You pussies in schoolbook land have no idea...

Your over the top analysis of almost everything is so standard...academia...Are you gonna spend all your time sputtering in outrage over the lack of respect you get here...at least from me? You get no respect from me Prof. Butthead.
Good luck lecturing the FOs board.

 

[Mayhem]

An excellent post. :thumbsup:

The term "Manifest Destiny" was employed during imperialistic times that were occurring on an unprecedented global scale so, while, in retrospect, obviously a brutal and disingenuous policy as it relates to the supposed "freedom" and "justice" tenets of the emerging United States, it remained justifiable as far as those in charge were concerned. This belief easily translated to the masses. It was felt that it was the destiny of the nation to dominate the North American continent from coast to coast. The Indians were portrayed as bloodthirsty savages; little more than animals really. This image, while untrue in the larger sense, had innumerable examples that served to reinforce this perception. Therefore, it was easy to justify their wholesale slaughter.

As someone who has Native American bloodlines, I can't forgive those who committed these atrocities any more than black Americans can forgive the slave traders. However, I think it is part of the liberating process to find a way to move on, as Johnny (Ace for you noobs) suggests. What's done is done and cannot be undone (much like the atrocities of Nazi Germany). The fact that "Manifest Destiny" led to the eradication of the American Indian and was done under a much more disingenuous pretext than Hitler's "Final Solution" really becomes superfluous in a modern context when one realizes that the facts and ambitions of the times were distorted enough to justify the ends that were attained. As they say, "perception is reality"....whether right or wrong.

I disagree. The people of the time were pretty straightforward about wanting to eradicate the Indians.

One way I look at this is: What's a happy ending for the Indians? Other than the nations of the world completely disregarding the North American continent and all it contains, who arrives on what shore and doesn't annihilate the Indians that were here? (Editors note: if this is sounding confrontational to you, it's not meant to be. I'm just asking.) And where does Darwinism play into this? When we invoke Darwin on the internet, it mostly has to do with some doofus who crushes himself with the vending machine he's trying to steal from. But doesn't it apply here?

 

[Jagger69]

I disagree. The people of the time were pretty straightforward about wanting to eradicate the Indians.

Apparently you miss my point so perhaps I was unclear in my statement. It (the extermination of the Indians) was done under the pretext of extending the "freedom and liberty" concept of America from sea to shining sea. Anything that got in the way of that end became a collateral casualty. This, to me, is a more disingenuous "justification" (if there is such a thing!) for wiping out an entire culture than the Nazis were with their blatant hatred for the Jews and the ensuing "Final Solution" that resulted.

 

[Philbert]

Exterminating the native americans was never the plan or there would never have been reservations...there would have been thousands of soldiers fielded and they would have been hunted until dead.
Apaches, Commanche, Navajo, Blackfeet, on and on...they claimed rights to take livestock, crops, and kill women, babies, and men as they wanted anywhere they wanted...laying claims to land occupied occasionally and seasonally and they chose to go down fighting. Columbus and the Spaniards were more responsible for many more deaths of indigenous populations than the US calvary, but academics paint a picture of rampaging murderous white men wantonly killing peacefull native men, women, and babies.Wearing US Calvary blue.
Estimations are officially 500,000 -1,000,000 from 1770s til recent times...but other estimations are in the millions. Like anyone really knows.
Of course the high numbers are usually accompanied by a disclaimer that most of those deaths were more likely from disease...again the White man's fault, like we invented them.
They had 300 years of choosing to fight, and living on borrowed time until history caught up to the outmoded nomads and limited primitive farmers.

And you compare that to stripping women and little children naked, encouraging them to crowd into small nasty cement rooms like cattle, and screaming as insect poison was pumped into the room while children screamed in fear and mothers cried until they drew a last tortured breath and suffocated in agony.
Then...force their relatives and neighbors to drag out their bodies, and put them into ovens to burn. And repeat...over and over...on and on, for year after year at camp after camp. Cheaper than shooting lined up families, in front of mass graves, bullets were costly.

This happened to people just like us, not too long ago, after they were taken from dinner tables and living rooms just like ours, for no reason other than Christian Germans thought it was a good idea.
Catholic, Jew, Romany, gay...time to be gone. You offended German sensibilities. And most of Europe jumped to help.

 

[mikexmoran]

Interesting discussion and in my opinion it highlights one of the two most ugliest chapters in U.S. history.

Andrew Jackson certainly was a bastard. I don't object to any comparisons to Hitler or Stalin because it wasn't indifference, he knew what he was doing.

I don't think most considered it directly though. Manifest Destiny was coined in 1845 by John Sullivan and is not just a modern analysis term. It was the rhetoric of the time. I think Reagan would have had a field day with it, since it inspired the population. It was also a greedy land grab, a way to build a nation, a way for politicians to stay in power, and I think unfortunately the Indians was an inconvenience. Willful ignorance doesn't excuse anything.

From everything I've read though, the best light cavalry the world has every seen. How terrifying it must have been to face them in battle.

It is tough to compare ethos of time periods. Things evolve. Teddy would have a tough time with the Panama Canal today. What would happen if the Europeans "discovered" America today. Probably mass immigration. Potential wars if immigration was stopped. Perhaps the UN would help in some way. However, for the Native Americans (is that the correct term?) to occupy the country they would have had to unite in some way and industrialize. If that was the case, then with the natural resources of the land they may very well have a strong economy and outspend every country on the planet in military spend and ...well then, nobody would move them, right?

Damn fine offshore capabilities (oh, wait...that isn't right.)

 

[Jagger69]

Exterminating the native americans was never the plan....

From Jefferson's letter in 1813:

....the cruel massacres they have committed on the women and children of our frontiers taken by surprise, will oblige us now to pursue them to extermination, or drive them to new seats beyond our reach.

Eventually, "beyond our reach" meant the Pacific Ocean.

....or there would never have been reservations

The rounding up and quarantining of undesirables in order to deal with them en masse has numerous examples throughout history. Add to this the fact that the tribes forced onto reservations were deprived of their traditional way of life (for the Plains Indians, that meant hunting buffalo) and were forced to attempt to adapt to a more sedentary agrarian existence on some of the infertile land on the North American continent and you have all the ingredients for an epic failure. It's common knowledge that the living standards on Indian reservations are currently among the lowest in the nation.

...there would have been thousands of soldiers fielded and they would have been hunted until dead.

The tribes who refused to report to the reservations were indeed hunted down until either dead or in compliance.

Apaches, Commanche, Navajo, Blackfeet, on and on...they claimed rights to take livestock, crops, and kill women, babies, and men as they wanted anywhere they wanted...laying claims to land occupied occasionally and seasonally and they chose to go down fighting. Columbus and the Spaniards were more responsible for many more deaths of indigenous populations than the US calvary, but academics paint a picture of rampaging murderous white men wantonly killing peacefull native men, women, and babies.Wearing US Calvary blue.

I totally agree about the Spaniards. They killed and enslaved many more Indians than could ever be accounted for. My focused is trained on the US government because that's where I live. The Indians did indeed vigorously defend what they considered to be their homeland against invaders (that's what the white man represented to the Indian). I think that's the natural human reaction to such a situation. Go ahead and make your case for the examples of Indian brutality toward the white man because there are most certainly very many of them. However, the picture you paint of "rampaging murderous white men" is certainly apropos in the killing of helpless women, children and elderly, unarmed and nonthreatening, in many instances. Places like Sand Creek....Washita River....Wounded Knee. Add to those the deliberate violation of over 500 treaties that were ostensibly signed in good faith. The Indians were tricked and deceived at every turn in a manner that should never have happened from my perspective.

I am in total agreement that the existence of the native American Indian culture was incompatible with the emerging American civilization. Consequently, the Indians were bound to come up on the short end of that stick. However, the manner in which it was done is despicable and, I would hope the consensus would be, regrettable by today's standards. It could have and should have been handled differently but we were in too much of a hurry to establish dominion over the continent and the Indians became, as I mentioned, collateral damage in the process. Just because it is over and done doesn't mean we should forget it.

 

[Jagger69]

The puzzle pieces fit if you look at it from their perspective. One can argue whether their extermination was deliberate or not. Regardless, the USA took away their way of life and, for many, that was not only worth fighting for, but dying for. I don't blame them. Well, at least they could indulge themselves in the second amendment.

 

[Ulysses31]

Maybe it was revenge for many of the tribes siding with the British? The British demanded the creation a large "neutral" Indian state that would cover much of Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan during a peace conference with the Americans in 1814 but were forced to drop the claim by the Americans who already controlled this 'neutral' zone, the rest is history.

 

[Master Roshi]

Andrew Jackson's dealings with Native Americans left a lot to be desired, I am curious as to why he adopted a native american baby boy considering his history with them, however I give Jackson the utmost respect for taking on the banking families during the bank wars, he was the only US president that was successful in dismantling the stranglehold monopoly that the second bank of the US had over the country at the time, even surviving an assassination attempt by the Rothschilds in the process