From: robohen@ocf.berkeley.edu (Henry Robertson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american
Subject: manifest destiny considered
Date: 27 Sep 1992 21:36:09 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: tempest.berkeley.edu

The term "Manifest Destiny" was coined in 1845 by a journalist and later
Diplomat, John Louis O'Sullivan.  He and his idea eventually fell on hard
times since they were both too closely associated with extending slavery.
It was picked up by social Darwinists later in the 19th century, particularly
by John Fiske, who had been expelled from Harvard for his acceptance of
Darwin's theories.  Darwinian ideas of specied evolving through conflict
with nature and other creatures in a "survival of the fittest" were made into
social thoery by several theorists, including Darwin himself.  In his
"Descent of Man" he wrote "There is apparently much truth that the wonderful
progress of the United States, as well as the character of the people, are
the results of natural selection."  What "Manifest Destiny" meant was that
US culture, language, and political entities were destined by reason of
their superiority to become dominant throughout the world.  This went further
than just McDonalds and "English as a second language"-the world of the future
would be 75% Saxon "race" as was the US.  The expansion of the American race
in North America would not stop until the "inferior races" in South America,
Africa, & the Pacific had met the same fate as the American Indians.

(There was one Japanese writer who seemed to have gone along with the idea
somewhat.  He proposed that Japanese improve their racial stock by having 
all the men marry European women.  This left unanswered the question of whom
Japanese women would marry.)

Professor John W. Burges (one of the founders of Columbia University's School of
Political Science) argues that the Teutonic race (including the US and UK)
was obviously the only one capable of setting up civilized, law-abiding states.
Thus, it was more than just a right, but an absolute _duty_ to impose upon
the barbaric races that government that they were incapable of establishing
for themselves.  Oddly, Burgess opposed the war with Spain and the extension
of US rule over the Philippines.  He saw it as a failure of the establishment
of the School of Political Science, which was supposed to promote peace.  No
explanation for this inconsistency is offered.

Since peoples in tropical climates did not have the "social efficiency" to
industrialize or produce advanced societies, while those in temperate
climates would soon exhaust their resources, it would be mutually beneficial
for those in the temperate climates to rule those in the tropics, bringing
them the advantages of industrialization and (limited) democracy.  The
greater local production made possible by this would benefit the ruled as well
as the rulers.

Captain Mahan argued that the US had a duty to defend Western Civilization from
China, once China revived from her weakened state.  Therefore a large Navy and
possession of bases in the Pacific, particularly Hawaii, were essential.

There were as many variations on these themes as there were people.  Some had
no doubt of the superiority of the Saxon "race," but felt a duty to be
civil about it and not impose alien ways on other people.  Others had no
racial bias but were convinced of the superiority of American ways, and wanted
to share them.  Many cared not at all about theories, but opposed empire as a
needless expense for military might requiring more taxes.  Others saw a 
chance to make some money by monopolizing new markets.

In opposition to these notions were ideas that would be familiar to any
democratic libral today.  Plenty of people in and out of the established
institutions decried "Manifest Destiny" as trash, a specious rationale to steal a
and plunder, and a travesty of the principles of the US.

The Anti-Imperialist League, founded in 1898 to oppose the annexation of the
Philippines had as its platform:

"We regret that it has become necessary in the land of Washington and Lincoln
to reaffirm that all men, of whatever race or color, are entitled to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...We insist that the subjugation of
any people is 'criminal aggression' and open disloyalty to the distinctive
principles of our Government."

Mark Twain spoke of joining Britain in sin, in acquiring empire.

On January 9, 1899, Senator Hoar speaking in oppposition to the annexation of
the Philippines, paraphrased Lincoln on slavery saying: "No nation was ever
created good enough to own another."

Theodore Roosevelt (an expansionist) told Senator Lodge on January 26, 1899:
"It is difficult for me to speak with moderation of such men as Hoar...They are little better than traitors."

It is difficult to make a judgement about the division of opinion in the
general population, but based on the way voting went in Congress, and
the 1900 presidential elction, a very rough 50-50 split along expansionist
and anti-Imperialist lines can be postulated.  Typically, US opinion falls in
a bell-shaped curve, with the middle 40-50% open to persuasion by either side.
I suspect this was true of Imperialism as well.

Such was the climate in the US just prior to the announcement of the Open
Door policy.

From: joanne@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Joanne Petersen)
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 23:29:44 GMT
Subject: Re: "ABC" and Generation 3 (was Re: Looking for roots)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard PAITC Data Center