[Grovenet] emigration with ill will.

Steele, Mike steelem at pacificu.edu
Tue Sep 6 12:00:04 PDT 2011


More revisionist history.  Oh well.

One obvious correction, for the sake of accuracy:  John L. O'Sullivan.

For the real skinny on Manifest Destiny, see John Fiske's article in an 1885 edition of Harper's, pages 578-590.  There are entire sections of this screed that could easily be confused with Hitler's Aryan mythmaking drivel.  Don't believe me; check it out.

While doing that, google (or bing...it works well, too) the Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii...for a more accurate representation of what took place in the 1887-1898 period in Hawaii, as well as the 1993 Apology Resolution.

--Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On Behalf Of donkelly
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 11:49 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] emigration with ill will.

Good morning all, David, Adam and E.J.

The term Manifest Destiny was coined by John L. Sullavin in 1845 and thereafter the idea was promoted by the Democrats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny

But Manifest Destiny was not the beginning of expansionism in America, and certainly not in every other country in the world.

Manifest Destiny by other words was followed by Germany and Japan in World War II, and by other invaders and settlers far back into history.

The English like in America considered Australia and New Zealand as land for the taking and Aborigine's had no rights. Yet while the Democratic party in America was struggling over native rights, the Australian people voted 91% to extend full constitutional rights to the Aborigine's. 

And yes, the originals peoples in most areas of the world fought against invaders to save their hunting lands. As hunters and gatherers, both Indians here and Aborigine's in Australia had no sense of land ownership, they hunted and gathered in one place then moved on to better places to hunt, eventually starting to add farming to their transient lifestyles.

I think we can make some distinctions with Mexico. Spain sailed along the western coast and claimed California, Oregon, Washington, west coast of Canada and Alaska, but their efforts to settle was limited to building missions from San Diego up to San Francisco, while the north of California was occupied by Russian trappers.

Likewise Spain claimed Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, parts of Colorado and Texas, but settlement was mainly ranches in Texas, and missions in Arizona and Mexico, and though Nevada was claimed, no attempt was made by Spain to settle, though they did some mining of resources.

Then came Cinco de Mayo where, like Colonial Americans did with England, through off the yoke of Spain.

So it appears that the Mexicans and Americans today, morally right or wrong, have rights to manifest destiny. Though the American war with Mexico gained land, it appears that most of the land gained by America was by treaty and cash with Mexico, treaty and cash for the Louisiana Purchase, treaty and cash for Alaska, and by will of the people of Hawaii, joined the United States.

And yes, the Constitution armed America to fight for and defend lands they owned. It is a huge stretch to say that Mexico owns land in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Ownership of those states was settled legally long ago. And I think if it came down to fighting, Nevadans would fight for their land too. It appears that the government still owns most of Nevada.

don



----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam Mayer" <adamsmayer at gmail.com>
To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2011 9:31:11 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] emigration with ill will.

It was more of a point about Don and David's posts.  Do land owners in the states Don listed have a right to defend their land by any means necessary?
Or as David stated if Manifest Destiny was acceptable in American history, it was met with a good deal of resistance by those who didn't agree with it, understandable so in my opinion.  The question then becomes do the current landowners have the right to defend the land using the same methods that the previous landowners used when their land was being taken?

Adam



On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Edward Baeza <ejbaeza at mac.com> wrote:

> Adam,
> What people are you talking about?  The Native Americans?  Also, among 
> many followers of Ayn Rand, there is the conviction that nobody has 
> the right to own land.  They asserted that only the right regarding 
> land was the right to the "use of land" is moral and that right had to 
> be acquired in a moral agreement between the original steward of the 
> land and the party applying for stewardship.  Also, if the right to 
> the "use of land" belongs to anyone it belongs to those who first 
> established and demonstrated responsible stewardship of the land.  
> There are human events that cannot be resisted by boarders, laws or 
> any other artificial effort.  The face of American is changing because 
> the face of the world is changing.  That's an undeniable fact.  The 
> future belongs to those who face facts and then plan for it in a 
> moral, compassionate and intelligent manner.  All I hear from the 
> anti-immagrant crowd is resentment, fear, anger and denial.  When was the last time you voted for someo!
>  ne who said that they were going to lead this country using 
> resentment, fear, anger and denial?
>
> E. J.
>
>
> On Sep 6, 2011, at 5:28 AM, Adam Mayer wrote:
>
> > During Manifest Destiny many of the people who lived in the west 
> > fought against the "invaders" in a number violent battles to protect their land.
> > Does this mean the people of the southwest have the right to protect
> their
> > land in the same fashion?
> >
> > Adam
> >

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet




More information about the GroveNet mailing list