[Nakura]

Really this whole discussion is little different from the question of whether or not  Manifest Destiny was good? It's not really a question one can answer, because it's subjective. If you think that the hallmark of human civilization is living as a hunter-gatherer and becoming one with nature, then you will probably argue that it wasn't good. If you think that the hallmark of human civilization is uniting humanity under a common banner and ideals, and then taking to the stars as an intergalactic great power, then you probably think it was a good idea.

No - profoundly no. This is a strawman and a false dichotomy. Look, I can do it too: If you think that the hallmark of human civilization is subjugation and territoriality in the name of self-interest, that the only law is the hegemony of force, then you will probably argue it was good. If you think that the hallmark of civilization involves bettering the human condition so that we can reach the stars as an intergalactic 'great power' (and God help us if that comes to pass on your terms) then you probably think it was an awful idea.

We don't know what the world would have been like if the United States never expanded it's borders. We can't objectively decide whether or not it was a good thing to do or not, because it's a loaded and entirely subjective question. All we can do is look at what happened and decide whether or not we think the world is a better place, thanks to America or not. I can't answer that question for you, for any of you,  but I believe it is. I believe that, while we may have stumbled and made a few mistakes, overall the world is a better, more peaceful place, due to the actions that our forefathers have decided to take. And that, at the end of the day, is all that matters.

I'm with you until your final sentence, which is a profound act of moral abjection, a sweeping, high-handed dismissal of the mere possibility of any contrition or regret in the name of a self-justifying utilitarian calculus that cannot even be falsified. If you want to recognize the good America's done without engaging in myopic triumphalism, you need to attend to the damage we've done, listen to the people we've hurt, and consider how to avoid those same mistakes in the future.

In your retreat from your original claims you've passed through a brief and hopeful territory of nuance, but this latest argument just advocates slapping a padlock on the ship's wheel and holding course through a sea of corpses. Certainly, the US has done good. That good is not inextricably tied to our historical evils in a zero-sum calculus. We could have done better. Abandon that and you turn into some kind of strategic Buckaroo Banzai: however well we're doing, well, there we shall remain.

We began this discussion talking about how intervention requires better causal maps. This is exactly what I'm talking about: we must avoid the decision to believe that 'that's all that matters', to decide that figuring out how to deploy our tools better is not worthwhile and that we have no responsibility to our own past mistakes.

Please, General Battuta, do not mistake my being content with historical events as advocating that we ignore our mistakes. I did word that last sentence poorly, you're right. It's not enough that the ends justified the means, but we also have to learn from any hardships that we may have encountered along the way. I merely wished to express the idea that we all must look into our hearts, and more importantly, into our minds, and discover just how content we are with historical events. The past is the past, there is nothing we can do about it. A lot of great things have happened, and a lot of terrible things, but what's important is that we use what we have learned from the past to build a better future.

[General Battuta]

And play FreeSpace. Don't forget that.

[QuantumDelta]

Nakura, the easy way to decide if you think 'manifest destiny' is a good thing or not, is this;
The islamic followers of the world unite and adopt this mentality (..well, enough of them have already, but still, and that's another debate), they take over america and decide just how many rights and freedoms you're allowed because of some book that was written thousands of years ago.


Alternatively, you can fast-forward a couple thousand years with people with your mentality in power and I can guaran-gorram-tee someone will end up saying;

Y'all got on this boat for different reasons, but y'all come to the same place. So now I'm asking more of you than I have before. Maybe all. Sure as I know anything, I know this - they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin'. I aim to misbehave.

Somewhere along the line. Battuta has been managing to make this look like an actual debate but your ideas - from a non-american perspective are outright scary.
I hope you never gain any position of importance while you have opinions like these.


Playing FS1 and paying close attention to the "plight" of the ancients is also not a bad idea to watching the film Battuta referenced or the Film I referenced.

[Scotty]

Do you really think that anywhere else in the world is much different? Do you think that humanity started out with the national borders and ethnic groups that it has today? All throughout history tribes and groups have destroyed and annexed other groups. Whether you live in Sweden, America or China, it makes no difference.

Do you really think moving the goalposts is going to make me respect your use of an almost hilariously bad supposition?  I never said it was different, I never said it was better or worse than anywhere else in the world (though, arguably, the fashion in which it was accomplished was barbaric and decidedly sub-optimal with regards to future relations with surviving native groups - something that you can still see today in the reservation system).

Your interpretation of "subjective" results was downright farcical, comparing hunter-gathering with interstellar flight as if the idea of Manifest Destiny was the catalyst for the latter.  I'd wager that there's little to no causal link beyond the fact that both situations actually happened to connect the idea that the United States was destined to stretch from the Atlantic to the Pacific to man's first extra-terrestrial excursion.

The view of history you're trying to present is canted just slightly to the side of self-justifying, and it does you no favors.  It reminds me very strongly of Leibniz, if you'll pardon reaching back to 18th Century philosophy.  "This is the best of all possible worlds" indeed, completely ignoring just how badly we've ****ed up along the way.

[Grizzly]

Do you really think that anywhere else in the world is much different? Do you think that humanity started out with the national borders and ethnic groups that it has today? All throughout history tribes and groups have destroyed and annexed other groups. Whether you live in Sweden, America or China, it makes no difference.

Indeed it does not. It's universally a bad thing to do .

I can't answer that question for you, for any of you,  but I believe it is. I believe that, while we may have stumbled and made a few mistakes, overall the world is a better, more peaceful place, due to the actions that our forefathers have decided to take

The forefathers also decided to take actions such as limiting, by law, the interventionist capabilities of the USA. This policy seems to have been dropped during the Cold War (and critically, has not been restored after the cold war) which has, over the past 20 years, greatly affected the public perception of the USA in Western Europe. In a bad way.

[Nakura]

Do you really think moving the goalposts is going to make me respect your use of an almost hilariously bad supposition?  I never said it was different, I never said it was better or worse than anywhere else in the world (though, arguably, the fashion in which it was accomplished was barbaric and decidedly sub-optimal with regards to future relations with surviving native groups - something that you can still see today in the reservation system).

Your interpretation of "subjective" results was downright farcical, comparing hunter-gathering with interstellar flight as if the idea of Manifest Destiny was the catalyst for the latter.  I'd wager that there's little to no causal link beyond the fact that both situations actually happened to connect the idea that the United States was destined to stretch from the Atlantic to the Pacific to man's first extra-terrestrial excursion.

The view of history you're trying to present is canted just slightly to the side of self-justifying, and it does you no favors.  It reminds me very strongly of Leibniz, if you'll pardon reaching back to 18th Century philosophy.  "This is the best of all possible worlds" indeed, completely ignoring just how badly we've ****ed up along the way.

Most historians would argue that we handled things much better than our European or Asian counterparts. European empires enslaved and exploited Africans and Asians for the sole purpose building a war machine so that they could kill their neighbors. These peoples were not considered French or given the same rights and privileges as French citizens. Though I would like to point out there were some notable exceptions to this, such as the French granting voting rights to some locals in Senegal and other "developed colonies;" though this practice was short-lived.

The United States, on the other hand, took a more Roman approach. Rather than simply enslaving foreigners and stealing their resources, we annexed that land as American land. It wasn't a backwater colony to steal resources from and then abandon, it was now an integral part of our country. We gave the people there the same rights and privileges as any other American, granting them full citizenship and the right to vote. In fact, there are documented cases of Native American tribes obtaining full citizenship as early as 1817. They weren't slaves to be sold off, they were just as American as Thomas Jefferson.

The forefathers also decided to take actions such as limiting, by law, the interventionist capabilities of the USA. This policy seems to have been dropped during the Cold War (and critically, has not been restored after the cold war) which has, over the past 20 years, greatly affected the public perception of the USA in Western Europe. In a bad way.

Don't mistake perceived ungratefulness for actual ungratefulness. European kids on the internet love to bash America at every turn, but adults, and more importantly, those in government, fully recognize the important relationship between our two civilizations.

[General Battuta]

We were as vile as any other colonialist power, and no historian worth respect would debate that. Our nation was built on genocide (accidental, in some respects, but in others very much intended) and we made no special or commendable effort to treat our colonial holdings as citizen.

Resentment of American behavior isn't some preoccupation of juvenile Europeans - it's a rational response to a basic knowledge of history.

[MP-Ryan]

The United States, on the other hand, took a more Roman approach. Rather than simply enslaving foreigners and stealing their resources, we annexed that land as American land. It wasn't a backwater colony to steal resources from and then abandon, it was now an integral part of our country. We gave the people there the same rights and privileges as any other American, granting them full citizenship and the right to vote. In fact, there are documented cases of Native American tribes obtaining full citizenship as early as 1817. They weren't slaves to be sold off, they were just as American as Thomas Jefferson.

So much about this thread is just comedic crickets, but I couldn't resist this one:

Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, Marianas... or hell, Hawaii circa 1898 through 1959.

I won't even bother going into the details of how the United States virtually wiped out entire cultures through genocide and murder as it expanded from the east coast of North America.

[Nakura]

We were as vile as any other colonialist power, and no historian worth respect would debate that. Our nation was built on genocide (accidental, in some respects, but in others very much intended) and we made no special or commendable effort to treat our colonial holdings as citizen.

Resentment of American behavior isn't some preoccupation of juvenile Europeans - it's a rational response to a basic knowledge of history.

You cannot compare atrocities such as what Leopold II did in the Belgian Congo, to say, the Louisiana Purchase. Though this whole bleeding heart nonsense has gone on long enough. The question is whether or not the ends justified the means, in regards to Manifest Destiny.

Not really. There's a difference between recognizing that mistakes have been made (i.e. Vietnam) and blind anti-Americanism, which is a good deal of what we see here. Once you build connections with actual European leaders and patriots, such as the good people over at the German BND, British SIS, etc., you'll see that Europeans and Americans aren't all that different.

[Mars]

Read Guns, Germs, and Steel; 1491; find a real, fairly objective book about Veitnam, the Civil War, and the Mexican American War; research the history of Chiquita.

[Nakura]

Read Guns, Germs, and Steel; 1491; find a real, fairly objective book about Veitnam, the Civil War, and the Mexican American War; research the history of Chiquita.

Saw most of the documentary, it was fairly interesting. If I recall, it focused on the theory that cultures and civilizations develop based on their natural resources. It's a fairly common sense theory, one that I doubt few would disagree with. I've read and own a number of objective books on Vietnam, not to mention studied the subject in great detail, as this is my second year majoring in International Relations.

Please don't take any offense by my asking this, but do you make these "recommendations," as a means to imply that I am stupid and/or ignorant?

[Mars]

We, of British spawn, intentionally or not killed millions of people and benefiting no one but us. Not content with that we brought in African slaves whom we forced to breed like rabbits to keep up with the rate at which we worked them to death and killed them. While we were doing that, we realized that there was a lot of money in the land next door in what was Mexico, which many had already illegally colonized. We launched a largely unprovoked attack and killed many thousands of them in order to declare large swaths of the country (and most of the good parts) for ourselves. We continued to hold our slaves until long after it made economic sense, and cessation required the bloodiest war we have ever been involved in. After that we kept our African-American population as second class citizens, and supported brutal dictators in South America for fruit, mostly bananas. To the best of my knowledge, all of this - though a vast oversimplification, is quite true. If you want it straight, go read some of those books.

[Nakura]

We, of British spawn, intentionally or not killed millions of people and benefiting no one but us. Not content with that we brought in African slaves whom we forced to breed like rabbits to keep up with the rate at which we worked them to death and killed them. While we were doing that, we realized that there was a lot of money in the land next door in what was Mexico, which many had already illegally colonized. We launched a largely unprovoked attack and killed many thousands of them in order to declare large swaths of the country (and most of the good parts) for ourselves. We continued to hold our slaves until long after it made economic sense, and cessation required the bloodiest war we have ever been involved in. After that we kept our African-American population as second class citizens, and supported brutal dictators in South America for fruit, mostly bananas. To the best of my knowledge, all of this - though a vast oversimplification, is quite true. If you want it straight, go read some of those books.

You're not saying anything that I, and most intelligent people for that matter, didn't already know. What does any of this have to do with our discussion, however?

[Scotty]

Stupid?  Probably not, given that you're holding at least competent conversation.  Ignorant?  Absolutely.  I can and will compare what Leopold II did in the Belgian Congo to the Trail of Tears, Bad Axe, Wounded Knee, Sand Creek, Bear River, Wa****a, Marias, and the Indian Wars across the entire North American continent that raged for literally 300 years (spurred in large part by Manifest Destiny) and killed up to 90% of the Native American population.

In addition to your harkening to Leibniz, I'm sensing a strong vein of American Exceptionalism in you.

[Mars]

We, of British spawn, intentionally or not killed millions of people and benefiting no one but us. Not content with that we brought in African slaves whom we forced to breed like rabbits to keep up with the rate at which we worked them to death and killed them. While we were doing that, we realized that there was a lot of money in the land next door in what was Mexico, which many had already illegally colonized. We launched a largely unprovoked attack and killed many thousands of them in order to declare large swaths of the country (and most of the good parts) for ourselves. We continued to hold our slaves until long after it made economic sense, and cessation required the bloodiest war we have ever been involved in. After that we kept our African-American population as second class citizens, and supported brutal dictators in South America for fruit, mostly bananas. To the best of my knowledge, all of this - though a vast oversimplification, is quite true. If you want it straight, go read some of those books.

You're not saying anything that I, and most intelligent people for that matter, didn't already know. What does any of this have to do with our discussion, however?

I don't think you're being serious.

You cannot compare atrocities such as what Leopold II did in the Belgian Congo, to say, the Louisiana Purchase. Though this whole bleeding heart nonsense has gone on long enough. The question is whether or not the ends justified the means, in regards to Manifest Destiny.

Yes you can, you easily can. Not the Louisiana purchase not so much, but ANY of the things I mentioned. Landing in America caused more deaths, conservatively than Leopold II ever did. Vietnam killed about a million (granted only 1/15th of your lovely Belgium dictator). I know of no objective number of people killed by US fruit interests, but they managed to effectively keep a huge number of people in political turmoil for quite a long time, any number would be high.  Slavery is similarly difficult to calculate, but the level of brutality is up there with Ghangis Khan. The Mexican American war only killed tens of thousands, but it certainly didn't help Mexico's economy, now did it? How many people have died as a result of that ?

Stop trolling, tell me you're kidding. Do you honestly think that any of these things are less revolting than taking over an African country and brutally killing 15 million people?

[Grizzly]

Don't mistake perceived ungratefulness for actual ungratefulness. European kids on the internet love to bash America at every turn, but adults, and more importantly, those in government, fully recognize the important relationship between our two civilizations.

You have no idea how, say,  the Iraq war, Vietnam war, NSA spying scandal, Bush being elected, etc.  was percieved around here, do you?

[General Battuta]

Not really. There's a difference between recognizing that mistakes have been made (i.e. Vietnam) and blind anti-Americanism, which is a good deal of what we see here. Once you build connections with actual European leaders and patriots, such as the good people over at the German BND, British SIS, etc., you'll see that Europeans and Americans aren't all that different.

The closer you get to systems of power the more you'll understand how disruptive and deleterious America's self-centered foreign policy has been. From a policy standpoint, we (rightly) have a reputation as an erratic and demanding ally. Even Britain, our partner in the Special Relationship, has been badly burned. From NSA spying to the Iraq War to the embargo against China to the Kyoto Protocol, we differ sharply from some or all of the EU nations - and that's only recent issues in the context of relative peacetime. In the long run, the gaps only widen.

After the last twelve years, criticism of American foreign policy is hardly blind anti-Americanism. After the past two hundred, criticism of American history is common sense.

Saw most of the documentary, it was fairly interesting. If I recall, it focused on the theory that cultures and civilizations develop based on their natural resources. It's a fairly common sense theory, one that I doubt few would disagree with.

Far from 'common sense', Diamond's book is spectacularly controversial and arguably massively reductionist. It pushes a theory of geographic determinism which (many contend) doesn't capture important factors in how civilizations develop.

I don't think you're stupid, but I do think you've fallen victim to a cozy exceptionalist narrative. America's history, like all history, is full of barbarism. We participated in the slave trade right up until the end, we played the colonialist game, we overthrew foreign governments to take their territory and kept it, and we demolished Native American civilization in an act of systematic genocide. And whenever you're pressed on these points you retreat to an untenable ends justify the means position in which - let me quote you -

The question is whether or not the ends justified the means, in regards to Manifest Destiny.

you try to use an untestable hypothetical to hide from historical fact.

Let me remind you that all this began with your assertion that we could boost public opinion of the US in Latin America through massive military intervention against drug cartels, purge anti-American sympathizers, and prevent those damn Mexicans from even wanting to immigrate. Those are quotes from you, and they speak to your beliefs about the exercise of hard power. Those beliefs are not sustainable in the face of empirical evidence.

[The E]

Let me remind you that all this began with your assertion that we could boost public opinion of the US in Latin America through massive military intervention against drug cartels, purge anti-American sympathizers, and prevent those damn Mexicans from even wanting to immigrate. Those are quotes from you, and they speak to your beliefs about the exercise of hard power. Those beliefs are not sustainable in the face of empirical evidence.

Not to mention completely at odds with the libertarian views you were espousing in previous topics (Why is force bad if it is directed against your liberties, but good if it is directed against the liberties of people you think of as enemies?)

[Nakura]

Don't mistake perceived ungratefulness for actual ungratefulness. European kids on the internet love to bash America at every turn, but adults, and more importantly, those in government, fully recognize the important relationship between our two civilizations.

You have no idea how, say,  the Iraq war, Vietnam war, NSA spying scandal, Bush being elected, etc.  was percieved around here, do you?

Again, perceived ungratefulness.

Let's look at each of your examples, shall we:
Iraq: A proving ground for early NATO members. This was their chance to show just how dedicated they were to NATO; i.e. Poland. Let's not forget that the French, the ones who were the most critical of the Iraq War, subsequently got themselves involved several wars following the invasion of Iraq (Libya, Mali, Syria, etc.).

Vietnam: The French begged us to help them and we ended up funding the majority of their war for them. The British were doing the same thing in Malayasia.

NSA Spying: Because no European country spies on us, right? And this is more of a "meh" event. The only reason you mention it is because it was on the news recently, it's not a major historical event.

Bush being elected: This just shows how ignorant you are. I never liked Bush, but painting him as an extremist is pretty disingenuous, even for a foreigner. Especially when you've got people like Jean-Marie Le Pen being a frontrunner in the French presidential election, the Fidesz implementing some pretty controversial policies in Hungary, etc. Hell, Bush did some pretty left-wing things that even European social democrats would approve of, such as expanding Medicare. While some European kids on the internet might whine about how Bush is the anti-christ, intelligent Europeans are generally glad when Republicans are elected. Take for example the Lithuanian president's reaction to the 2012 election:

The election results do not make much difference for Lithuania, as – we have to put it very clearly – the Obama administration did a lot over the past four years to provide our region with certain important dimensions in terms of geopolitical safety. I mean NATO defense plans and the participation of US Armed Forces in various international maneuvers. As a conservative, I am always for the Republicans in my heart, but we have no complaints about this president whatsoever.

[The E]

Okay, since this has become a rehash of ye olde "Nakura against the world" threads of before, I'm gonna close it.