Talk:Manifest destiny

• Talk:Manifest Destiny/Archive 1, archive of discussions from 2002 to March 2006.

Movie References

Manifest Destiny was referenced in the movie "Night at the Museum" and "Rules of Attraction".

More recent uses

Came to this article after conversation with two really nice elderly Americans I met on a train. They said they were explicitly taught Manifest Destiny (apparently as a live issue, not history) at school in (I guess) the 50s/60s. And they certainly linked it with race rather than US borders. Anybody know anything about this? Cheers, JackyR | Talk 12:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Manifest Destiny- over the years, many Americans believed that they had the right to take over all of North America

In history lessons I learnt that Manifest Destiny is the belef that White Americans should control all land between the percific and the atlantic oceans and between Canada and Mexico...

Modern day groups

This is a well-written and researched article. The last section on Modern day groups however seems out of place. It essentially is trivia, and the organizations described there are not particularly notable. The article is an overview of the concept, not a description or listing of each group which may be influenced by, or seeks to implement, that concept. More to the point, the fact that some contemporary Canadian parties or groups seek to join the US may have nothing to do with their adherence to the concept of Manifest Destiny-- instead their members may seek anticipated economic advantage or other perceived benefits by such a union. Would anyone object if we deleted this section? Kablammo 15:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Having seen no response, I will delete this section in the next day or so. This is an article about Manifest Destiny, not about groups which want their provinces, nations, or commonwealths to join the United States. There is nothing in this section which indicates that Manifest Destiny has anything to do with their motives or inspiration, and absent that connection, the information seems out of place here. Kablammo 21:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. The link in this section to the BC movement disclosed no connection to Manifest Destiny; there were no other links or sources for this section which indicated that the concept was a motivation for any foreign group to seek admission to the US. Kablammo 03:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Good job, couldn't agree with you more. -- WGee 21:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article receives a remarkable amount of vandalism. Its subject is taught in history classes, which may explain the amount of attention it gets. Some form of protection would be appropriate.

The article itself seems to be a very good summary of the subject, and with more attribution to sources, would be an excellent FA candidate. Kablammo 16:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering that about half of the last fifty edits are vandalism and the other half reverts, semi-protection is certainly warranted. If you have the time, perhaps you could request semi-protection at WP:RPP. -- WGee 23:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Protect this now.

Manifest Destiny is a serious topic and it's probably white supremacists and Christians constantly vandalising this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brazenhead (talk • contribs) 22:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

North American Union

Certainly North American Union is a continuation by other means of this thread running through American history. Just because the USA has not annexed anybody in the local neighbourhood for a few decades (as opposed to the Old World neighbourhoods) does not mean the urge has been fully laid to rest. NAFTA has laid the groundwork for it. It deserves mention. BeeTea 22:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The article on the Independent Task Force on North America indicates that it aims at a cooperative association of three independent nations for the purpose of economic and social integration. Manifest Destiny however was the philosophical rationalization for the acquisition of territories by the United States, rationalizations which were based in the concept of American exceptionalism. The former is (at least notionally) multilateral, while the latter was decidedly unilateral. It therefore seems too far afield for the scope of this article. Kablammo 05:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Majority intent and meaning

Senator John C. Calhoun from South Carolina said this to the US Congress as it was believed by most Americans in that era, and by some today, and was the moral basis for the justification of the taking of Mexican lands DonDeigo 19:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I know that we Americans have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race—the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race. The greatest misfortunes of Spanish America are to be traced to the fatal error of placing these colored races on an equality with the white race. That error destroyed the social arrangement which formed the basis of our society. The Portuguese and ourselves have escaped—the Portuguese at least to some extent—and we are the only people on this continent which have made revolutions without being followed by anarchy. And yet it is professed and talked about to erect these Mexicans into a Territorial Government, and place them on an equality with the people of the United States. I protest utterly against such a project.

This is already covered and directly quoted in the article. And as mentioned, Senator Calhoun's quote was made in opposition to thoughts of annexing Mexico, not in support of such annexation. Such annexation would incorporate many non-white or mixed-blood peoples into the US-- something that Calhoun, with his racialist attitudes, could not countenance. Kablammo 23:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Native Americans section

Why was this part of the Native American section removed?

In the Age of Manifest Destiny, this idea, which came to be known as "Indian Removal", gained ground. Although some humanitarian advocates of removal believed that Indians would be better off moving away from whites, an increasing number of Americans regarded the natives as nothing more than "savages" who stood in the way of American expansion. As historian Reginald Horsman argued in his influential study Race and Manifest Destiny, racial rhetoric increased during the era of Manifest Destiny. Americans increasingly believed that Native Americans would fade away as the United States expanded. As an example, this idea was reflected in the work of one of America's first great historians, Francis Parkman, whose landmark book The Conspiracy of Pontiac was published in 1851. Parkman wrote that Indians were "destined to melt and vanish before the advancing waves of Anglo-American power, which now rolled westward unchecked and unopposed".

This quote above came from the "good article" assessment listed on the top of this discussion page, where it said that this was listed as a good history article with this quote included. However, the change I noticed between the current article right now and the one it was before, when it was assessed as a good article was this quote missing.

Can someone please reinsert this one in, then put the page on protection from vandalism? I think a lot of sections on this and other Wiki articles on Native Americans and their interaction with European colonists and the United States have had similar incidents such as these happen to them.

However, if you can find that this source is not valid or something is improper with it, please tell how or why this part was removed.