Manifest Destiny vs. Imperialism
After our class, I still felt unsatisfied with our discussion of assimilation, both in terms of Manifest Destiny and the U.S. culture in general. First of all, the generalization that immigrants assimilate into mainstream America’s Anglo-Saxon culture after two or three generations is blatantly false. I understand that, after time, most groups do adopt the English language and American customs; however, there are groups that have lived in the United States for hundreds of years and still retain their own culture almost completely separate from those around them. The best examples of this that I can come up with on the spur of the moment are the Amish, Mennonites and Creoles. I recognize that these are fringe groups, but that does not negate the fact that many of them are tenth-or-more generation Americans and they still do not speak English as their primary language. There are less extreme examples as well; the “American” culture differs as you move from region to region, and many of those differences come from differences in the predominant culture of origin of the areas residents. Although assimilation may appear complete on the surface, the underlying dissimilarities and desires of individuals to hold onto something, no matter how small, from the country of their ancestors cannot be denied.
I believe that the originators and propagators of “manifest destiny” also recognized this tendency and that Stephanson is aware of these thoughts in his book. On page 81, Stephanson says “When the world was finally ‘English in its language, in its political habits and traditions, and in the blood of its people,’ the end would have been reached. . . .” This shows clearly that advocates of manifest destiny new that they could never convert people whose whole history was tied up in indigenous populations to the American way. The goal was therefore to dilute native blood with ancestry from the conquerors. Once the population was racially indistinguishable from the conquerors, there would be no reason to resist their views. Holding onto the indigenous history would be useless, because their personal connection to that history would be tenuous at best. There would be a much stronger argument for embracing the Anglo-Saxon mentality, whose ancestral connection could be indubitably proved.
The idea of erasing differences in bloodlines is one of the main factors that differentiates manifest destiny from imperialism. Imperialism counts on exploiting the native people for the profit of the home country. Although some mixing of blood may exist in imperialistic endeavors, the new culture generally builds a class system that privileges colonists of the mother country over the indigenous population. South African apartheid, after all, was the dominance of the black majority by the white minority, and that minority gained their power through their connection with the original colonizers. Imperialism must rely on the continued existence of the indigenous population because they are the ones who will do the work that will enrich the empire. Manifest destiny, however, is different. It relies more on a system of decimating and relocating the indigenous population in order to make the population as racially and culturally homogenous as possible. Theoretically, these populations might also be absorbed through intermarriage, but, in all likelihood, the culture pursuing its manifest destiny would not want to sully its family with the blood of the indigenous peoples and would prefer to push them aside. The key here is not the exploitation of the people for the wealth of the mother country, but the exploitation of the land for the purposes of God. I do not dispute that the effect may be the same, but I strongly maintain that the theory is different.
posted by lennearb @ 12:56 AM
<< Home