Cherry Gil T.

Narca Grade 7-Mimbalot Falls

MANIFEST DESTINY

In the United States in the 19th century, Manifest Destiny was the widely held belief that American settlers were destined to expand across the continent. Historians have for the most part agreed that there are three basic themes to Manifest Destiny: 1. The special virtues of the American people and their institutions; 2. America's mission to redeem and remake the west in the image of agrarian America; [1] 3. An irresistible destiny direction to accomplish this essential duty. Historian Frederick Merk said this concept was born out of "A sense of mission to redeem the Old World by high example [2] [...] generated by the potentialities of a new earth for building a new heaven". Historians have emphasized that "Manifest Destiny" was a contested concept--many prominent Americans (such as Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses Grant and most Whigs and Republicans) rejected it. Historian Daniel Walker Howe wrote, "Nevertheless American imperialism did not represent an American consensus; it provoked bitter dissent within the [3] national polity." Nationwide, probably most Democrats supported Manifest Destiny and most Whigs strongly opposed it. Manifest Destiny provided the rhetorical tone for the largest acquisition of U.S. territory. It was used by Democrats in the 1840s to justify the war with Mexicoand it was also used to divide half of Oregon with Great Britain. But Manifest Destiny always limped along because of its internal limitations and the issue of slavery, said Merk. It never became a national priority. By 1843 John Quincy Adams, originally a major supporter, had changed his mind and repudiated Manifest [4] Destiny because it meant the expansion of slavery in Texas. Merk concluded: From the outset Manifest Destinyvast in program, in its sense of continentalism was slight in support. It lacked national, sectional, or party following commensurate with its magnitude. The reason was it did not reflect the national spirit. The thesis that it embodied nationalism, found in much historical writing, is backed by little real supporting evidence.
[5]

The belief in an American mission to promote and defend democracy throughout the world, as expounded by Thomas Jefferson and his "Empire of Liberty", Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Douglas MacArthur (regarding the American rebuilding of Japan), and George W. Bush, continues to have an influence on American political ideology.

Cherry Gil T. Narca Grade 7-Mimbalot Falls WHITE MANS BURDEN

One view proposes that white people have an obligation to rule over, and encourage the cultural development of people from other cultural backgrounds until they can take their place in the world economically and socially. The term "the white man's burden" has been interpreted by some as racist, or possibly taken as a metaphor for a condescending view of undeveloped national culture and economic traditions, identified as a sense of European ascendancy which has been called "cultural imperialism". An alternative interpretation is thephilanthropic view, common in Kipling's formative years, that the rich (whites) have a moral duty and obligation to help "the poor" (coloureds) "better" themselves whether the poor [13] (coloureds) want the help or not. On the face of it, the poem conveys a positive view of the idea that "The White Man", generally accepted to mean the colonial powers (Great Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Holland, Denmark, Germany, Russia, Italy and the United States), had a duty to civilize the more brutish and barbaric parts of the world. It begins by describing the colonized Filipinos as "new-caught, sullen peoples, half devil and half child". Although a belief in the virtues of empire was widespread at the time, there were also many dissenters; the publication of the poem caused a flurry of arguments from both sides, most [14] notably fromMark Twain and Henry James. While Kipling may have intended the piece as a form of satire, much of Kipling's other writing does suggest that he genuinely believed in the "beneficent role" which the introduction of Western [15][16] ideas could play in lifting non-Western peoples out of poverty and ignorance. Lines 35, and other parts of the poem suggest that it is not just the native people who are held in captivity, but also the "functionaries of empire", who are caught in colonial service and may die while helping other races less fortunate than themselves (hence "burden"). An analysis focused on the social status and background of colonial officers active at the time is lacking; as is one of the Christianmissionary movement, also quite active at the time in parts of the world under colonial rule (e.g. the Christian and Missionary Alliance) which also emphasised the theme of aiding those less fortunate. Several authors note that Kipling [17][18] offered the poem to Theodore Roosevelt to help persuade many doubting Americans to seize the Philippines. His work with regards to British colonialism in India had become widely popular in the United States. The poem could be viewed as a way for Kipling to share the virtues of British colonialism with Americans. In September 1898 Kipling wrote to Roosevelt, stating 'Now go in and put all the weight of your influence into hanging on permanently to the whole Philippines. America has gone and stuck a pickaxe into the foundations of a rotten house and she is morally bound to [19] build the house over again from the foundations or have it fall about her ears'. He forwarded the poem to Roosevelt in November of the same year, just after Roosevelt was elected Governor of New York. The Norton Anthology of English Literature argues the poem is in line with Kipling's strong imperialism and a belief of a [2] "Divine Burden to reign God's Empire on Earth." According to Steve Sailer, however, writer John Derbyshire has described Kipling as "an imperialist utterly without illusions about what being an imperialist actually means. Which, in [20] some ways, means that he was not really an imperialist at all."