PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: bflynn on January 05, 2016, 04:10:52 PM
-
This is a bit long - hopefully worth reading.
I did some reading over the holidays. I initially thought I was just going to be reading about some US History, the story of the Barbary Pirates, Thomas Jefferson and the march to the Shores of Tripoli. It wound up being a lot more than I anticipated.
First - an interesting tidbit that you can pass along to all your Marine friends. The phrase "to the shores of Tripoli" in the Marine Corp Hymn comes from the Tripoli wars. A force of 500 marched 500 miles across the desert to attack and capture the city of Derne with the intent of installing a new sultan. For the day, it was an amazing feat of military accomplishment. The twist that I suspect many Marines don't know or would want to admit is that out of that force of 500, there were only 8 US Marines present and two of them were killed before reaching the fort on the shore. So, even if you don't tell them, every time you hear them proudly singing, remember that only 6 Marines actually made it to the shores of Tripoli. :)
I read the book - Thomas Jefferson and the Tripoli Pirates by Brian Kilmeade, a history of the war against the Barbary Pirates. The trouble with the pirates really started in 1784 when the newly formed United States became an independent country. Lo and behold, the tribute money which had been paid by England before the Revolution and France for a while afterwards was no longer there to keep the pirates at bay. Hundreds of US ships were seized and US trade in the Mediterranean was practically shut down. In order to save money, the US had decommissioned all warships after the Revolution, there was no Navy to save us. American merchant ships were helpless.
Early on Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with a representative of one of the pirate lords which quickly showed the impracticality of paying tribute to prevent attacks - the new United States just did not have that much money. Despite it appearing to be a dead end, Adams, being rather bullheaded as he was, pressed harder to learn why. What was their beef with the United States, with all the European powers? I was a little dismayed to read that the justification by the pirates was that their holy book commanded them to attack infidels wherever they could be found, to enslave Christians and Jews, to convert those who would convert, tax those would acknowledge the superiority of their religion and kill however many was necessary to accomplish their goal. Why is it that we never talk about the fact that the Barbary pirates were Muslims who were driven by the same justifications of Islam that we're dealing with today? Today we would call what they're doing "state sanctioned terrorism".
But then I got to thinking...surely 1784 was not the first time this topic had raised it's head? No, of course it wasn't. I won't detail every battle, attack and war, but let's just say that Islam spent the better part of the 7th-10th centuries getting their house in order, in establishing their caliphate. The Western world cares about Islam again in 1077 when the Islamic general Atsiz Awaq forces the city of Jerusalem to surrender, then violates his truce and slaughters 3000 Christians and destroys dozens of Christian churches, kicking off the First Crusade. You may not have connected the dots, but all of the Crusades were reactions to Islamic treachery. Today we'd call it terrorism or genocide, but the source is the same - they believe the Koran commands Muslims to enslave non-Muslims, to convert non-Muslims and to kill any who get in their way.
I've been doing some additional reading - there's some facinating secondary source documents (verified translations of primary documents from ancient Arabic) at http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html (http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html).
This paragraph from Robert the Monk in the 11th century describing how the Turks treated Christians sounds so familiar. Its almost like they're doing the same kinds of things today.
They circumcise the Christians, and the blood of the circumcision they either spread upon the altars or pour into the vases of the baptismal font. When they wish to torture people by a base death, they perforate their navels, and dragging forth the extremity of the intestines, bind it to a stake; then with flogging they lead the victim around until the viscera having gushed forth the victim falls prostrate upon the ground. Others they bind to a post and pierce with arrows. Others they compel to extend their necks and then, attacking them with naked swords, attempt to cut through the neck with a single blow. What shall I say of the abominable rape of the women? To speak of it is worse than to be silent.
I can trace notion of submission to Islamic rule and paying a tax in lieu of being killed back to 642, just 10 years after the death of Mohammed. This was during a time when Islam was conquering it's neighbors and very strongly encouraging a large part of the Arab world into Islam. It really didn't affect Europe much until the late 11th century, resulting in the First Crusade as mentioned above.
These issues that the West had with these beliefs in Islam in the past are the same as the issues we're seeing today. The Muslims who practice the original Islamic law are just flat out racist - or whatever *-ist applies to religion. You are either a Muslim or you are inferior. If you are not Muslim, you can be legally enslaved, you can be killed, you can be raped and nobody will care. Those who wish to live in peace may pay the jizya or "peace tax", or if you prefer, pirate tribute. Or perhaps you just like to call it payola, insurance money or a protection racket.
I'm still looking at this. But it appears that this whole thing that ISIS is doing is nothing new. I can trace the same kind of behavior back to at least the 11th century. And I think we have to look to history for our solution. They offer conversion, tax, slavery or death. I think our only option is to reject their game - and the only language they understand is strength.
-
Welcome to 'the know'.
Some of us have been pointing this out for years but the PC crowd and apologists usually come out in force and 'but this, and 'but that' you into submission.
It is a misogynist death cult, stuck in the 7th century and hellbent on world domination, in my opinion. Unlike Christianity and Judaism, there has been no equivalent reformation and precious little advancement in the underlying 'theocracy' such as it is. ISIS, Al Qaeda, The Taliban and the Shiites in Iran are still fighting the Crusades, only the weapons have changed.
I know that some people can find good in it as with almost any religion or cult, and good for them if they do, but at its base I believe it is fundamentally incompatible with Western culture in general and a republican form of government in particular, given concepts like Taqiyya, Kitman, Jizya and Jihad and the continued justification of slavery, rape and death to homosexuals.
'Gimp
-
Death cult is quite a bit overboard. They believe in the absolute superiority of Islam and the divine right of Muslims to rule the world and there's nothing that is allowed to stop that, including killing. But that hardly makes them a death cult.
My observation is not that ISIS is violent and evil. It is that they are nothing new. I know this has been going on for 1000 years if not since 632.
We need to look to history on how to deal with them. The only thing they will react to is strength and the complete rejection of their game. They offer the choices of conversion, slavery, death or tax and our answer needs to be None of the Above.
-
Like I've said, we need common sense regulations of assault style religions.
-
Death cult is quite a bit overboard. They believe in the absolute superiority of Islam and the divine right of Muslims to rule the world and there's nothing that is allowed to stop that, including killing. But that hardly makes them a death cult.
My observation is not that ISIS is violent and evil. It is that they are nothing new. I know this has been going on for 1000 years if not since 632.
We need to look to history on how to deal with them. The only thing they will react to is strength and the complete rejection of their game. They offer the choices of conversion, slavery, death or tax and our answer needs to be None of the Above.
Well, a quick look at history will tell us that they are no different than many others before them. This entire land we call the USA was taken by force and justified with nothing more than "Our God is great and allows us to do this." All the great powers of Europe have done this as they set out on the world and took what they wanted and the Romans before them and the Egyptians them and so on.
My point is, it is always the strong that take from the weak and the strong victors always use religion, or "progress" as an excuse and justification for their actions. So now the Muslims are getting uppity and feeling their oats and think they can take the world with their super spiffy god. They think they are strong and can win. It is the way of the world that they should want to try. If they are truly strong, we will perish and this land will belong to them. If they are not as strong as they think, they will perish.
I say let them try. They and their shitty way of life will be squashed IMO.
-
Like I've said, we need common sense regulations of assault style religions.
No kidding. Proper regulation would mean that there be at least one in every household, no if ands or buts!
-
Well, a quick look at history will tell us that they are no different than many others before them. This entire land we call the USA was taken by force and justified with nothing more than "Our God is great and allows us to do this."
You think the motivation of the expansion of the United States was religious expansion? Just out of curiosity, is this entirely your idea or are there writings that back you up?
My knowledge of the expansion was "hey, it's crowded, there's new opportunities out there. Go West young man!" The United States expanded because people were looking for a better life.
I say don't let them try. Stop them now and reject their game because it is a game where you wind up dead or a slave.
-
Death cult is quite a bit overboard. They believe in the absolute superiority of Islam and the divine right of Muslims to rule the world and there's nothing that is allowed to stop that, including killing. But that hardly makes them a death cult.
My observation is not that ISIS is violent and evil. It is that they are nothing new. I know this has been going on for 1000 years if not since 632.
We need to look to history on how to deal with them. The only thing they will react to is strength and the complete rejection of their game. They offer the choices of conversion, slavery, death or tax and our answer needs to be None of the Above.
I'm not sure "choice" is something given by Muslims. Practitioners of Islam are judge, jury and executioner all at once, and that is evident by the amount of death that follows in it's wake.
I'm not sure the people who are beheaded, crucified, burned to death, stoned to death, disemboweled, raped to death, were ever offered a choice to pay a tax.
Thanks for the write-up. That's consistent with my education in the history of Western civilization. I wonder how today's history books treat the rise of the Islamic caliphate and it's impact on Western Civ.
-
You think the motivation of the expansion of the United States was religious expansion? Just out of curiosity, is this entirely your idea or are there writings that back you up?
Nope, I didn't say that. What happened was we used religion to justify what we wanted, not necessarily expand the religion, although we did that too. It's not my idea and it is widely known as Manifest Destiny. The New World was established on this idea.
The concept being that the Europeans had better technology and knowledge, could defeat the natives in battle, so clearly to them, God was on their side. The Native Americans did not worship God and were primitive, so they reasoned that God does not favor them. In this way we could justify our actions by the logic that if God did not want us to have these lands, we would not have found them and we would not have been able to take them.
My knowledge of the expansion was "hey, it's crowded, there's new opportunities out there. Go West young man!" The United States expanded because people were looking for a better life.
That's exactly it. However, there was this inconvenient problem of Native Americans living on those lands we coveted for our own opportunities. The solution was to push them off, or destroy them with force. The strong took the weak. We (by "we" here I mean all Europeans and non natives, not just Americans, or British) made the moral justification for our acts by claiming God wanted us to do it, or allowed us to do it.
No point of regretting what was done, or agonizing over it. It doesn't matter what justification we had, it is what it is. It is the way of the world and always has been since the beginning of life on this planet. The strong take the weak.
I say don't let them try. Stop them now and reject their game because it is a game where you wind up dead or a slave.
We can't stop them now. The concepts held by radical Islam is everywhere. It's an idea and it can't simply be bombed out of existence. The ideas have to die on their own and they will do so when they are tested and proven to be false.
Even if we could afford it and we can't, if we decided to do a unilateral "pre emptive" strike and started a 24/7 bombing campaign of the Middle East (you know, because we are the good guys) all that would do is spawn more and more terrorists and "caliphates" around the world. It would be a never ending road to financial ruin and accomplish nothing other than to prove to the world that the USA isn't any good at playing the game of world politics.
A better idea is to let the folks in the Middle East stew in their new Caliphate and see how they like it. We should instruct our "defense" department to go back to actually defending ground that actually belongs to us and stop fucking around in places that aren't even ours. We have tried "shock and awe" over and over again. We tried "to win the hearts and minds" over and over again. How about we mind our own damn business and take care of our own. I guarantee that no one really wants to live under ISIS rule and their fall will come naturally with minimal help from us.
The ISIL ideas will be tested, their true strength will be tested and they will fail IMO.
-
You think the motivation of the expansion of the United States was religious expansion? Just out of curiosity, is this entirely your idea or are there writings that back you up?
Nope, I didn't say that. What happened was we used religion to justify what we wanted, not necessarily expand the religion, although we did that too. It's not my idea and it is widely known as Manifest Destiny. The New World was established on this idea.
The concept being that the Europeans had better technology and knowledge, could defeat the natives in battle, so clearly to them, God was on their side. The Native Americans did not worship God and were primitive, so they reasoned that God does not favor them. In this way we could justify our actions by the logic that if God did not want us to have these lands, we would not have found them and we would not have been able to take them.
My knowledge of the expansion was "hey, it's crowded, there's new opportunities out there. Go West young man!" The United States expanded because people were looking for a better life.
That's exactly it. However, there was this inconvenient problem of Native Americans living on those lands we coveted for our own opportunities. The solution was to push them off, or destroy them with force. The strong took the weak. We (by "we" here I mean all Europeans and non natives, not just Americans, or British) made the moral justification for our acts by claiming God wanted us to do it, or allowed us to do it.
No point of regretting what was done, or agonizing over it. It doesn't matter what justification we had, it is what it is. It is the way of the world and always has been since the beginning of life on this planet. The strong take the weak.
I say don't let them try. Stop them now and reject their game because it is a game where you wind up dead or a slave.
We can't stop them now. The concepts held by radical Islam is everywhere. It's an idea and it can't simply be bombed out of existence. The ideas have to die on their own and they will do so when they are tested and proven to be false.
Even if we could afford it and we can't, if we decided to do a unilateral "pre emptive" strike and started a 24/7 bombing campaign of the Middle East (you know, because we are the good guys) all that would do is spawn more and more terrorists and "caliphates" around the world. It would be a never ending road to financial ruin and accomplish nothing other than to prove to the world that the USA isn't any good at playing the game of world politics.
A better idea is to let the folks in the Middle East stew in their new Caliphate and see how they like it. We should instruct our "defense" department to go back to actually defending ground that actually belongs to us and stop fucking around in places that aren't even ours. We have tried "shock and awe" over and over again. We tried "to win the hearts and minds" over and over again. How about we mind our own damn business and take care of our own. I guarantee that no one really wants to live under ISIS rule and their fall will come naturally with minimal help from us.
The ISIL ideas will be tested, their true strength will be tested and they will fail IMO.
seems someone is ignoring how the Native Americans came to possess the land in the first place.
And I hope you aren't trying to justify the crap being done today because of stuff that happened centuries ago.
-
seems someone is ignoring how the Native Americans came to possess the land in the first place.
And I hope you aren't trying to justify the crap being done today because of stuff that happened centuries ago.
I believe to the best of science's ability, we believe that the Native Americans walked here from Africa tens of thousands of years ago and there were no humans here before them. What happened to the Native Americans is neither here nor there accept to illustrate that there has always been a contest between peoples for the control of lands, resources and ideas. There has always been the challenger an the challenged and in this contest, there has always been winners and losers. More often than not, religious beliefs help to justify the means of victory.
I'm not trying to justify anything, but rather rationalize it, so we can understand it. ISIL is the same animal, just a different day. They are now the challengers and the West is the challenged. The contest will determine who is the winner and who is the loser. The difference is, modern technology has made this a very different challenge. We are no longer fighting the Germans and the Japanese of WWII and we are no longer fighting the USSR, so we need different strategies because ISIL is very, very different than former foes.
This new battle is largely one of ideas and propaganda rather than armies on a battlefield. ISIL knows damn well they can't beat us on the battlefield, so they win by convincing enough people they are just in their cause and their vision of the future is brighter than what we offer. In short they sell to the poor, ignorant, frustrated and the whack jobs of the world. It has served them well so far.
Every time we bomb something over there, it gives them new material for their propaganda against us and their ranks swell. I think the way for the West to beat them is to disengage from them and the Middle East. Let the Middle East take care of the Middle East. If they try to set foot on our shores, then we kill them. If they have followers pop up here amongst us, we seek them out and we kill them. In other words on defend what is ours.
They are evil and they are a scourge on the Earth, but they will fade just like other evils and scourges have because deep down, people don't want to live like that. IMO, the fastest way to have them fade away is for us to mind our own business.
-
seems someone is ignoring how the Native Americans came to possess the land in the first place.
And I hope you aren't trying to justify the crap being done today because of stuff that happened centuries ago.
I believe to the best of science's ability, we believe that the Native Americans walked here from Africa tens of thousands of years ago and there were no humans here before them. What happened to the Native Americans is neither here nor there accept to illustrate that there has always been a contest between peoples for the control of lands, resources and ideas. There has always been the challenger an the challenged and in this contest, there has always been winners and losers. More often than not, religious beliefs help to justify the means of victory.
And when the Native Americans walked here from Africa, they settled in one place and various tribes never moved from area to area?
The point being that for millennia people(s) have been moving from area to area.
-
This entire land we call the USA was taken by force and justified with nothing more than "Our God is great and allows us to do this."
What complete bullshit. What revisionist school did you attend?
-
I believe to the best of science's ability, we believe that the Native Americans walked here from Africa tens of thousands of years ago and there were no humans here before them.
Pretty sure the Africa part is wrong...
"The ancestors of Native American populations from the tip of Chile in the south to Canada in the north, migrated from Asia in at least three waves, according to a new international study published online in Nature this week that involved over 60 investigators in 11 countries in the Americas, plus four in Europe, and Russia."
Source: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/247747.php (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/247747.php)
-
This entire land we call the USA was taken by force and justified with nothing more than "Our God is great and allows us to do this."
What complete bullshit. What revisionist school did you attend?
I agree completely. What say you, Dave?
-
I believe to the best of science's ability, we believe that the Native Americans walked here from Africa tens of thousands of years ago and there were no humans here before them.
Pretty sure the Africa part is wrong...
"The ancestors of Native American populations from the tip of Chile in the south to Canada in the north, migrated from Asia in at least three waves, according to a new international study published online in Nature this week that involved over 60 investigators in 11 countries in the Americas, plus four in Europe, and Russia."
Source: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/247747.php (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/247747.php)
Well I did not know that. Not something I study much really, however I am still somewhat correct in that everybody came from Africa originally. The Native Americas just happened to walk through Asia first I guess. :D
-
This entire land we call the USA was taken by force and justified with nothing more than "Our God is great and allows us to do this."
What complete bullshit. What revisionist school did you attend?
I agree completely. What say you, Dave?
I say I may have over reached when I said "This entire land we call the USA was taken by force." I can think of three instances where this is not true.
- There are many parts of the US territories that are not inhabitable and no one was living there when we showed up and we just claimed it. To this day some of them pretty much have nobody living there. Lots of Nevada come to mind.
- There is the case of us "buying" the island of Manhattan. It is such a crazy story that to this day people boast about what great deal we got. Oh well, it is what it is. Nobody gives a crap about any seller's remorse that the Native Indians might have. I certainly don't.
- There is also the amount of land the early Natives allowed us to have in the interest of sharing their plenty with new strangers. They quickly learned about the Camel's nose even though they never knew what a Camel was! ;D
Other than that, pretty much the rest was taken by force. Not all by the USA of course, much by other foreign powers that we just happen either buy from them, or we took it from them by force.
So I correct myself, the entire territory we now call the USA was not taken by force, just the vast majority. I have to wonder though, how the hell do you guys think we got it?? Do believe the Europeans showed up and the Natives just said- "Oh, great! You guys are here. Here, take all this land. We're not really using it anyways." ::) [/list]
-
This entire land we call the USA was taken by force and justified with nothing more than "Our God is great and allows us to do this."
What complete bullshit. What revisionist school did you attend?
I agree completely. What say you, Dave?
I say I may have over reached when I said "This entire land we call the USA was taken by force." I can think of three instances where this is not true.
- There are many parts of the US territories that are not inhabitable and no one was living there when we showed up and we just claimed it. To this day some of them pretty much have nobody living there. Lots of Nevada come to mind.
- There is the case of us "buying" the island of Manhattan. It is such a crazy story that to this day people boast about what great deal we got. Oh well, it is what it is. Nobody gives a crap about any seller's remorse that the Native Indians might have. I certainly don't.
- There is also the amount of land the early Natives allowed us to have in the interest of sharing their plenty with new strangers. They quickly learned about the Camel's nose even though they never knew what a Camel was! ;D
Other than that, pretty much the rest was taken by force. Not all by the USA of course, much by other foreign powers that we just happen either buy from them, or we took it from them by force.
So I correct myself, the entire territory we now call the USA was not taken by force, just the vast majority. I have to wonder though, how the hell do you guys think we got it?? Do believe the Europeans showed up and the Natives just said- "Oh, great! You guys are here. Here, take all this land. We're not really using it anyways." ::) [/list]
The question is not about force. It's about your assertion that it was driven by God's will.
Put up or shut up. Where is your evidence that Manifest Destiny was driven by man's perception of God's will.
What I smell is yet another anti-Christian religious moral equivalency with the murder, torture and mayhem being wrought by radical Islamic jihadists.
-
I say I may have over reached when I said "This entire land we call the USA was taken by force." I can think of three instances where this is not true.
- There are many parts of the US territories that are not inhabitable and no one was living there when we showed up and we just claimed it. To this day some of them pretty much have nobody living there. Lots of Nevada come to mind.
- There is the case of us "buying" the island of Manhattan. It is such a crazy story that to this day people boast about what great deal we got. Oh well, it is what it is. Nobody gives a crap about any seller's remorse that the Native Indians might have. I certainly don't.
- There is also the amount of land the early Natives allowed us to have in the interest of sharing their plenty with new strangers. They quickly learned about the Camel's nose even though they never knew what a Camel was! ;D
Other than that, pretty much the rest was taken by force. Not all by the USA of course, much by other foreign powers that we just happen either buy from them, or we took it from them by force.
So I correct myself, the entire territory we now call the USA was not taken by force, just the vast majority. I have to wonder though, how the hell do you guys think we got it?? Do believe the Europeans showed up and the Natives just said- "Oh, great! You guys are here. Here, take all this land. We're not really using it anyways." ::) [/list]
All of which has absolutely zero to do with "God's will".
-
I thought "Manifest Destiny" had a strong religious component, and Googled it to support my belief here.
Read through the Wikipedia entry and you'll find precious little religion or theology tied to it, which surprised me.
But I learned something, which is always a good thing.
-
Well I did not know that. Not something I study much really, however I am still somewhat correct in that everybody came from Africa originally. The Native Americas just happened to walk through Asia first I guess. :D
A great little video that really helps show current scientific thinking on the matter:
-
Interesting the OP uses history to support his religious bigotry, but it should be mentioned at least in passing that when they powers of the Caliphate captured Jerusalem they killed hundreds. When the soldiers of the First Crusade captured Jerusalem, they killed everyone.
-
Europeans were technologically advanced well beyond the Indian's Stone Age culture. It was Darwinism. The Indians had their shot and lost. Would you rather North America be a bunch of huts like parts of Africa, or a modern society? The revisionist history crowd wants huts, but they won't give up their I phones, Ipads, laptops, Air Conditioning, SUV's, and all the other things they crave, but in a guilty self loathing way. So they want to take it from others, and give it all back to the Indians. Well tough toenails. Get over it.
-
Europeans were technologically advanced well beyond the Indian's Stone Age culture. It was Darwinism. The Indians had their shot and lost. Would you rather North America be a bunch of huts like parts of Africa, or a modern society? The revisionist history crowd wants huts, but they won't give up their I phones, Ipads, laptops, Air Conditioning, SUV's, and all the other things they crave, but in a guilty self loathing way. So they want to take it from others, and give it all back to the Indians. Well tough toenails. Get over it.
I thought leftists (the folks who hand-wring over the poor, noble Indians) are big believers in Darwinism (aka Evolution.)
-
Europeans were technologically advanced well beyond the Indian's Stone Age culture. It was Darwinism. The Indians had their shot and lost. Would you rather North America be a bunch of huts like parts of Africa, or a modern society? The revisionist history crowd wants huts, but they won't give up their I phones, Ipads, laptops, Air Conditioning, SUV's, and all the other things they crave, but in a guilty self loathing way. So they want to take it from others, and give it all back to the Indians. Well tough toenails. Get over it.
I thought leftists (the folks who hand-wring over the poor, noble Indians) are big believers in Darwinism (aka Evolution.)
Well, the Global Warming Cultists also want everyone to go back to the Stone Age too.
-
I thought leftists (the folks who hand-wring over the poor, noble Indians) are big believers in Darwinism (aka Evolution.)
Only when it advances their sick, fascist agenda. Demonizing white people through what happened to the Indians is a favorite tactic. OK, let them live in a Tee Pee first without ANY modern tech or conveniences.
-
I thought "Manifest Destiny" had a strong religious component, and Googled it to support my belief here.
Read through the Wikipedia entry and you'll find precious little religion or theology tied to it, which surprised me.
But I learned something, which is always a good thing.
That's just Wikipedia's sanitized version for all consumption. Of course our expansion was driven by economics, greed and politics, but the rational that made whatever we did, morally OK was that we had God on our side. I am not alone in this thinking. This is from Robert Johanssen at the University of Illinois-
Territorial expansion was but one element in their idea of progress. Journalist, John L. O'Sullivan called it "Manifest Destiny." The phrase first appears in print in July of 1845 in the "Democratic Review" in reference to the Texas issue. O'Sullivan was trying to defend the American claim to Texas and he mentioned that the United States had a Manifest Destiny to overspread the continent with its multiplying millions.
That's one part of an effort to try to maintain and strengthen American republicanism — to extend the boundaries of the United States was to extend the area of freedom.This was a common feeling. The model republic had certain obligations. People over and over were talking about democracy as the best form of government — that it was adapted to the happiness of mankind and was God's plan for mankind. The kind of republican government that United States had was providentially provided since we were the favored nation of God. So, with a spirit of reform, you don't just stand still — you bring the blessing of self-government to as broad an area as possible, extending the area of freedom.
From UShistory.org-
The religious fervor spawned by the Second Great Awakening created another incentive for the drive west. Indeed, many settlers believed that God himself blessed the growth of the American nation. The Native Americans were considered heathens. By Christianizing the tribes, American missionaries believed they could save souls and they became among the first to cross the Mississippi River.
From History.com-
The term manifest destiny originated in the 1840s. It expressed the belief that it was Anglo-Saxon Americans’ providential mission to expand their civilization and institutions across the breadth of North America. This expansion would involve not merely territorial aggrandizement but the progress of liberty and individual economic opportunity as well.
It was, O’Sullivan claimed, ‘our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions.’ The term and the concept were taken up by those desiring to secure Oregon Territory, California, Mexican land in the Southwest, and, in the 1850s, Cuba.
From the Wiki finding you read-
Historian William E. Weeks has noted that three key themes were usually touched upon by advocates of manifest destiny:
the virtue of the American people and their institutions;
the mission to spread these institutions, thereby redeeming and remaking the world in the image of the United States;
the destiny under God to do this work.
And this from John Quincy Adams at the time-
The whole continent of North America appears to be destined by Divine Providence to be peopled by one nation, speaking one language, professing one general system of religious and political principles, and accustomed to one general tenor of social usages and customs. For the common happiness of them all, for their peace and prosperity, I believe it is indispensable that they should be associated in one federal Union.
I'll sum up with a picture because it's worth 1000 words I'm told. This is a popular painting associated with manifest destiny from the period showing "Columbia" spreading technology, our culture and democracy to the west. She is bringing light into the darkness. Now spot the Native Americans in this picture and how they are regarded. Notice they are retreating into the dark along with the wild animals.
(http://e08595.medialib.glogster.com/media/01/0139eeb4532f404fe5eaf55fb91bcc7ba84830e19feeb16e128e341cff8b81c4/westwardho.jpg)
If nothing else, the term "Manifest Destiny" has the word destiny in it! From Webster-
Full Definition of destiny
plural des·ti·nies
1
: something to which a person or thing is destined : fortune <wants to control his own destiny>
2
: a predetermined course of events often held to be an irresistible power or agency
Clearly since we are reminded that this country was founded and built by strong Christian men and that this is a Christian country particularly back in the 19th century, it is safe to assume the "irresistible power or agency" back then would be understood to be God.
-
Dav8or,
I sort of agree with you a little bit that there was some religious aspect to the idea of Manifest Destiny, but I think it was a shallow part. There was a nationalistic pride that was more of a contributor.
But regardless, even if it was a religiously inspired phenomena, (and I am not a religious person), I still don't think that was a bad thing. But I do think what ISIS is doing is very very bad. And that is not because I don't subscribe to their religion.
What happened to the Indians was a shame. But as in the concept of "Manifest Destiny", I don't think there was any other possible outcome. It was going to happen sooner or later whether it was by Anglo Saxons or any other human persuasion.
But again, that does not come anywhere close to justifying ISIS.
-
That's just Wikipedia's sanitized version for all consumption. Of course our expansion was driven by economics, greed and politics, but the rational that made whatever we did, morally OK was that we had God on our side. I am not alone in this thinking. This is from Robert Johanssen at the University of Illinois-
thinking it is doesn't make it so.