For example: the genocide of the Native Americans, and imperialism in Cuba, the Philippines, etc. Also New Manifest Destiny vs Old Manifest Destiny.
2007-02-04 08:23:24 · 7 answers · asked by drdf759 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
In reference to the people asking what New Manifest Destiny is: here's your answer. Old Manifest Destiny was the U.S's desire to expand westward within its own country's boundaries, New Manifest Destiny was the desire to expand the U.S to the Pacific and overseas in such areas as Cuba and the Philippines.
2007-02-04 09:05:42 · update #1
Study your history so you will be able to understand that the question you are asking is ludicrous and incorrect in its implications. Also, what is the "new" manifest destiny"?? Are you trying to write history yourself??
Chow!!
2007-02-04 08:29:49 · answer #1 · answered by No one 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
First, the United States isn't the only country to ever have imposed its own "ideas" on another country. England did it in India, Rome did it all over the known world...England again in Ireland. Its called colonization. Russia in Poland, Yugoslavia, etc.
Now, as to Manifest Destiny...show me a link to the "new" manifest destiny....Manifest Destiny is a phrase that expressed the belief that the United States was destined to expand from the Atlantic seaboard to the Pacific Ocean. So, whats the "new"?
2007-02-04 16:52:01 · answer #2 · answered by aidan402 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What's the New Manifest Destiny? And the USA didn't seize control of other countries to become a superpower -- it became a superpower because it could project power globally on a scale that only one other great power could match -- the USSR. And the population reduction of the indigenous peoples of the Americas was already a historical fact well before the USA became even a great power, much less a globe-bestriding superpower colossus.
Also, Cuba and the Philippines retained their national identities and culture.
2007-02-04 18:05:30 · answer #3 · answered by jelay11 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
um what does "have to" mean did we destroy cultures? doesnt indian culture still exist, last time i checked castro was stil in charge in cuba, the united states does not run or administer the governmetn in the phillipines. do you have any more examples i can address. and where did you get this revisionist tripe "new manifest destiny" jsut cuz you maybe read it in a book doesnt make it factual. please read soemthing about american history that does not have a political agenda before you criticize so readily
2007-02-04 19:05:39 · answer #4 · answered by cav 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That's the nature of colonialism--whenever a dominant culture conquers a weaker culture, it imposes much of its own ideas and beliefs on the other. The Romans did it in Jerusalem, the British all over the world, the French in many of the Caribbean nations, etc. On the other hand, think about the scene in "Monty Python's Life of Brian," where one of the revolutionaries says "What have the Romans ever done for us?" His fellow revolutionaries start naming all kinds of things, such as good roads, health care, etc.
2007-02-04 16:29:57 · answer #5 · answered by Tony 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
That's really an opinion question. It could be said they did but if you think they're the only nation to do so, you're sorely mistaken. No, that doesn't make it right but it doesn't make them anymore the bad guy than the rest of the world. That's how many, many nations became what they are today.
2007-02-04 16:35:42 · answer #6 · answered by Bunny 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No as there always other ways and means. Yes, though in a sense to show their strength against men.
2007-02-11 15:02:58 · answer #7 · answered by Vintage D 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋