Manifest Destiny

I have read about the idea of Manifest Destiny in history classes before, but it is different to read the writings of people who so clearly believed in it completely. Until now, it has been an interesting, if misguided, idea that has had its time. An idea whose time is long over, and which I find it difficult to believe that people took so seriously for as long as they did. In the readings on empire building, the support for destiny decided by God, a manifest destiny, becomes stronger in each document.
In the first document we have a priest who is simply interested in educating the people he finds in Alaska. He finds them to be ignorant and lost, in a beautiful country, and in need of the guidance he can provide. Here we already see the beginnings of the later demands in the simple duty, placed by God, that this missionary feels toward the people he has met.
In the second document we have a missionary who believes that all methods are viable for the introduction of Christian religion into China. He argues that the charitable founding of a hospital can be as effective as a mission, though it is indirect. He feels that the good of the hospital will be seen by the people, and that this will lead them to see the good of the Christian God. Again, we see the responsibility to teach and lead a people to the acceptance of the Christian religion. It is interesting then then that the people themselves don't always see it that way.
The notice from the Boxer revolution is interesting in that it is the one article from a “native” perspective which we are given in this collection. Some of the other readings provide hints that all is not seen so positively from the other side. In this notice the claim is made that the Chinese have been lied to and disrespected. It calls for the churches to be burned and for the Christians to be removed from the country.
Finally we have several articles which move beyond the duty to teach the word of God. We have the duty to spread our civil religion as well as our Christian religion. This is where the writings seem to change tone for me. Previously and now we have a level of concern for the people who are being converted. But in the last articles it has become a duty to convert at any cost. The people of the world must be educated to accept our ideals of liberty and to accept our God, even if they are to child-like or savage to understand that this is what they need. It is not unusual for these writers that we govern other peoples against the will or that we use armed force to bring liberty to the people of the Philippines. This is our divinely mandated destiny, our manifest destiny, we are the people chosen by God to bring enlightenment and freedom to the world. Not to mention, as in the article by Beveridge, that this expansion is also necessary to our markets.
What interested me about these documents was the language that was used in the arguments for imperial expansion. While it is quite clear that the wording becomes stronger and more extreme, this is a somewhat superficial difference. The underlying metaphors remain very similar. In his book Moral Politics, George Lakoff describes the common metaphors used in American politics. On of the major ones he identifies in many levels of American society is that of the family. America is family in which the government is the parent. Religion is a family in which God is the parent.
The family metaphor can be applied to many different kinds of relationships, and it is one which Lakoff identifies as extremely important to the American people. I would argue that this metaphor is applied in the manifest destiny arguments as well. Mankind is a family and America is the parent. According to Lakoff there are major identifications for the role of parent. There is the Strict Father, or authoritarian, role, and the is the Nurturant Parent.
In the early documents we see the Nurturant Parent in effect, the parent, Americans and missionaries, want to care for and nurture the people. Educating their “children” and raising them up to be complete people such as themselves. In the later documents we see the Strict Father, enforcing the rules of the parent, bringing liberty to people who are not yet ready to find it for themselves These two roles are not mutually exclusive, but rather support each other. The difference is in emphasis. The Strict Father is ready to nurture, but only if his commands are heeded and his authority recognized.

1. Mathesin, Robert, R. Critical Issues in American Religious History: A Reader (2nd Revised Edition). Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006. Print.
2. Lakoff, George. 2002 Moral Politics. University Of Chicago Press