This is a pretty free-ranging discussion, but this really is too far off-topic for this thread. Feel start to start a new thread in GD if you want to discuss this.
twickster, MPSIMS moderator
Nonsense. Racism against Mexicans and Native Americans is hardly a dead issue. Nazi ideology isn’t exactly forgotten these days either.
I can understand that the average white person in the US, who didn’t pay much attention to US history in high school, or who has forgotten it, or who wasn’t taught the actual basis of Manifest Destiny, might not “get” why this shirt might have been offensive.
But we’re not talking about individuals here, we’re talking about a multi-billion dollar company. Any kind of reasonable market survey, or even reading the Wiki article, should have alerted them to the fact that there might have been a problem. They didn’t do due diligence on this. Your making excuses for them doesn’t wash. They’re idiots, and deserve whatever criticism they’re getting.
Of course, this is a company that also runs stores called Banana Republic, which originated as a derogatory term for the countries of Central America. (I’ve always wondered why this doesn’t get more flak.)
You keep coming up with inappropriate comparisons. Yeah, most Americans don’t know the quote in the original French - but they do know the conventional translation. I bet that if you started an ostentatious luxury clothing line called “Let Them Eat Cake” it would get some negative commentary. The “One Percent” and their attitude to the rest of the population is very much a live issue.
Eh, maybe. I’d argue that the moral value of the national idea of Manifest Destiny goes to the question of how insensitive the shirt is. I think Americans view it differently than Latin Americans.
Which isn’t to say the shirt doesn’t express a glib sentiment.
You mean white Americans. This is only true if you don’t consider Hispanic Americans or Native Americans - the people who suffered the consequences of the expansion - as “real” Americans.
But I agree that this aspect of the discussion might better be pursued in Great Debates.
I’ll give you Native Americans, but I wouldn’t say Hispanic Americans didn’t gain a lot of the benefits that Americans as a whole enjoy from residing in a powerful nation that extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Which was the whole point of Manifest Destiny - creating a powerful and secure nation. I don’t think it’s necessarily shameful for white Americans to honor that idea, so long as they acknowledge what that idea entailed truthfully (and if we’re being honest, that idea shares similarities with Hitler’s idea of Lebensraum). Is wearing a t-shirt with a slogan emblazoned on it the proper way to do that? Probably not.
I think you’re quite wrong, but would be happy to debate this with you if you wish to start a Great Debates thread.
A shirt saying “Only Nazis call themselves ‘Loach’”.
Of course, you know you’re not a Nazi. But I suspect you’re using “offended” in a quite narrow sense.
I acknowledge it can be used too broadly as well, as in the Bloom County strip.
On second thought – rather than trying to keep this discussion in an MPSIMS channel, I’m going to move the whole thread over to GD.
twickster, MPSIMS
This is rather like saying that African Americans should be grateful that their ancestors were subjected to slavery because otherwise today they would be living in some poverty-stricken African country.
Hispanic Americans have been subjected to prejudice and discrimination in the US since the Mexican War at least. While they may be economically better off than in Latin America, they haven’t benefited as much as white Americans.
Perhaps Mexico would be economically better off today if the US hadn’t taken half their country in the 1840s, and the Mexicans who emigrated to the US subsequently wouldn’t have had to go.
No it wasn’t. The point was creating a powerful nation that was secure for white people. Of course whites aren’t offended by the term - the policy worked to their benefit. Native Americans and Mexicans just weren’t part of the equation.
There are aspects of US westward expansion that can be honored. Fine if you want to respect the Pioneer Spirit and the courage and ambition of settlers in seeking a new life in hard conditions. But the idea implicit in Manifest Destiny that white racial superiority gave them the right to take over the continent is not something that is deserving of respect.
Some white people are offended by the term. Your general point is fine, but not too wide a brush, please.
I should have said something like “whites wouldn’t necessarily find the term offensive.”
That’s not fair.
True, but that doesn’t make them different than most minorities in any other nation on Earth, and it hasn’t stopped Latin Americans from emigrating here, or any other peoples for that matter. Irish, Italian, German, Chinese…all were treated as second-class citizens at some point. All continued to arrive.
Perhaps. It’s difficult to imagine an alternate history where the United States never expanded to the Pacific, and the land within our current borders ended up being inhabited by three or four other nations instead. But I’m betting that if you evaluated those multiple nations together by the strength of their combined economies and their geopolitical “might” (for lack of a better term), I’m betting the United States as it exists today would exceed them.
You’re framing Manifest Destiny as a racist idea. It wasn’t. It was a nationalistic idea. And in case you’ve forgotten, most Americans today are white, but that doesn’t mean our national interests are actually white supremacist interests.
Was there racism involved? Sure. But that doesn’t invalidate it as national idea, just as our racist views of the Japanese doesn’t invalidate the essential righteousness of the war we waged against them.
There is nothing in the idea of Manifest Destiny that requires a belief in white racial superiority. Nationalism is not racism.
No, I’m coming up with appropriate ones to counter the inappropriate ones others are coming up with.
And if you started a line with “Let them eat cake”, I suspect you’d be seen as trendy, rather than offensive.
Now I’m afraid to wear my “54-40 or Fight!” T-shirt for fear of being attacked by vicious Canadians.
If such exist.
Regards,
Shodan
We’re sitting here in the present day, and quite possibly benefited from the terrible actions of our ancestors. Surely we in this country are now better off financially because of the institution of slavery. But we wouldn’t put something pro-slavery on a T-shirt.
Even back when I was in 7th grade, which was the early 1970s, it was clear that Manifest Destiny was a jingoistic phrase that the white United States people used to justify taking land and killing those less white.
Jingoistic phrase? I always interpreted it more literally, as, “Anyone can see that this is what’s going to happen.” And it was true; anyone pretty much could see that U.S. expansion was unstoppable. I never took it as an argument for expansion, merely an awareness of the overwhelming imbalance of forces in play.
If the Pittsburgh Steelers came out to play your local Junior High School team, the result is pretty much manifestly destined.
It was a jingoistic phrase. It wasn’t just used as a description of the way the whites were going to inevitably take over, it was used as justification for why it was right that they do so.
They’re might vicious during hockey season.
For a lot of us, it is just a line in Schoolhouse Rock’s “Elbow Room”
I’m a little surprised at how…uh…“off-the-cuff” some of the ideas being expressed here are.
As I believe Colibri has been trying to point out, the reason this comes as something new to you is ignorance. In this case, probably yours.
I have always known Manifest Destiny as, at best, an embarrassing example of national hubris, if not an outright justification for genocide, even when I was in school decades ago. The idea that Manifest destiny had a dark side, or even was entirely self-serving claptrap, is hardly an extremist position.
I imagine some schools didn’t teach the full story, just like some schools don’t teach evolution. And the advocates of Manifest Destiny back in its day tended to be comfortably removed from the rigors of the frontier themselves, enjoying a high standard of living while advocating, with serene assurance that they were specially favored by God, taking Oregon from the British and lots of places from Mexico and everything from the Native Americans.
I suppose to some people “serene assurance God wants me to take things from weaker people, but not actually get my own hands dirty, thank you” doesn’t sound, well, smug, but I’m having a hard time imagining those people would feel the same way if they were on the receiving end. It looks smug when rich people talk about their entitlement to dispossess those they (literally, in this case) call less deserving. I hardly think that’s a controversial position. If some millionaire rapper parked his gold Lincoln Navigator in your yard and, when you complained, his lawyers had you evicted while he stood there smiling with a chock on each arm, might you not call him smug? Same difference.
Yeah, but did you read the part I quoted in the second post? Siad creator isn’t some unknown junior ad exec, he’s a specific person, and it turns out his first (unguarded) response, “Survival of the fittest,” hints darkly at justification for extermination of “less fit” peoples. Not only making a snappy comeback implying genocide, but thinking it’s funny…there’s a gotta be a word for that irritating, sure-he’s-right, self-satisfied attitude.
Nitpick: apparently never an explicit policy per se, but certainly an idea in the Zeitgeist (perhaps what we would call a “meme” nowdays?)
You really think advocating
[ul]
[li]Slavery[/li][li]Oppression of women[/li][li]Jim Crow laws[/li][li]Eugenics[/li][li]Racial superiority[/li][li]Child labor[/li][/ul]
would be the stuff of funny T-shirts no one would get upset over?