The Racial Stereotypes of Mexicans that Underpinned Manifest Destiny - Essay Example

? THE RACIAL STEREOTYPES OF MEXICANS THAT UNDERPINNED MANIFEST DESTINY The Racial Stereotypes of Mexicans that Underpinned Manifest Destiny Manifest destiny is a feeling that existed among the American people that described their motive to expand and develop their territories to become exemplary nations in the world. While the motive of the American people was to expand their democratic territories, many authors have criticised this as a movement that was driven by a stereotypical influence that was directed towards the Mexican race. The American-Mexican war seems to have been fuelled by racial stereotypes that were used to regard the Mexican people as an inferior race, and culminating to their extinction in Texas. The American people held a superior position and felt that their motive to apply their expansionist policies was religiously justified for their God chosen race. In this regard, the presidential candidate embraced the Manifest destiny, whose optimal goal was to ensure that the American territory spans across the seas. In reality, the race stereotypes of the Mexicans underpinned Manifest destiny during the implementation of the expansionist policy by the Americans. Even before the existence of the term Manifest Destiny, the notion of American inferiority was already looming and the Mexicans were already anticipating wars from the American people. In the year 1803, the president of America, Jefferson, acquired the Louisiana territory and the American slowly drifted towards the west becoming among the most dangerous neighbours of the Mexican people. By the time president Poll was getting into power, Mexico was the country that was standing between the United States and the Pacific Ocean. When Poll got into power in 1845, he raised the spirit of Manifest Destiny and the effort to expand USA further west via Mexico was revived. Being a democrat, Poll felt that there was need to develop this political culture across the territories to make a dominant culture (Litke, 2012, p. 198). To the American, the underpinning thrust of the expansionist policy was the urge to democratize the entire of North America and Mexico was a barrier to this legitimate expansion. Shane (2009, P. 10) points out the notion of Americans that Catholics were an inferior religious race. The American’s were obsessed with the motive to grow and develop their countries to become exemplary to the countries that were “religiously inferior.” This was a stereotypic reference that American used to refer to the Mexican’s who American’s regarded as inferior for the reason that they were catholicists, a religion that was inferior to the protestant group. American’s felt that they were the anointed race and that their motive to expand was just a fulfilment of one of the promises that God had made to them. This religious superiority was a source of conflict that intensified the tension between American and the Mexican’s that were already familiar with the intention of President Poll to expand his territories beyond the Mexican boundaries. From this perspective, American’s stereotypical reference of Mexican as a religiously inferior race was a trigger pin that culminated into the war between the two countries. From the US History Guide Book (2010, p. 6), the American leaders were obsessed with the notion to create an admirable city that would be unique from those of the inferior nations. The proponents of expansionism reflect to the idea of Puritans who were the first people to settle in the northern Atlantic, and who, under the inspiration Governor Winthrop, came to believe that their settlement was equivalent to “a city on a hill.” Horsman (2009, p. 116) makes a connection between this city on a hill and the term that was later used by Ronald Reagan later in 1980 to describe a different perspective of expansion in America. Reagan referred to America as a “shining city upon a hill” in his endeavour to paralyse communism and create a country that embraced pure democrats, what he perceived to the growth of a new political culture in America. As Horsman (p. 117) state this rhetoric description of America was an element of self-worth and a disregard for the Mexicans. This self-regard of Americans as a ‘city on a hill’ is a stereotypical reference that made them occupy a presumed superior position, greater than that of the Mexicans. Apart from religious biases, the American upheld high levels of racism and this became a tool of discrimination of non-Americans. Racial prejudice was perpetrated on the boundaries of colour and Americans were keen to isolate the non-natives and those that felt to meet their criteria of equal humans. According to the US history Guide (2010, p.8), the Mexicans were regarded as the brown race while the Native Americans were regarded as the “red race” and were regarded as the superior most races during that time. The development of this cultural rhetoric was becoming a mountain each day colour came to define the bottom line of discrimination line. This served to fuel the hatred between the Mexican and America who were outstandingly distinguishable not only by religion but also by colour. Another stereotype that was popular in this historic time was the regard of Mexicans as “women” who were cowardly and lazy, and a people that did not deserve to own the country. In this respect, Americans felt that they would manage Mexico better and make it a productive country as the lazy Mexican people had failed to grow the country. The effort of the American to bid California for $5 million was only a peaceful way of taking this city from Mexico to make it productive and a part of their plan to expand their territory to the Mexican territories (New American Nation, 2013, Para. 1-4) The fact that the Mexican government rejected this offer is probably the reason why America turned into violence to reclaim their God given land. Their plan to attack Mexico seems to be their plot to provide a husband to the Mexico, which they called a woman, and patronising them was an image of male dominance in this traditional setting. In brief, cultural stereotypes were being utilized to victimise Mexico and to propel the individual motives of the American people to extrapolate their boundary lines. In addition, this was a period that was dominated with civilization gaps and those who had acquired education were already suffering a superiority complex. The American in United States was the first to assimilate education and the wave of civilization had not reached Mexico. The civilization stage was a revolutionary time that brought about a new gap in society that divided people across the line of civilization. The fact that Mexicans were uncivilised made American see them as lesser human beings and subjects of scorn and demise If anything, American saw Mexicans as animals and referring to them as “uncivilized” was just a better term to use (Greenberg, 2005, P. 34: Hietala, 2003, p. 114). From the point of a critical evaluator, it is possible to perceive the attack of American as an act that was meant to civilize and westernise the uncivilized Mexican race. This stereotypical degradation of the Mexicans was a manifestation of the hatred that existed between the Americans and the Mexicans. Although many philosophers persuasively described the war American-Mexican war as a strategy for America to expand their democratic culture and to westernize other nations, critics have overpowered this notion by evaluating the dark side of the war. Eventually when the war started, the American marched into the Mexican territory and drove them out of Texas and the greater part of Mexico. This displacement was faced with a lot of opposition from the Mexican government and to Poll, then President of USA then, this was a disappointment as their intention was to take possess the entire territory. Longyer (2002, Pp. 176-180) criticises this action of the USA as an expression of the highest degree of selfishness and greed that was embedded in the superiority complex of the USA. He argues that the reason why America was so daring to attack the Mexico is because they already had a notion that Mexicans were a womanly race that could be easily defeated without much struggle. Litke (2012, p. 200) is among the scholars who have stood out to criticize the racial and religious competition that was manifested in the American society. His opinion is that the stereotypic references that were evident during this period were a print out of the kind of superiority complex that drove Americans motivation to dominate the other countries. Most analysts of history seem to have reached a concession that the manifest destiny was also a stereotype that engulfed all the other stereotypes that described the American people. In conclusion, the Manifest destiny was the climax of the tension that existed between the Mexican and the American people since early in the 19th century. Looking at the evidence retrospect, it seemed that the Mexican racial stereotype did underpin the manifest destiny. The stereotypes used to refer to the Mexican people depicted them as an inferior race that vulnerable to victimization and even eviction from their own land. Beings portrayed as the brown, womanly, uncivilized and unreligious catholicists made them a victim of the expansionist policy of the American people. On the other hand, American regarded themselves as the superior and religious race who destiny was predetermined by the plan of God and that their optimal goal was to expand their territory across the seas. Consequently, they had self-conviction that they were the chosen race and that their excellence would be make them a nation to be admired. In this regard, it is possible to visualize Manifest Destiny as a portrayal of the low opinion that Americans had for the Mexicans. Bibliography Greenberg, S., 2005. Manifest manhood and the antebellum American empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hietala, R., 2003. Manifest Design: American Exceptionalism and Empire. New York: Cornell University Press Horsman, R., 2009. Race and Manifest Destiny: The Origins of American Racial Anglo- Saxonism. Havard: Havard University Press. Litke, B., 2012. Varieties of American Exceptionalism: Why John Winthrop Is No Imperialist,” Journal of Church and State, 54, 197–213. Longyear, B., 2002. Manifest Destiny. Lincoln: iUniverse Inc. New American Nation, 2013. Exceptionalism-Manifest Destiny. Available through: < http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/E-N/Exceptionalism-Manifest-destiny.html> Shane, M., 2009. Manifest Destiny: Westward Expansion. New York: InfoBase Publishing. US History Guide, 2010. Manifest Destiny and Mexican-American War: United States History. New York: Shmoop University Inc. Read More