In reading Heinlein’s The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Stephanson’s Manifest Destiny, it was hard not to notice the parallels. Manifest destiny is a term that has been used throughout American history. This idea of American exceptionalism, providential and historical chosenness, appears to be similar to the characteristics of Luna.
Puritans, a “fierce and uncompromising phalanx within the Reformation” (Stephanson, 3), colonized New England. The characteristic of fierceness could as easily be applied to ex-convicts, also known as the Loonies. The “Promised Land” where “providential destiny [would] revealed” (Stephanson, 5) as part of the notion of manifest destiny, had to be some place new and separate from the old world. In U.S. history, this new place where separateness allowed exceptionalism to flourish was the New World. Could not this new place also be, literally, a new world, such as Luna? The new territory was supposed to be sacred by its very nature and promise its inhabitants “a future of endless milk and honey” (Stephanson, 7). The U.S. must have been deemed sacred by the Puritans, being a rich territory with an abundance of natural resources. But, Luna also initially appeared like a colony with an abundance of resources. Granted those resources would not last forever, but they were there as evidenced by the Earth’s and Lunar Authority’s exploitation of them. Thus, Luna, according to this comparison, would equate to the Promised Land guaranteed to its inhabitants under the principle of manifest destiny.
There is a second part of manifest destiny, which I have up to this point not addressed. The chosen people are given the Promised Land in exchange for tremendous responsibility; there is the “imperative to intervene righteously in the world to transform it” (Stephanson, 8). The people of the New World had to understand their divinely-ordained destiny and conform to it. Woodrow Wilson interpreted this divine mission as efforts to “make the world safe for democracy”. Other American leaders have followed in his path by intervening in other countries in order to instill democracy; most recently, President G.W. Bush attacked Iraq for this reason. But how does the mission of transforming the world fit into Luna’s history?
Maybe at the time of the revolution Luna was similar to America before colonization. In this comparison, Lunar Authority would be the Puritans sent to transform the world, and the Loonies would be the Indians, previous inhabitants that may be wiped out in the process of colonizing and thus transforming the world. Luna Authority does remind Manuel and the professor that it controls Luna because of a “sacred trust”. “It [Luna] does not belong to that handful who by accident of history happen to live there. The sacred trust laid upon the Lunar Authority is and forever must be the supreme law of Earth’s Moon” (Heinlein, 231-2). By its own declaration of “sacred trust”, Luna Authority should be the people divinely-ordained to carry out a mission of manifest destiny. Because Luna wins the revolution, however, this comparison does not appear valid.
All signs point to Luna being the Promised Land. At the same time, it does not seem to have the divine mission which is a large part of manifest destiny. Did Heinlein mean to invalidate that second part of manifest destiny, criticizing all American actions justified under its flag? Or is the comparison between Luna and manifest destiny completely invalid?
In reading Heinlein’s The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Stephanson’s Manifest Destiny, it was hard not to notice the parallels. Manifest destiny is a term that has been used throughout American history. This idea of American exceptionalism, providential and historical chosenness, appears to be similar to the characteristics of Luna.
Puritans, a “fierce and uncompromising phalanx within the Reformation” (Stephanson, 3), colonized New England. The characteristic of fierceness could as easily be applied to ex-convicts, also known as the Loonies. The “Promised Land” where “providential destiny [would] revealed” (Stephanson, 5) as part of the notion of manifest destiny, had to be some place new and separate from the old world. In U.S. history, this new place where separateness allowed exceptionalism to flourish was the New World. Could not this new place also be, literally, a new world, such as Luna? The new territory was supposed to be sacred by its very nature and promise its inhabitants “a future of endless milk and honey” (Stephanson, 7). The U.S. must have been deemed sacred by the Puritans, being a rich territory with an abundance of natural resources. But, Luna also initially appeared like a colony with an abundance of resources. Granted those resources would not last forever, but they were there as evidenced by the Earth’s and Lunar Authority’s exploitation of them. Thus, Luna, according to this comparison, would equate to the Promised Land guaranteed to its inhabitants under the principle of manifest destiny.
There is a second part of manifest destiny, which I have up to this point not addressed. The chosen people are given the Promised Land in exchange for tremendous responsibility; there is the “imperative to intervene righteously in the world to transform it” (Stephanson, 8). The people of the New World had to understand their divinely-ordained destiny and conform to it. Woodrow Wilson interpreted this divine mission as efforts to “make the world safe for democracy”. Other American leaders have followed in his path by intervening in other countries in order to instill democracy; most recently, President G.W. Bush attacked Iraq for this reason. But how does the mission of transforming the world fit into Luna’s history?
Maybe at the time of the revolution Luna was similar to America before colonization. In this comparison, Lunar Authority would be the Puritans sent to transform the world, and the Loonies would be the Indians, previous inhabitants that may be wiped out in the process of colonizing and thus transforming the world. Luna Authority does remind Manuel and the professor that it controls Luna because of a “sacred trust”. “It [Luna] does not belong to that handful who by accident of history happen to live there. The sacred trust laid upon the Lunar Authority is and forever must be the supreme law of Earth’s Moon” (Heinlein, 231-2). By its own declaration of “sacred trust”, Luna Authority should be the people divinely-ordained to carry out a mission of manifest destiny. Because Luna wins the revolution, however, this comparison does not appear valid.
All signs point to Luna being the Promised Land. At the same time, it does not seem to have the divine mission which is a large part of manifest destiny. Did Heinlein mean to invalidate that second part of manifest destiny, criticizing all American actions justified under its flag? Or is the comparison between Luna and manifest destiny completely invalid?
