The word of 'Manifest Destiny' represents typical American feature of history not only within this country but also out of it. Already American people regret the tragedy of native Indians. But this spirit is yet active in this country. To be manifest is to be ignorant. As long as it is manifest, nobody will ask 'why' to it. Until now the manifest idea in this country is ‘To be rich is to be good’. In this case 'to be rich' is 'to be rich materially'. Even if it is forbidden to be rich by harming others, more richness is regarded as more happiness. But this idea always justify American excessive influence other countries.

 Many American people are convinced that they propose most effective system for the game of prosperity to the world. This system has excellent rule, which can be accepted by anybody and, by which the richness of everybody is guaranteed. This confidence to their rule can be found the word of 'fair' in English. Anybody who wants to be rich, if he accepts this rule, can get the chance to be rich equally. But here is no consideration that we must guarantee also the right to live frugally even not poorly. Native American Indian hoped only to live frugally but their hope was denied by American system that seeks fairness.
 

Such is the language of the Indians: what they say is true; what they foresee seems inevitable. From whichever side we consider the destinies of the aborigines of North America, their calamities appear irremediable: if they continue barbarous, they are forced to retire; if they attempt to civilize themselves, the contact of a more civilized community subjects them to oppression and destitution. They perish if they continue to wander from waste to waste, and if they attempt to settle they still must perish. The assistance of Europeans is necessary to instruct them, but the approach of Europeans corrupts and repels them into savage life. They refuse to change their habits as long as their solitudes are their own, and it is too late to change them when at last they are forced to submit. (Alexis de Tocqueville: Democracy in America, Volume 1. Chapter 10. Section 3)
 

As Tocqvill pointed out, this rule is opened to anybody including native Indians but actually it does not work equally between both. Because of the equality of game, native Indians who were not familiar with it must be disadvantageous. And even if some native Indians may have gotten success in this game, most of them would not participate in it. American people are very fair within the game but not so out of it.

 I found this defeat of American society in the book 'God wishes to be rich' written by Paul Puliazr. He wrote the role of American people with the aid of Bible.
 

 Several hundred years ago, European explores purchased land from Native Americans, who, as nomads, had no concept of land ownership. Imagine a Native American chief advising his tribe that had already removed the game and edible plant life and thus was planning to move on from anyway. The tribe might jokingly suggest that next time the clever chief offer to sell the white man the sun, moon, and stars as well, for Native Americans could no sooner imagine owing land than they could imagine owing the celestial bodies.

 Similarly, imagine Abraham, a nomad-tuned-farmer, confronting a nomadic Egyptian or Phoenician who stumbled across the food growing in Abraham's field.

 "Excuse me," Abraham might have said to the nomadic stranger, "what are you doing on this land?"

 "Oh," replies the stranger, "I'm harvesting this food to take back to my people."

 "But you don't understand," says Abraham. "This is our food. This is our land. My people and I planted this food last spring to harvest this fall."

 "Silly man," says the stranger. "Everyone knows that God owns land, not man. You have as much claim to this land and the food on it s you do to the sky and the planets."

 Nomads, accustomed to moving to new lands for the express purpose of taking what the land had to offer, had no respect for the claim of the farmers to the produce of land that the farmerss had cultivated. In contrast, Abraham realized how prosperous all of God's children could be if everyone strove to create and improve his own property or wealth, instead of forcibly trying to take property from someone else.
 

This story is the first age when European immigrants visited America, and the trade between native Indians and European was done equally. Therefore, I do not find any malice in it. But it contains most significant problem because this writer is ignorant of the right to live frugally. Until now some American have not been able to recognize why native Indian did not endeavor to be rich. Though the traditional society is damaged, some American people regard others happy if they succeed according to American rule. This innocent idea divides the people more and more in developing countries, because some of them want to be rich like American but others not. American rule works universally the former but for the latter it is harmful. For them the spread of this rule seems invasion to their own tradition, especially to their culture, because it stimulates human material desire too much for more civilization. On the other hand, American people scarcely notice it, because there are many people who accept their rule to succeed. Even if there are many foreigners in U.S., American people cannot recognize their harmful influence to other countries.

 Consequently modern American people do not notice well the responsibility for prosperity. Even if they have right to be rich like Abraham, they also have obligation to God who owns lands and demands the peace of people. As Abraham did not have the right to devastate God's land and regime, as far Christian, American people must not harm natural environment and other people who do not want be rich like them.