-Thank you for exposing yourself jac.
i didn’t know you were into that sort of thing. you’re welcome though, ya know
-Translation (for those not fluent in doubletalk): “I have no sources to support my position.”
jac, just admit your error. Admit that every available source says Jackson gave safe passage to over 300 women and children at Horseshoe Bend.
that’d be lying. that’s your field, not mine.
so i ended up going through google anyway in the end. i shouldn’t have had to though, but here you are:
-http://www.adena.com/adena/usa/im/im017.htm
this one’ll do. it doesn’t go much into the killing of noncombatants, but it does enough, i think. it tells of an instance where i child wandered outside and was killed, because he would’ve grown up to become a warrior. this was not a new sentiment nor one that would go away. ‘nits make lice’ is the justification they used for killing indian children often… it tells also of an old man at the battle, probably senile, seemingly unaware of the carnage around him, whom a soldier shot so he could brag back home how he’d killed an indian… it mentions that women and children were the only ones to be taken captive, but that’s not to imply all of them were. it mentions the supposed ‘accidental’ killing of women and children, and also how the warriors shot and killed hundreds as they tried to swim across the river, as i’d said earlier. women, and likely some children and elderly were included in those trying to escape by river (many of their canoes had been taken, so they had to swim mainly).
-Did I say that the offer was a good deal? Did I say that it represented a fair return for the Cherokee land? It did not. But that’s not the issue we’re debating. We are debating whether Andrew Jackson was genocidal, not whether he ripped off the Cherokee. (He did rip them off, of course.)
given what andrew jackson engaged in, both militarily (trying to wipe the upper creeks out, as well as the seminole for that matter) and politically, yes, there is no question he was genocidal. you are still not grasping the terminology here and that’s getting seriously old spoke.
-The fact that he gave the Cherokee the option of citizenship shows that he was not intent on wiping them out. He wanted their land, not their lives.
taking their lands was just a means to an end. that end was to wipe out the cherokee nation as it stood. in taking their lands, even wanting to assimilate them somewhat into american society, he was attempting to exterminate their national identity, in one way or another. please refer back to lemkin’s definition, the u.n. definitions i listed and see what that activity qualifies as.
-(As for Jackson ignoring the Treaty of New Echota, do tell. How and when exactly did he ignore the provisions of that treaty? I linked the treaty earlier. Tell me which provision he breached.)
excuse me. that the u.s. later ignored. that treaty was illegal anyhow.
and it’s hard to tell whether or not a dent has been made regarding certain points because you never respond to certain ones. do you concede that native americans were victims of genocide as defined by lemkin and/or the u.n. (hell, even dictionary.com, but for some reason you weren’t seeing that)? that’s all i want to know.
