Most people don’t know that in 1809, Andrew Jackson cloned himself into a vast army, which allowed him to personally kill every Indian that died thereafter. There were so many Andrew Jacksons that the extras spent their time knitting plague blankets. When the Andrew Jackson Horde reached the Pacific in 1899, it was mistaken for a tidal wave of beavers, and subsequently rendered into pelts by Russian fur traders.
All that is left of Andrew Jackson today is a single malevolent clone, hibernating deep in Appalachia, kept alive on the blood of Indian children.
So don’t accuse me of defending Jackson when I didn’t. I’m not the only one who’s illiterate.
So, that’s worse than the entire HISTORY of oppression against the Jews-not just the Holocaust?
Or entire generations of the Irish suffering under British rule-and oppression?
Both of which, by the way, was happening long before Columbus even set foot on western territory.
I’m NOT saying, by the way, that you shouldn’t be angry about what happened. I’m saying stop being so fucking hysterical.
And if you’re going to get so hysterical about Jackson and the Trail of Tears, how about looking up the following people and events:
-Leopold II of Belgium
-Maximiliano Hernández Martínez, and La Matanza.
-Anastasio Somoza García
-the Potato Famine (which, by the way, was NOT just about a blight on the potato crop. Did you know that food was being exported OUT of Ireland at the time?)
Or read the following books:
I can’t identify with Liberal’s personalization of historical horrors. So yeah, I think he’s taking his hate towards Jackson to a scary, overly dramatic extreme.
But Guin, in past threads about oppression, you’ve brought up other groups. I’m always curious what point you think you’re making. Let’s say Liberal’s anger is genuine and real. Is mentioning that the same thing happened to the Jews supposed to make him feel better?
If someone punches in you in the neck, are you supposed to be quiet because some other poor sap got punched in the gut a million miles away? What does one have to do with the other?
Even if you don’t intend to, it comes across as, “What are you complaining about? The Jews had it worse!”
I don’t think that word means what you think it means. You opened the Pit thread and made a big stink about it. I think I’ve been fair and reasonable about the Indian Hater. I’ve given him credit for his cunning and for his consistency. I’ve noted that he fought side-by-side with Indians when it served his purposes. I’ve noted that he bothered to attempt legitimizing his obsessions by political machinations — with the notable exception of telling the Supreme Court to go fuck itself. If you don’t like my opinions, then argue them in Great Debates or something, rather than pitching a fit in the Pit and then calling me “hysterical”.
It’s more that, he’s constantly going on and on about it hysterically, instead of being calm and rational.
Of course his anger should be real. I just wish he’d tone it down a little, if you will.
And I wish he’d direct such passion about what’s going on TODAY. You can’t change the past-you can learn from it and try and prevent it from happening again.
Does that make sense?
(To be fair, Lib, I DID feel that way when listening in my Latin American studies classes. Ditto from my Russian history course)
Despite his various accomplishments, which included establishment of regulations against corporate coercion, Andrew Jackson’s reputation will forever bear the scars of consequences from his irrational hatred of Indians and blacks.
EXACTLY. Sounds a lot like Teddy Roosevelt-on one hand, an environmentalist, a trust-buster, pro-labor, etc. And yet, the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, and the building of the Panama Canal should for ever taint his memory. Funny, I don’t really hate Teddy, so much, but reading about the treatment of those in Central America just boils my blood. (I guess I spent too much time in Dr. Brett’s classroom)
See, it’s all in how you word it. That’s pretty much what I meant.
Well, let’s hope this marks a rapprochement between our two principals here (or at least the establishment of a fragile truce).
Meanwhile, for the sake of internet anthropologists in the year 3509, may I suggest the removal of the parenthetical from the thread title? Honestly, if they open this thinking that it’s what we refer to as “mild,” they’ll wonder what we used to do when we got upset at one another…
I’m not sure who Dr. Brett is, but this is a twisted view of the building of the Panama Canal. It was a boon for the residents of the Panama, it was just bad for the rich oligarchy of Colombia. what treatment of those in Central America are you specifically addressing?
Well, to be fair, while many modern history textbooks discuss Jackson’s contribution to the rise of mass democracy and party politics in the US (including incidents like the bank veto and tariff issues), they also spend time discussing his Indian policies, including the Trail of Tears, in fairly uncomplimentary ways. I can’t claim to be familiar with what is taught in every school in the United States, but many high school textbooks make a pretty good effort at detailing atrocities like the Trail of Tears, and in my experience the interpretation offered to college survey courses conforms with much of Lib’s interpretation of events.
And historians have, over the last decade or so, taken this position in the face of loud and vehement criticism from conservatives like Lynn Cheney who, in the debate over national history standards, complained that too much attention has been paid to women and minorities, and that the illustrious deeds of our great (white male) forefathers are being diminished in a wave of political correctness.
I think the hero mythos of Andrew Jackson is the exception rather than the norm in much historical scholarship and teaching these days.
As a long-term resident of Panama, I’d have to agree with that. Colombia was the country that got screwed. While there certainly were a lot of shady dealings that went on with the ceding of the Canal Zone, and Panama got a worse deal than it should have had due to strong-arm tactics by the US, overall the Canal was, and is, a tremendous boon to Panama. Although Roosevelt isn’t exactly revered here, there still is a street that bears his name.
