Fine. But as I stated, I still believe everything I said in my OP. YMMV.
:smack: If I may hijack - are these people aware of your heritage? Or are they really trying to get an African American to feel that there’s something special about defending the Confederacy’s way of life?
Much to my sorrow, I can believe that it’s more often the second option that’s happening than the first. 
This is the second time I’ve had to correct you on that. If you will actually read the post, you will see that it wasn’t a book; it was a documentary, and you will see that I had just finished watching it. Can you get nothing right in here?
Actually, she screwed up her coding. I think that she meant to reference this quote there.
BTW, thanks, Guin, for admitting that you had been wrong about the Romanovs in the past. If you had already done so, I hadn’t seen it. I won’t bring that up again.
Where did I say anything about well-meaning white people?
“They can place themselves in the shoes of Americans at that time and see why he was considered a hero”
Americans, of course, in this instance, is necessarily those destiny-manifesting whites who thought Jackson was a hero. The pre-collegiate attitude is that people have always meant well and erred-- they weren’t murderous racist assholes, they were just ordinary folks in unfortunate times.
(missed the edit window)
Of course, it’s hard to extract any definite meaning from your post because you mainly just want to be a condescending prick and your point is kind of half-assed and tacked on. Next time try to remix the track so there’s a little less noise and a little more signal.
Like I said, where did I say anything about well-meaning?
Besides, Jackson’s Indian policy is only a small part of why he had so much support. I don’t know why Jackson is the only President that gets constantly ripped for his Indian policy. Every President contributed to forcing Indians west, and some did much more than Jackson to accomplish that.
A policy of ethnic clensing
nonsense. Van Buren was just carrying out Jacksons plan.
It was a different situation with the Cherokee. Read liberals post above.
Good lord, treis, are you really going to quibble about my use of the phrase “well meaning”? Your suggestion that we look at why “America” [sic] thought Jackson was a hero, bereft of much else, certainly implies you suppose they had good reason for doing so, and not that it would be a interesting psychological probe of sociopathic mobs. If it bothers you so much, strike the “well meaning.”
The fact is that I do understand the need to look to primary sources and multiple perspectives when constructing history, but nobody ever said otherwise. But that’s not really what this thread is about. It’s about whether Liberal has a good reason for hating Andrew Jackson. The conclusion seems to be: why the hell shouldn’t he? He’s not writing a textbook, just giving what seems to be a fairly informed, justifiable, not to say common, historical opinion.
Above a college freshman, you say? So I guess it’s safe to say you know you’re being sophomoric?
Ha! I wouldn’t have gotten that last week.
It wasn’t a particularly different situation with the Cherokee. Why do you say it was? Because they invented an alphabet? Because they tried to assimilate? Does that make them special or what happened to them any more horrific? The final result, treaty and relocation, was the same as almost all of the other tribes.
I will admit, though, that I find them fascinating, and I still think the murder was wrong. As a ruler, though, Nicholas was a tyrant and an anti-semitic dickweed. He may have been a nice guy-PERSONALLY, in private. But his rule was true evil.
As was Jackson.
Yeah, they are aware. Doesn’t matter to them. They think the Confederacy represented all the people within its borders, and that slavery was just a quaint hobby that a small minority maintained. It’s alright that they feel pride in it all, but it’s somehow inappropriate for others to find it offensive. :rolleyes:
To be fair, I think many Southerners–black and white–tend to focus on the good things when they talk about “our way of life”. Like sweet tea, wrap-around porches, the smell of magnolia wafting over the foothills of Appalachia, and chilvary. But these things were not why the Confederacy was formed. Great-great-great-grandfathers didn’t die just so people could have their Lipton’s extra sweet.
I grew up in Georgia, where the Confederate flag flew for years at the state capital. But Virginia makes Georgia look almost Yankee.
yes it does. some Indians were killed and relocated when they were more or less in a state of war with the US military. There is a big difference than the situation where cherokee were trying to resolve things with through the courts. Especially when the law and the courts were on their side.
Liberal asked you to show where he was a “shitty historian”. You said:
So which part makes him a shitty historian/raving loon? The part about Jackson being an “Indian Hater” or the three exclamation points that Liberal did not actually use?
monstro, your acquaintances are making my head hurt. I doubt that’s much consolation to you, but it might be some.
I can see the argument that some people make that the descendants of those people sold into the South’s chattel slavery are generally better off than those who remained in Africa. I’ll even argue that those freedmen and women who choose (for whatever reasons) to refuse the various efforts to relocate them back to Liberia have had their choice pay off for their fifth to seventh generation descendants. But to actually consider trying to argue that those descendants should value the fight of the CSA and what they were fighting to protect?
My head hurts, and it’s not just the excess caffeine.
When I said, “Did I ever say he wasn’t?” I was referring to Jackson-I never said he wasn’t a bastard towards the Cherokee.
Perhaps I should have been clearer.
The Cherokee never challenged either the validity of the Indian Removal Act or the Treaty of New Echota in the courts, and it’s not clear that the law and the courts were on their side.
And in the case of most of the Plains tribes, the Indians signed treaties with the government, and then war broke out either when Indian bands left the reservations, or settlers ignored the treaties and entered Indian land.