Tastes of Chocolate, I’m sorry, but I’ve just got to ask. What happened to the question mark that should be at the end of your title? I don’t mean to pick on you, as this is just pure curiosity on my part (and because seeing this recent – and constant – trend is driving me up the ever-lovin’ freakin’ wall), but if you could be kind enough to offer some sort of reason, I’d be totally grateful (and forever in your debt) and will consistently think of you as the BEST taste of chocolate there is.
So, thank you for your time and consideration to this obviously immaterial issue. Either way, I’m positive that I’ll probably remain too uptight and anal about it. And now I’ll take my hijack away from your thread so that the interplay between you and samclem can continue on hashing this out unobstructed.
::: heads to said elsewhere now to resume my ponderings of the lack of the mysterious ??? :::
Lib thanks for your reply. I have been here awhile and read many of your posts but I was unaware of your ancestry. I can now put your replies on the subject in context.
If it makes you feel any better I just put a big wheres george stamp across Andy’s forehead. Twice.
Well…I’m pretty much with Liberal on Jackson. Near as anyone can tell my ancestors escaped off of the trail of tears on the way to ok…wound up around Arkansas post. but They wouldn’t even tell their own children where they were from out of fear. My father when he asked one of his oldest living relatives about it was told “we didn’t talk about it…we knew, but you just didn’t talk about such things”. Our family tree just stops at that point.
Jackson was genocidal monster. The fact that he is shown in history books to my own kid in school is obscene. That he is still on our money is an insult and a travesty.
The removal was bad enough…the inhumane and brutal way it was conducted was totally unneccesary.
People say it couldn’t happen here. They laugh and talk about the disease, which was unintentional.
But it has. The internments camps of the second world war were one thing. They were wrong… but they were civilized.
This was a mark on our nation’s history which we should never forget, but we already have.
Speaking from my mother’s side, I’m just going to say that ‘Never Again’ is something that should never be forgotten. It’s something we can all agree on. Right, Lib?
Of course, you understand that thinking that the Cherokee people (who had their full share of Saints and sinners) were in any wise more “decent and civilized” than the Whites (who also had their share of both Saints and Sinners) is* racism*, don’t you?
The only reason why there wasn’t a “Trail of Tears” that the Indians perpetrated upon the Whites is simply that the Whites had the power. The various Indian tribes were perfectly capable of acts of barbarity when they had the chance- as were the Whites. The only differnce is that the whites had more chances, due to the fact there were more Whites and the whites had more and better weapons.
Don’t give me this racist shit that any race or people is or was inheritly more “decent and civilized” than any other. We are all humans and humans can all be rat bastards when they get the chance.
Jackson did what he thought he had to do to keep the peace. True, when we judge him by virtue of today’s standards and with 20/20 hindsight, he doesn’t look so heroic. Who does?
How will the people of *150 years from now *judge you (and me, too, of course)? They might well think that we are heartless killers due to the fact we eat our fellow animals. We may well be condemned for the genocide of millions of Dolphins. They may think we are racists as we didn’t allow Chimps to vote. We certainly we be judged harshly for driving cars and otherwise ruining the environment.
Actually, I didn’t say Whites in what you quoted; I said Europeans. That’s everything from your lily-white Scandanavians to your dark and brooding Spaniards. Especially De Soto. And frankly, if you have to defend the Indian Hater’s serial mass murders by conjecturing about possible alternate futures and histories, then your defense is pretty weak.
it has nothing to do with race or todays standards. Jackon violated the law of the day to do what he did. He was dishonest and backstabbing, which was as immoral then as now.
And no, it is not in the least racist to imply that one culture or society is superior, more ciilized, or more decent than another. It has nothing to do with the skin color of the members of those cultures…
“Presentism” isn’t a crime; indeed, it’s a refreshing alternative to moral relativism, in my opinion.
Most folks talking about “presentism” are contrasting it against the morality of the folks in power in the past. There are plenty of standards contemporary to Jackson by which we can judge him harshly. Ask the Greensboro Quakers what they thought of Jackson. Ask southern slaves what they thought of Jackson. Ask the Cherokee what they thought of Jackson.
In Jackson’s case, though, there’s yet another group we can ask: the Supreme Court. They said his actions were illegal. Even if you limit your recognition of contemporary standards to the folks in power, you gotta consider the Supreme Court.
And no, not “nearly anyone else of that period” was a rat bastard. That’s more pernicious moral relativism. Yes, it may be that our Greensboro Quaker might believe in beating her child, that our slave might condone adultery, that our Cherokee might keep slaves. And yes, all those actions are morally terrible. But they all pale in comparison to Jackson’s great evil, which may be judged by standards modern and historical.
FWIW, I too think Jackson was a world-class shit and should be taken off of the twenty. (Put up say, Susan B. Antony-we need some women on our bills, goddammit!) I just find Lib’s language a tad flowery for my tastes.
But then, you should wait until the rare occassion I get drunk and start cursing those bloody British bastards.
You know, what happened to the Cherokee was wrong, but damned if I don’t get tired of the entire tribe being turned into plaster saints. Jackson had witnessed first hand brutal massacres perpetrated by the Cherokee. That’s part of the reason he continued to hold a grudge against them. Jackson, like Liberal, wasn’t one to let go of past wrongs.
In 1793, the Cherokee massacred the residents of a white settlement outside Knoxville. It was Jackson who wrote the report:
Say what you will about Jackson, but he never committed that sort of undiscriminating massacre against his foes.
So let’s talk about how “civilized” the Cherokee were.
Well, gosh Guin, that argument sure put me in my place! Thanks for calling me a dumbass; that’s helpful feedback and a great counterargument.
And just as soon as I find where I accused you of moral relativism, or made a black & white argument, I’ll apologize. But until then, would you care to clarify whether your thesis is indeed that emotional language regarding Jackson’s particular policies (or of similar historical examples in general) detracts from the gravitas of one’s argument? Because I’ve felt for the past five and a half years that strongly worded, emotional bias against immoral and autocratic national leadership is absolutely called for.
We can do that when we’re talking about how “civilized” the white people were. That’s also a discussion I don’t want to enter into. Now, if you want to criticize specific Cherokee assholes, I’ll be right there with you. But the fact is, Jackson didn’t limit the Trail of Tears to those Cherokee who had participated in earlier massacres.
What I am saying is that it’s silly and hypocritical to fawn over the civilized Cherokee. They were as capable of being jackasses as anyone. They were as capable of genocidal acts as anyone.
I’ll second Susie B for the 20 if you like, as long as we can nominate Molly Ivins for, say, a national day of truth telling… (I’ll buy you and Lib drinks on Ivin’s Day and we can all talk about rat bastards unambiguously!)
The great historical irony of the tragic removal of the Cherokee to Oklahoma is that it is likely the reason that the tribe retained its identity, culture, language, and strength, while other tribes went under. The fate of tribes that remained in lands where gold had been found is much uglier than the fate of the Cherokee. Generally, those tribes ended up with neither land, language, culture, nor tribal identity, while the Cherokee kept all of them.
And in the ultimate irony, the “worthless” land that they were moved to had oil underneath it …
On another subject, What Exit?, your most gracious apology is definitely accepted. I assure you I am not a troll. I have had several scientific pieces published in peer-reviewed journals disputing the AGW claims. You may not like it, but there are a number of scientists out here, from Freeman Dyson to Richard Lindzen, who agree that while the climate is undoubtedly warming (as it has done many times in the past), neither the causes nor the effects of such warming are understood. I do not wish to hijack this thread to AGW, merely to assure you that I am not a troll in any sense. I write what I believe, life is too short and I am too old to do otherwise.
And back on topic, What Exit?, I agree with you wholeheartedly that having Jackson on the currency is an insult to the many Americans, including Native Americans, who have much more right to be there.
The cherokee who managed avoid relocation and still live in the area kept their identity just fine. So thats not the case. The thousands of women and children who died brutal deaths on the way to oklahoma didnt really benifit from any identity preservation. The children who were taken from their families in Oklahoma and raised in boarding schools so they wouldnt learn Cherokee and wouldnt pick up that nasty tribal identity…well…you get the picture.
To my knowledge, the Cherokee iin Oklahom havent benifited from this oil. I could be wrong as I havent spent any time in Oklahoma. My ancestors didn’t make it that far.
And now I’ll take my hijack away from your thread so that the interplay between you and samclem can continue on hashing this out unobstructed.