Samclem - why was the "How many US Presidents have killed someone" thread locked

As the noted American humorist Will Rogers (himself a Cherokee) once said, “The United States never broke a treaty with a foreign government and never kept one with the Indians.” The Cherokee, along with several other tribes such as the Navajo, do indeed have oil under their lands. However, the US Government has cheated them out of the majority of the money due to them, and given them pennies on the dollar.

The BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs) has long been one of the most corrupt branches of the US Government. They are now facing the results of a class action lawsuit filed in 1999, which forced a government order to account properly for the money that has passed through their hands (the lawsuit is for $137 billion dollars). Of course, the accounting was inadequate, only covering the period since 1973. The various tribes have refused to accept the accounting, despite government pressure.

As a result, a new class action lawsuit was filed in December, not on behalf of individuals as was the original lawsuit, but on behalf of 250 tribes. This lawsuit seeks a proper accounting of all of the records, not just the recent ones.

As you know, I oppose getting upset or depressed about things that happened years ago. But this is a current, ongoing ripoff, and a huge disgrace for the country. It is also an opportunity for the US to balance the scales a bit. Me, I sincerely hope the plaintiffs win, and win big.

w.

Glad to hear about the lawsuit…I’m not holding my breath, but I hope it works out.

History is filled with instances of cruel acts like those mentioned here. I’ll admit I don’t get too worked up over them. Any culture or group of people can be just as brutal as the next, but the Europeans were more powerful. It sounds heartless but they were standing in the way of progress to the European point of view. I probably enjoy many benefits today because of the fact that people were driven off their land. It is important to recognize that these events did occur and take away the lessons of the past but to also move on and accept that the past is done. There is little point in maintaining such vehement rage at someone who died over 150 years ago.

Fine. Take him off the damn money and stop teaching my kid he’s a hero and I’ll quit bitching.

Or as he put it, there was an “Indian problem”.

One might say that to Badchad or Pseudotriton Ruber Ruber with respect to their rage at Jesus. But they might answer that His legacy outlives him, and that after two thousand years, there is still much to rage against.

We were deprived of our sacred land. Our possessions. Our way of life. There are cousins we were meant to have and never will. There was a great nation that has been castrated. All the life was sucked out of our culture.

Intention has said that Indian Removal preserved our culture. He is a fool. We used to dance in praise of the spirit. We dance now as a sideshow for white people. We used to make our pottery and our jewelry for trade with one another. We make them now so you can buy trinkets from ghettos. We used to invent alphabets. Now we invent casino games.

Preserved our culture my ass.

What’s with this “we” stuff, what were you (not ancestors) personally deprived of?

Apparently is wasn’t meant to happen then.

Hey whats wrong with making money from a casino? Do you view your culture as actually dead? It isn’t really completely if you carry on some traditions. All cultures at some point will come to and end.

Liberal, thank you for your eloquent post. The forced removal of the Native Americans from the Southeast is a tragic part of the sordid history of how the settlers treated the inhabitants of North America.

However, if you now dance for the white man instead of for the Spirit, I hardly think you can blame Andrew Jackson. There are tribes who never left their ancestral lands who do exactly the same thing … as do plenty of white people, for that matter.

Who you dance for now, this very day, is your choice and your business, not any of ours, and certainly not Andrew Jackson’s.

There are cousins I never had, because of World War I … but I don’t waste any hatred on the Germans because of that, or sit around and weep for the cousins I never knew. What on earth is the good of that?

Me, I don’t dance for the white man, or for any other color of the human rainbow, and I never will. I dance for the Spirit, and I won’t change that for you, Andrew Jackson, or anyone else. I encourage everyone to do the same.

w.

Without comment, here is Andrew Jackson’s view of the subject:

If I may speak as a “wandering savage”, fuck that blistering pustule-on-a-dead-buzzard’s-ass.

Now that description, I like!

Am I going to have to make this more clear, folks?

HITLER!

HITLER, DAMNIT!

Your defenses of Andy Jackson are the same ones that you’d give to Hitler and Stalin.

“Well, the Jews that were missed by the Nazis are in the same place. And some of them survived the camps. And if your cousins died in the furnaces, I guess you weren’t meant to have them. Look! You have your own country now!”

Do you understand the words that are coming from your own fingers?

It’s not just a jewish thing, ‘Never Again’. It’s about the gypsies (who are still having problems), it’s about the indians, it’s about genocide unmentioned and forgotten.

Was that in response to me? Because I certainly don’t think you were saying removal was right, and I’m sorry if it sounded otherwise. My beef is with your word “they” in the following quote:

We don’t need to be comparing the evils of The Cherokee Race to the evils of The White Race (or the evils of Andrew Jackson). We need to be talking about the actions of specific people, not treating everyone in a group as a fungible commodity.

Daniel

I agree. And yet we keep hearing how wonderfully peaceful and civilized “the Cherokee” were. I was merely offering a counterpoint. It is just as racist to ascribe positive attributes to a race as negative attributes. I was pointing out that the Cherokee as a people were not immune to the foibles that come with being humans. We are all homo sapiens sapiens, prone to acts of terrible violence and even genocide. The Cherokee are no different, as their history shows.

We don’t need to infantilize the Cherokee to sympathize with their loss.

I think at this point we agree, then. The post I first responded to sounded as if you were saying The Cherokee were no better than Jackson, and I was saying that I don’t think the two are comparable. If you were saying that the Cherokee were not all great people, then I entirely agree.

Daniel

Prone? Sure. But I’m not complaining about what anyone was prone to do. If Bush were merely prone to acts of terrible incompetence, we would have found Bin Laden by now, we wouldn’t be hated by most of the world, and we wouldn’t be mired down in Iraq.

So who used to live where you now live, what happened to them, and when are you giving them their land back?

This isn’t Hitler and the Jews. This is the Prussians, or the Copts, or the Welsh, or the Saxons. If it’s Hitler and anybody, it’s Hitler and the Poles. It’s what happens whenever you have a strong expansionist country next to a small, weak one. The little one gets eaten, it’s people conquered and subjigated or expelled, and it’s a really big moral indulgence for you, who’s living on land acquired just that way, to criticize that acquisition.

Two differences:

  1. If we’re judging something that happened in the past to dead people by dead people, we may use it as a way to inform and refine our own moral sensibilities without looking for a way to make reparations to corpses or to bring other corpses to justice.
  2. Jackson operated in a government system that is currently in place (i.e., under the US Constitution), and he fucked that system over, mangling and mutilating it, through his defiance of the Supreme Court. Considering him a hero shows contempt to that current system–a system that, for all its flaws, does not deserve to be treated with Jacksonian contempt.

Daniel

The Sint Sinck Indians? Well, village documentation says that we purchased the land from them and they moved up into the Connecticut River Valley. Back in 1685, by Fredrick Phillipse.

Or do you mean when my family came over? Well, if you know American History any, at about the same time, we were killing them, and they were killing us, up north a ways. And marrying 'em, too. And, well, the Brits were on one side, with the Iroquois, and the French and their Algonquin allies… My father’s side was with the Brits.
Technically. Irish, you understand.

Hell, there’s a good chance that’s when we taught them how to scalp people.

None of that matches ethnic cleansing, which is what Jackson did, against the law of the land. He attempted the destruction of a people, tearing them from their land and houses en masse.

(Bet you didn’t think I knew the answer to that one.)

But that makes you the ultimate hypocrite, if you condemn an evil and then are willing to benefit from that evil. By accepting the benefits of an action, you’re justifying the action that was taken, and if you really believe the action is wrong, then you have a moral obligation not to benefit from it.

Well, it was Georgia that defied and showed contempt to the Supreme Court, not Jackson. The federal government wasn’t a party in any of them.

So Phillipse signed a treaty with the Mohegans/Sint Sinck to get land, and Jackson signed a treaty with the Cherokee to get land.