When is discrimination OK?

[Stratocaster]

**
What I find more disturbing is that the protests were against his owning of slaves but not his signing of the Indian Removal Act and the subsequent Trail of Tears…So owning slaves was legal and socially acceptable at that time and place, but the Trail of Tears was immoral by the standards of the time and the legality is questionable, yet Jackson is reviled for slave owning and not what amounts to mass murder?
**

I did not read your post closely enough, pingy, and I should have. This seems absolutely apropos. I was not aware of these facts–nor have I confirmed them–but assuming this is accurate, does this not support the notion of Jackson as a hateful and racist man? I think the more legitimate question is not, “Why focus on one evil act and not the other?” but “For Pete’s sake, what didja expect?”

Sheesh, at what point do we stop throwing parades for the guy and start burning him in effigy? (That’s a rhetorical question, folks, not a conclusion, so please read it as such…)

[Ptahlis]

**
Ptahlis wrote:

---

What I am saying is that slavery should not be the only issue ever used when judging the past. When it becomes the only barometer by which historical figures can be judged, that is simply ridiculous. There needs to be some reasonable perspective

---

It certainly isn’t the only issue ever used when judging the past, and your implication that it is seems to lack reasonable perspective.
**

I am going by the information given me in this thread. It was stated that the people who were applying pressure to have Jackson removed from the parade were doing so because he was a slaveowner. I do not suggest that everyone is doing so, just those people.

[Ptahlis]

**
Yep, your points are valid, and I agree. I hope you’ll agree I didn’t say slavery was the only issue worth considering in evaluating historical figures. I think we would probably disagree on what the appropriate sense of proportion is, though. Owning slaves is not a trivial matter, regardless of the great deeds someone may be credited with. It’s not eradicating history by pointing out that the person in question was guilty of this–quite the contrary.

**

True enough. I don’t want his slave-owning to be ignored. I just don’t think it should be an ultimate trump card in describing his life. I’m not particularly fond of or knowledgable about Jackson specifically, but history usually isn’t so simple as to be reducible to a single issue like that.