This was a quote recently in an article about Andrew Jackson and how we are viewing him through the lens of our current climate of political correctness. He was a slave owner, but so were Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe before him.
George Rogers Clark, without whom the Revolution may not have succeeded--had Indians beheaded to force a British fort to surrender.
FDR ordered over 100,000 Japanese Americans interred.
Churchill ordered the bombing of Dresden, killing more civilians than either atomic bomb, after the outcome of the war was a foregone conclusion.
Truman ordered the dropping of the A-bombs, as well as the fire-bombing of Tokyo.
History is replete with such examples. Vlad the Impaler tortured and killed thousands, but kept much of Southeastern Europe free from Muslim domination and is considered a hero to this day by many in those areas.
Taken individually, any of these acts could be considered dubious to downright reprehensible. However, given the circumstances of the time, they can be at least understood, if not condoned. They also don't take away the vast accomplishments of these men--without whom our lives today could be very much different, and likely not better.
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.
I'm trying figure out the point Husker is trying to make.
__________________
A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.
A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.
The he fact is, if you want to talk about the treatment of native Americans, Jackson is no different than any president before or after him until at least the 2nd decade of the 20th Century. All of them are responsible in some way for the displacement and worse of native people. Also, really, unless we are willing to move back to Europe, Africa, or wherever our ancestors came from if we are not native, then we are benefitting from the actions made by ALL of those men and it's beyond hypocritical to b!tch about it 150 years after the fact.
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.
And yes, it is ridiculous to judge people of 150 years ago by today's standards of PC-ness. Just as it is ridiculous to ignore the realities of history.
__________________
LawyerLady
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
And yes, it is ridiculous to judge people of 150 years ago by today's standards of PC-ness. Just as it is ridiculous to ignore the realities of history.
That's what I mean. Everyone is jumping on the "hate Jackson" bandwagon now for things like the trail of tears, his slave ownership, and other events.
However, from the Jamestown colony forward, Europeans were taking territory from Native Americans in their inevitable drive to settle the continent. This didn't just start with that event, nor was it necessarily even the worst one. Every single president from Washington on participated in displacements, resettlements, broken treaties, and warfare until into the 20th century, and, as noted, Jackson was not the only one to own slaves, either, and he was probably a better owner, such as slave owners go, than Jefferson, certainly.
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.
