Liberal Professor Calls Thanksgiving Racist Holiday

[cal828]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, they don't all have an issue with the $20. there's far more to the story, but isn't there always? andy knew that other countries liked to stoke the fires between the native americans and the people immigrating. jackson did what he did to protect settlers. but it's a lot easier to just call the guy a murderer than to question his motives.....

I think I can see why some might view him as a murderer considering that the indians of the South East were removed from their land and dispossesed of that land and forcibly moved West of the Mississippi resulting in the deaths of 5,000 of them on the "trail of tears." But having said that, at least the land west of the Mississippi wasn't so horrible. Some of that land that indians live on further west is hardly fit for rattlesnakes and scorpions.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cal828

I think I can see why some might view him as a murderer considering that the indians of the South East were removed from their land and dispossesed of that land and forcibly moved West of the Mississippi resulting in the deaths of 5,000 of them on the "trail of tears." But having said that, at least the land west of the Mississippi wasn't so horrible. Some of that land that indians live on further west is hardly fit for rattlesnakes and scorpions.

Yeah, i know why he is viewed as such. I once also thought he was deserving of every appellation assigned to him...
However, as in so many things, there is more to the story. Jackson moved the native americans to remove a ready tool of american enemies, such as england and france. He did what he did based on what he thought was best fir the u.s. truth be told, when one considers the why, what argument can someone make that jackson was wrong?
Could thing have been handled better? Sure. Did he have every reason to think his actions were justified? Absolutely.

[cal828]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Yeah, i know why he is viewed as such. I once also thought he was deserving of every appellation assigned to him...
However, as in so many things, there is more to the story. Jackson moved the native americans to remove a ready tool of american enemies, such as england and france. He did what he did based on what he thought was best fir the u.s. truth be told, when one considers the why, what argument can someone make that jackson was wrong?
Could thing have been handled better? Sure. Did he have every reason to think his actions were justified? Absolutely.

Sorry, hard for me to see it as anything more than white people coveting indian land. We have a long history of that sort of thing. Can't buy the England and France thing either. At the time that the indians were moved west of the Mississippi, France had no North American possession so I can't see that they would have been interested. The Brits had Canada, but that's a long way from the Southeastern US from which the tribes were removed.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cal828

Sorry, hard for me to see it as anything more than white people coveting indian land. We have a long history of that sort of thing. Can't buy the England and France thing either. At the time that the indians were moved west of the Mississippi, France had no North American possession so I can't see that they would have been interested. The Brits had Canada, but that's a long way from the Southeastern US from which the tribes were removed.

it is more than wanting the land. every conflict, the brits (and the french in the french and indian war) had stoked up the indians to cause trouble. spain did so as well, since they still held florida also, when you look at the history of texas, the brits were very much interested in gaining that area. their involvement is a key reason why the u.s. decided to annex texas as a state. also, the brits still held land other than canada. it wasn't til james polk that the english accepted the boundary of the oregon territory.
and france became very involved in mexico. santa anna didn't lose his leg fighting americans, it was the french.
jackson didn't hate the indians, many had been his allies when he was fighting the indian tribes in the years before the battle of new orleans. the whites had a lot of land compared to population. he just felt they would be used, again, as they had been used so often before. that our enemies would use them to cause us issues.

[cal828]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it is more than wanting the land. every conflict, the brits (and the french in the french and indian war) had stoked up the indians to cause trouble. spain did so as well, since they still held florida also, when you look at the history of texas, the brits were very much interested in gaining that area. their involvement is a key reason why the u.s. decided to annex texas as a state. also, the brits still held land other than canada. it wasn't til james polk that the english accepted the boundary of the oregon territory.
and france became very involved in mexico. santa anna didn't lose his leg fighting americans, it was the french.
jackson didn't hate the indians, many had been his allies when he was fighting the indian tribes in the years before the battle of new orleans. the whites had a lot of land compared to population. he just felt they would be used, again, as they had been used so often before. that our enemies would use them to cause us issues.

Wow, nobody's said anything for two days. We must have put them all to sleep with our discussion about Andy Jackson. Too bad. I lilke historical discussions.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cal828

Wow, nobody's said anything for two days. We must have put them all to sleep with our discussion about Andy Jackson. Too bad. I lilke historical discussions.

I love them too. Just finished a thorough biography of sam houston, and am now reading a new book on john quincy adams.

Have two books by h w brands up next (i tend to buy up books by authors i like), one is a new bio of grant, the other on teddy roosevelt. I read his books on jackson and on the early days of texas. Highly recommend them.

[cal828]

Originally Posted by Danzig

I love them too. Just finished a thorough biography of sam houston, and am now reading a new book on john quincy adams.

Have two books by h w brands up next (i tend to buy up books by authors i like), one is a new bio of grant, the other on teddy roosevelt. I read his books on jackson and on the early days of texas. Highly recommend them.

I knew you must have gotten that warped stuff on Jackson somewhere. Must admit don't read much stuff like that. Reading A Game of Thrones Now. Mostly cause my son gave it to me. He likes things like The Lord of the Rings types of books. Finished The Hunger Games not too long ago. Would love to see the movie The Life of Pi cause I read that book. Not sure that my reading tastes are much like anyone elses. I often go to library and just pick up 2 or 3 books I've never heard of and go over and read a few pages of them and if I like them, take them home. Read a bunch of books like that I really liked by Irish authors. One entitled Ireland and another entitled Galway Bay. Both really good and lots of Irish history in them.