EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3653
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14058 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23515 Posts
On April 22 2016 03:02 Sermokala wrote: No one is saying that it was on the natives to cooperate with the white people we're saying it was impossible for them to cooperate with each other. They had fundamental civilization level differences that couldn't be solved. No one is saying that it isn't anything but the white mans fault. No one is trying to justify the great native american genocide. What we're saying is that if they didn't relocate the native american tribes the only other alternative would be for them to die out completely like so many other native american tribes. Or, you know, they could have fixed their own country instead of plundering this one. Then it wouldn't matter if they had different cultures. I'm saying the notion it "was the only option" neglects to account for the fact that they had to eliminate a whole lot of other options first, and they did that themselves. To carry the example, you're basically saying that, "but they had no choice but to shoot him" and I'm saying "they should not have been in his house or raping his wife". That they couldn't rape this country without interruption from it's native inhabitants, in no way explains away any of the wrongness of what was happening. America was a terrible place for non-white people and white people just have to own that, not try to paint gallant images on top of the savagery. While we're at it, slavery wasn't as popular during his time as we like to impose on our memory. People were well aware that slavery was cruel and it had been banned in plenty of places in recognition of that fact. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14058 Posts
there were options and a choice was made. Also Slavery isn't that bad of a thing acording to you? Good to note for the future. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23515 Posts
On April 22 2016 03:39 Sermokala wrote: Fixed they own country instead of plundering this one? What are you talking about? You can't say that the euros created the civilization that the natives lived in. The white man isn't some all powerful demigod that creates the world as he sees it. The people were incompatible with each other. Its just like in the middle east today with all the tribes making nation building a moot point when everyone's attention is to their tribe first. No one is painting gallent images on the past they're just saying if jackson didn't relocated the tribes like he did the only other option would be to wipe them out completly. there were options and a choice was made. Also Slavery isn't that bad of a thing acording to you? Good to note for the future. Their own country = the ones they or their families had recently immigrated from. They were guests, so it was on them to adapt. The idea it was impossible is also absurd, as the French lived pretty fine alongside the native population. That the American people were too big of jerks to live with natives, is no excuse to then expel the natives from their land. I don't know how many other ways it needs to be said. There are some parallels to the Middle East, but not the one's you're drawing. I don't think you understand what I was saying about slavery. I'm saying Jackson being a slave owner isn't just a footnote. Particularly, when viewed through the context of his zeal and how Jackson stood to benefit personally from his terror. It's a long and sordid tale, and you can find your own resources, but I suggest you look outside of the quixotic fairy tales we're typically subject to in the US. This Vox piece is a little over the top, but they sum it up pretty well. But Jackson is even worse than his horrifyingly brutal record with regard to Native Americans indicates. Indian removal was not just a crime against humanity, it was a crime against humanity intended to abet another crime against humanity: By clearing the Cherokee from the American South, Jackson hoped to open up more land for cultivation by slave plantations. He owned hundreds of slaves, and in 1835 worked with his postmaster general to censor anti-slavery mailings from northern abolitionists. The historian Daniel Walker Howe writes that Jackson, "expressed his loathing for the abolitionists vehemently, both in public and in private." Link On April 22 2016 03:58 Mohdoo wrote: Ah yes, the ole demonizing of winning conflicts. Civilizations should just idly stand by as weak, conquerable lands are used by inferior civilizations. The strong societies should sit around and wait for a different strong society to seize the opportunity for growth. That way, we are being considerate of the shitty, undeveloped societies' right to be shitty and weak. Did zeo hack your account? | ||
|
DickMcFanny
Ireland1076 Posts
On April 22 2016 03:58 Mohdoo wrote: Civilizations should just idly stand by as weak, conquerable lands are used by inferior civilizations. Yeah, the "inferior" civilizations... | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On April 22 2016 02:41 GreenHorizons wrote: It wasn't on the natives to cooperate (they were here first), it also wasn't them that started conflict between the two groups. Just because Europeans (most specifically British) didn't want to fix their own countries and instead preferred to pilfer this land, and that natives didn't appreciate it, doesn't give any justification whatsoever to their actions. If we're being honest, Europeans had no right to be there in the first place, so all they did is slaughter the people who did and call it god's will (sound familiar?). Saying "well they had to" is like breaking into someone's house and saying you had no choice but to shoot the man because he was going to kill you for raping his wife. Plus it ignores that there were people that were living with the native population just fine. Nation building and politics back in those days was not the same as it is today. No "people" or "group" was entitled to an ownership of a land they could not hold. The same issues were happening in the EU at the time, so its not like it was something they only did *to others* when it was happening just as much *to them* within their own historical memory. Not that I don't think the trail of tears was bad--it was. But its possible that things we see as bad now was not understood as bad back then without it having to necessarily mean "because they were racist." | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23515 Posts
On April 22 2016 04:17 Naracs_Duc wrote: Nation building and politics back in those days was not the same as it is today. No "people" or "group" was entitled to an ownership of a land they could not hold. The same issues were happening in the EU at the time, so its not like it was something they only did *to others* when it was happening just as much *to them* within their own historical memory. Not that I don't think the trail of tears was bad--it was. But its possible that things we see as bad now was not understood as bad back then without it having to necessarily mean "because they were racist." That's what I'm saying, the idea that it wasn't known as being bad, simply isn't true. Perhaps to them (even that's a stretch as there was a abolitionist movement here as well), but at the time, if a Black person escaped to England, they would instantly have more rights than they did in the US. Of any country, they were intimately familiar with England's positions on the issues, so the argument that " that things we see as bad now was not understood as bad back then without it having to necessarily mean "because they were racist."" Just doesn't hold water under any examination. Not to mention, as you can see in the Vox article and many other places, it's not as if he was considerate at all of the native population. He went out of his way to dehumanize both black and native people and scoffed at the notion of even negotiating with them. It wasn't some "well, it was a different time" situation at all really. | ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
Why did they get conquered? | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14058 Posts
You mean to say that they should have stayed in their countries so the religious violence could continue for generations and generations? So jackson removed the Indians from their lands sole to personally benefit by opening up more land for others to open up slave plantations? Thats a pretty hard stretch for a guy who had many other reasons to dislike the tribes even before he wanted to open up the rocky mountains and the Florida marshes to slave plantations. How you think that England wasn't happy with southern slavery blows my mind. England had no need for slavery when they had other countries to grow their cotton for them. They certainly wouldn't trade war goods to them decades later if they had any real problem with southern slavery. And Jackson did negotiate with native american tribes. Heck even the Indian removal acts were congress's approval of his negotiations with the sovereign nations of the tribes that would go on the trail of tears. There is plenty to hate about the guy before making stuff up GH. And it was a different time you know with it being a different time. People may have wanted to free the salves but you don't see anyone arguing for their right to vote at the time in England either. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23515 Posts
On April 22 2016 04:48 Sermokala wrote: they were guests? How were they guests any more then the native americans were guests from emigrating from siberia or wherever they came from all that long ago? You mean to say that they should have stayed in their countries so the religious violence could continue for generations and generations? So jackson removed the Indians from their lands sole to personally benefit by opening up more land for others to open up slave plantations? Thats a pretty hard stretch for a guy who had many other reasons to dislike the tribes even before he wanted to open up the rocky mountains and the Florida marshes to slave plantations. How you think that England wasn't happy with southern slavery blows my mind. England had no need for slavery when they had other countries to grow their cotton for them. They certainly wouldn't trade war goods to them decades later if they had any real problem with southern slavery. And Jackson did negotiate with native american tribes. Heck even the Indian removal acts were congress's approval of his negotiations with the sovereign nations of the tribes that would go on the trail of tears. There is plenty to hate about the guy before making stuff up GH. And it was a different time you know with it being a different time. People may have wanted to free the salves but you don't see anyone arguing for their right to vote at the time in England either. We obviously have very different views and I've made my point, I won't belabor it. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
Just wondering. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22007 Posts
On April 22 2016 05:00 m4ini wrote: "In a different time.." - is that exclusively for the US, or can other countries whitewash crimes etc with that excuse too? Just wondering. Call it whatever you want but he is right. Not so long ago if you wanted someones land and you were stronger then him you took it and it happened across the entire world. You don't have to excuse it or condone it but it won't change that it was the 'normal' way. | ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
On April 22 2016 05:06 Gorsameth wrote: Call it whatever you want but he is right. Not so long ago if you wanted someones land and you were stronger then him you took it and it happened across the entire world. You don't have to excuse it or condone it but it won't change that it was the 'normal' way. I am not saying imperialism/aggressive war were positive goods even by the standards of the time, merely legal and customary. Germany in its many historical forms would march into France with muskets every 35 years or so, and France returned the favor pretty regularly. Imperialism was a thing back in the 19th century, and we rightfully shut it down and attempted to lock borders in place in 1945. I am all about condemning aggressive war now, but I don't work myself into a frenzy about aggressive wars before the 20th century. For instance, the USA grabbed all kinds of land in the 19th century. For the most part, Mexico/Spain's imperial claims to the lands were weak and their armies sad. American violence and settlement claimed alta-California and displaced Mexico/Spain's weaker claims. It not like Mexico/Spain had better claims than the USA did when it came to displacing native Americans. Competition for largely empty land was how things were settled back then. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12377 Posts
On April 22 2016 05:06 Gorsameth wrote: Call it whatever you want but he is right. Not so long ago if you wanted someones land and you were stronger then him you took it and it happened across the entire world. You don't have to excuse it or condone it but it won't change that it was the 'normal' way. All of this discussion comes from discussing using his face on a symbol that is used today. Presumably, we should be using today's perceptions to discuss today's symbols, don't you think? | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
On April 22 2016 05:20 Nebuchad wrote: All of this discussion comes from discussing using his face on a symbol that is used today. Presumably, we should be using today's perceptions to discuss today's symbols, don't you think? I maintain my discount for the actions of men in the past who lived in different times. Washington had all kinds of slaves, but Jackson's trail of tears was really bad. The discount is enough to keep slaver-Washington on the bill. But the discount isn't enough to keep Jackson around with his trail of tears. Even with the morality of the times, he should have done something less savage. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On April 22 2016 05:20 Nebuchad wrote: All of this discussion comes from discussing using his face on a symbol that is used today. Presumably, we should be using today's perceptions to discuss today's symbols, don't you think? We wouldn't have any historical figures if we held them to today's moral standards. George Washington owned a whole bunch of slaves so he is obviously unworthy by that metric. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On April 22 2016 02:41 GreenHorizons wrote: It wasn't on the natives to cooperate (they were here first), it also wasn't them that started conflict between the two groups. Just because Europeans (most specifically British) didn't want to fix their own countries and instead preferred to pilfer this land, and that natives didn't appreciate it, doesn't give any justification whatsoever to their actions. If we're being honest, Europeans had no right to be there in the first place, so all they did is slaughter the people who did and call it god's will (sound familiar?). Saying "well they had to" is like breaking into someone's house and saying you had no choice but to shoot the man because he was going to kill you for raping his wife. Plus it ignores that there were people that were living with the native population just fine. I never said that what they did was justified. I merely find it silly that people are so hung up on a single aspect of Jackson's presidency and completely ignoring the other things he did. I also find it strange that you would attribute the entirety of the displacement of Native Americans to a single person, rather than the collective will of many American colonists. If we want to go down the route, then you could argue that the entire American population, from the birth of the USA up until the 1970s are a bunch of racist shits for slavery and then segregation. George Washington, Jefferson, etc. were all slave owners and thus do not deserve to be on American money either, as that would be insulting to any black person in the USA. You can see for yourself how silly that thought-process is; so I would advise not being so simple-minded when discussing these issues. | ||
| ||
