Trump and his love for Andrew Jackson

[zoogs]

We don't castigate Andrew Jackson to feel superior. We do so where he merits it. It's particularly relevant in our discussion of how much to revere certain troubling aspects of our history and what it means for our president to be extolling him unreservedly. It's a very Trumpian and likewise troubling moral statement, in line with many others from this administration.

 

Another example, when Hamilton came out his legacy as well as Burr's was the subject of quite a bit of national discussion. Particularly whether and how the play is wrong to glorify its namesake at Burr's expense.

 

Do we come to Jackson's defense chiefly because we like that he waged successful war on the natives? Or his Trail of Tears legacy? Surely not, right.

[NUance]

Did we take land from the Native Americans here in North America before us? Yes, we did. And every single nation on earth today was formed at the expense of the nation that occupied that land previously. Sometimes it was a peaceful transition. Oftentimes it was not. That's how nations are formed.

 

What gets me is that some people act like they wish America had never been founded. Many of us on this board will (or do) own homes that are on little plots of land formerly occupied by Native Americans. But if we knew who the current day decedents of those Native Americans are, how many of us would be willing to turn over the deed to our wrongfully acquired home to them? Of course this is not reasonable. So let's face it: America is a great country, but it was founded like any other country. Our ancestors took it from the people who occupied it before them. Just like they—the Native Americans—took it from some earlier tribe of Native Americans.

 

As for Donald Trump's love for Andrew Jackson, it sort of ticks me off. But not because I think Andrew Jackson is a bad person. It ticks me off because I think Donald Trump is an wealthy egotistical buffoon. And Trump's favorable comments about Andrew Jackson incite all the Interwebz liberals to start bashing Andrew Jackson.

 

Andrew Jackson's leadership at the Battle of New Orleans saved America. Our nation would not exist if it wasn't for Jackson. So say what you will about him, but I consider him one of America's greatest heroes. (And now I have some work to attend to, so: Carry on.)

[zoogs]

I don't think it's that we wish America had never been formed. It's that we need to think about which aspects of our founding history we continue to glorify and which we subject to criticism. Self-criticism is a difficult thing, but as Americans we should pride ourselves on our ability to do this openly. China is just barely getting around to maybe not worshipping Chairman Mao all the time -- though surely without him and his incredible military leadership, the Nationalists win and the PRC does not exist today. It's all complicated.

 

Andrew Jackson deserves some bashing. No? I think this should be relatively uncontroversial. You mention the Battle of New Orleans but again have not even broached the topic of Trail of Tears. I think this is the point: it's harmful to put blinders on when it comes to the figures in our history who otherwise have splendid, heroic military accomplishments to their name. Jackson very much owns this brutal part of our history. One would hope that a modern-day consideration of this is not confined to "the internet", nor to "the liberals".

 

It should be no harder to temper admiration for heroes than it is to say, for example, "I like the Bush tax cuts but his Iraq legacy is very problematic" or "Obama was a hero for many people in this country but his drone program was unconscionable." Plus many other examples of varying degrees of complicated.

[Landlord]

There's a pretty enormous difference between wishing something hadn't happened, and recognizing that it shouldn't have in the way it did.

 

 

 

Anyways, it's too bad that you don't see a murdering war criminal who owned upwards of 300 slaves and, with personal vigor, enacted the legislation that would lead to the eviction and death of tens of thousands of native americans as a bad person.

[TITANIC VS LUSITANIA]

I am sure some of you would hearken back to the atrocities of the Greeks and Romans if you could, in order to push your modern day political program.

 

"...but they built aqueducts that brought water to the city...."

 

"Yes. But they had slaves...so shut up!"

[StPaulHusker]

I am sure some of you would hearken back to the atrocities of the Greeks and Romans if you could, in order to push your modern day political program.

 

"...but they built aqueducts that brought water to the city...."

 

"Yes. But they had slaves...so shut up!"

So much wrong with this post I don't know where to begin

[zoogs]

I mean, if POTUS were laying wreaths at the tomb of Julius Caesar or Augustus, I'd find that puzzling, too. It'd be pretty troubling symbolism, really.

[TITANIC VS LUSITANIA]

I guess my point is this:

 

You have to differentiate ideas from character.

 

Some ideas endure and are commendable, even from bad people/societies/etc

 

But there is a trend now to diminish the value of the good by poking at the bad. And making the one mentioning the good idea guilty by association.

[TITANIC VS LUSITANIA]

I guess, why am I surprised, really, I mean that is how politics works, no?

[zoogs]

Yeah, I guess Andrew Jackson is a little guilty by association of the Indian Removal Act of 1830 through the tangential fact that he advocated for it, signed the bill, and pushed its enforcement through. Would that be one of these "commendable" ideas?

 

Or his energetic efforts to preserve and expand slavery in an era where American abolitionists were a rising political force, one which he staunchly resisted?

 

Let's examine his record in New Orleans, too. Or better to just stop poking and remember the good times?

[StPaulHusker]

And the Battle of New Orleans turned out to be kind of pointless since the Treaty of Ghent was signed a couple weeks prior to the battle starting. The word just hadn't trickled down that far yet.

 

So, yay for hero Andrew Jackson for saving the US after the war of 1812 was technically ended.

[TITANIC VS LUSITANIA]

I like some of AJs efforts to get rid of Central Bank

[zoogs]

Good. I'm glad you didn't choose defending the Trail of Tears as your mountain to die on.

 

I don't know much about all of this yet, actually. From what I understand, some people really like it and some people really don't. Ofc, we have the Fed today.

[TITANIC VS LUSITANIA]

Yeah, for the record, the trail of tears was really awful, I agree.

[Enhance]

It's completely acceptable to appreciate certain efforts of a historical figure. Similarly, it's completely appropriate to criticize them for their failures.

 

Celebrating or excoriating (or as zoogs put it so well 'extolling him unreservedly') is more of the issue, in my opinion.