Trump and his love for Andrew Jackson

[zoogs]

We should absolutely be very critical of what the United States did in response to 9/11.

 

I may be mistaken but we are principally talking about Jackson as president, not as military officer. Right?

 

Though if we do talk about the latter, we also must confront our somewhat unfortunate history of colonizing this land and then waging war upon its inhabitants in pursuit of manifest destiny. At the least there's a sever limit to how much all that can be extolled as virtuous. Obviously, in context, war and conquest and eradicating other cultures is something people did back in the day. The Romans conquered Gaul and all that.

[ZRod]

 

In the fall of 1813, Indian hostilities finally brought an end to Jackson's inactivity. At Fort Mims in Mississippi Territory (now southern Alabama), warlike Creeks known as "Red Sticks" had overwhelmed and slaughtered more than four hundred whites. Jackson led a force of Tennesseans and allied Indians deep into the Creek homeland, where he fought a series of engagements. At the culminating battle of Horseshoe Bend in March 1814, Jackson annihilated the main Creek force. LINK

Does it make any difference that the 400+ people slaughtered at Fort Mims north of Mobile, Alabama included quite a few women and children who had taken refuge in the fort to avoid being slaughtered on their nearby farms? When the Tennessee legislature voted to send Colonel Andrew Jackson's troops after the Creek Indians who attacked Fort Mims, should he have disobeyed or resigned?

 

How many of you in this thread remember the feeling of America after 911? In response to 911, America started two wars and toppled the governments of two countries, killing over 200,000 civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan in the process. 200,000! Should we start a thread vilifying George W. Bush for his role in all those deaths?

 

Also consider that Jackson was following orders as a colonel in the Tennessee militia. Bush was the U.S. President and commander and chief of the U.S. military.

Why would those indians do that? Was their land taken? Their fellow people killed? Perhaps they were provoked first...

 

Why are the white European-Americans so much more right than the people who's land they invaded?

[NUance]

 

 

In the fall of 1813, Indian hostilities finally brought an end to Jackson's inactivity. At Fort Mims in Mississippi Territory (now southern Alabama), warlike Creeks known as "Red Sticks" had overwhelmed and slaughtered more than four hundred whites. Jackson led a force of Tennesseans and allied Indians deep into the Creek homeland, where he fought a series of engagements. At the culminating battle of Horseshoe Bend in March 1814, Jackson annihilated the main Creek force. LINK

Does it make any difference that the 400+ people slaughtered at Fort Mims north of Mobile, Alabama included quite a few women and children who had taken refuge in the fort to avoid being slaughtered on their nearby farms? When the Tennessee legislature voted to send Colonel Andrew Jackson's troops after the Creek Indians who attacked Fort Mims, should he have disobeyed or resigned?

 

How many of you in this thread remember the feeling of America after 911? In response to 911, America started two wars and toppled the governments of two countries, killing over 200,000 civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan in the process. 200,000! Should we start a thread vilifying George W. Bush for his role in all those deaths?

 

Also consider that Jackson was following orders as a colonel in the Tennessee militia. Bush was the U.S. President and commander and chief of the U.S. military.

Why would those indians do that? Was their land taken? Their fellow people killed? Perhaps they were provoked first...

 

Why are the white European-Americans so much more right than the people who's land they invaded?

 

 

Let's see if I understand your logic. Some white settlers stole the Indians' land, so the Indians were justified in massacring over 400 white people. But Andrew Jackson, as a military officer, followed orders to wage war on the Indians who wiped out 400 people so Andrew Jackson is an evil racist. Got it.

[ZRod]

 

 

 

In the fall of 1813, Indian hostilities finally brought an end to Jackson's inactivity. At Fort Mims in Mississippi Territory (now southern Alabama), warlike Creeks known as "Red Sticks" had overwhelmed and slaughtered more than four hundred whites. Jackson led a force of Tennesseans and allied Indians deep into the Creek homeland, where he fought a series of engagements. At the culminating battle of Horseshoe Bend in March 1814, Jackson annihilated the main Creek force. LINK

 

Does it make any difference that the 400+ people slaughtered at Fort Mims north of Mobile, Alabama included quite a few women and children who had taken refuge in the fort to avoid being slaughtered on their nearby farms? When the Tennessee legislature voted to send Colonel Andrew Jackson's troops after the Creek Indians who attacked Fort Mims, should he have disobeyed or resigned?

 

How many of you in this thread remember the feeling of America after 911? In response to 911, America started two wars and toppled the governments of two countries, killing over 200,000 civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan in the process. 200,000! Should we start a thread vilifying George W. Bush for his role in all those deaths?

 

Also consider that Jackson was following orders as a colonel in the Tennessee militia. Bush was the U.S. President and commander and chief of the U.S. military.

Why would those indians do that? Was their land taken? Their fellow people killed? Perhaps they were provoked first...

Why are the white European-Americans so much more right than the people who's land they invaded?

Let's see if I understand your logic. Some white settlers stole the Indians' land, so the Indians were justified in massacring over 400 white people. But Andrew Jackson, as a military officer, followed orders to wage war on the Indians who wiped out 400 people so Andrew Jackson is an evil racist. Got it.

Nope. You're looking at it from a micro level. Reading up on these Red Sticks it appears that the Euro-Americans actually attacked them first. The Sticks won the skirmish and retaliated by attacking the fort, which was also full of intermarried people and slaves. The Creek in the fort were likely viewed as traitors for giving in to the settlers and abandoning their culture.

 

This is all during a time when their land and life was being stolen from them.

[NUance]

 

 

 

 

In the fall of 1813, Indian hostilities finally brought an end to Jackson's inactivity. At Fort Mims in Mississippi Territory (now southern Alabama), warlike Creeks known as "Red Sticks" had overwhelmed and slaughtered more than four hundred whites. Jackson led a force of Tennesseans and allied Indians deep into the Creek homeland, where he fought a series of engagements. At the culminating battle of Horseshoe Bend in March 1814, Jackson annihilated the main Creek force. LINK

Does it make any difference that the 400+ people slaughtered at Fort Mims north of Mobile, Alabama included quite a few women and children who had taken refuge in the fort to avoid being slaughtered on their nearby farms? When the Tennessee legislature voted to send Colonel Andrew Jackson's troops after the Creek Indians who attacked Fort Mims, should he have disobeyed or resigned?

 

How many of you in this thread remember the feeling of America after 911? In response to 911, America started two wars and toppled the governments of two countries, killing over 200,000 civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan in the process. 200,000! Should we start a thread vilifying George W. Bush for his role in all those deaths?

 

Also consider that Jackson was following orders as a colonel in the Tennessee militia. Bush was the U.S. President and commander and chief of the U.S. military.

Why would those indians do that? Was their land taken? Their fellow people killed? Perhaps they were provoked first...

Why are the white European-Americans so much more right than the people who's land they invaded?

Let's see if I understand your logic. Some white settlers stole the Indians' land, so the Indians were justified in massacring over 400 white people. But Andrew Jackson, as a military officer, followed orders to wage war on the Indians who wiped out 400 people so Andrew Jackson is an evil racist. Got it.

Nope. You're looking at it from a micro level. Reading up on these Red Sticks it appears that the Euro-Americans actually attacked them first. The Sticks won the skirmish and retaliated by attacking the fort, which was also full of intermarried people and slaves. The Creek in the fort were likely viewed as traitors for giving in to the settlers and abandoning their culture.

 

This is all during a time when their land and life was being stolen from them.

 

 

I'm sure if you talked to some Saudi Arabians they would provide justification and excuses for the 911 attacks too. So I guess George Bush really is evil then. Especially when you consider we killed 200,000 civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan when none of the hijackers were even from those countries.

 

I wonder of the Indian tribes of 200 years ago felt a similar self loathing because of the other, earlier Indians who they wiped out from 400 years ago? But for some reason that topic never seems to come up.

[Landlord]

I wonder of the Indian tribes of 200 years ago felt a similar self loathing because of the other, earlier Indians who they wiped out from 400 years ago? But for some reason that topic never seems to come up.

 

 

1. Does it really never come up? Did you not just bring it up? Where'd you hear that from, if it never comes up?

 

2. There were a lot of Native American tribes. Some more violent than others. Didn't seem to matter that the peaceful, noble tribes such as the Wampanoag and the Arawak, greeted early European settlers without arms and with a willingness to trade and to teach - white people slaughtered them regardless.

 

3. "They...brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks' bells. They willingly traded everything they owned.... They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance…. With 50 men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want." - Christopher Columbus

 

4. How do you feel about black on black crime?

[ZRod]

 

 

 

 

 

In the fall of 1813, Indian hostilities finally brought an end to Jackson's inactivity. At Fort Mims in Mississippi Territory (now southern Alabama), warlike Creeks known as "Red Sticks" had overwhelmed and slaughtered more than four hundred whites. Jackson led a force of Tennesseans and allied Indians deep into the Creek homeland, where he fought a series of engagements. At the culminating battle of Horseshoe Bend in March 1814, Jackson annihilated the main Creek force. LINK

 

Does it make any difference that the 400+ people slaughtered at Fort Mims north of Mobile, Alabama included quite a few women and children who had taken refuge in the fort to avoid being slaughtered on their nearby farms? When the Tennessee legislature voted to send Colonel Andrew Jackson's troops after the Creek Indians who attacked Fort Mims, should he have disobeyed or resigned?

 

How many of you in this thread remember the feeling of America after 911? In response to 911, America started two wars and toppled the governments of two countries, killing over 200,000 civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan in the process. 200,000! Should we start a thread vilifying George W. Bush for his role in all those deaths?

 

Also consider that Jackson was following orders as a colonel in the Tennessee militia. Bush was the U.S. President and commander and chief of the U.S. military.

Why would those indians do that? Was their land taken? Their fellow people killed? Perhaps they were provoked first...

Why are the white European-Americans so much more right than the people who's land they invaded?

Let's see if I understand your logic. Some white settlers stole the Indians' land, so the Indians were justified in massacring over 400 white people. But Andrew Jackson, as a military officer, followed orders to wage war on the Indians who wiped out 400 people so Andrew Jackson is an evil racist. Got it.

Nope. You're looking at it from a micro level. Reading up on these Red Sticks it appears that the Euro-Americans actually attacked them first. The Sticks won the skirmish and retaliated by attacking the fort, which was also full of intermarried people and slaves. The Creek in the fort were likely viewed as traitors for giving in to the settlers and abandoning their culture.

This is all during a time when their land and life was being stolen from them.

I'm sure if you talked to some Saudi Arabians they would provide justification and excuses for the 911 attacks too. So I guess George Bush really is evil then. Especially when you consider we killed 200,000 civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan when none of the hijackers were even from those countries.

 

I wonder of the Indian tribes of 200 years ago felt a similar self loathing because of the other, earlier Indians who they wiped out from 400 years ago? But for some reason that topic never seems to come up.

I'm really confused by what you're trying to get at here? Bin Laden's biggest grip was that the US was using Saudi Arbia as a base to launch attacks against muslim nations, and remaining their after the wars. We attacked Afghanistan for harboring and supporting Al qaeda/OBL, pretty justified. Iraq has no real justification, I think we can all agree on that. Bush is very much in the wrong about Iraq. We shouldn't be buddy buddy with the Saudies for a number of reason, including 9/11.

 

I don't understand your self loathing comment. I'm simply pointing out that history is far from the rose colored "America good and best" that we are taught in grade school. It's not like they just went and sacked a fort for the fun of it. It was provoked.

[NUance]

I don't understand your self loathing comment. I'm simply pointing out that history is far from the rose colored "America good and best" that we are taught in grade school.

 

I've never been one to buy into the rose colored view of American history. But that holds just as true for America today as it did for America 200 years ago. As for self loathing, it seems in vogue today for people to castigate figures in American history like Andrew Jackson. I think people do this to make themselves feel superior. When actually some of the things that are being done today are pretty shameful in themselves.

 

 

It's not like they just went and sacked a fort for the fun of it. It was provoked.

 

You realize that Fort Mims was in U.S. territory, right?

 

As for being provoked, I get the impression that the whole controversy started as a result of settlers setting up homesteads out in what appeared to them to be unoccupied land. When they did this they were encroaching on the hunting grounds of native Americans of that area. I imagine there were some violent encounters over this. People on both sides got killed, both Indians and settlers. It was probably the settlers fault for moving there in the first place. But what was the government supposed to do, just allow the families of settlers to get butchered? And what was the government supposed to do when the Indians wiped out a fort and massacred 400 people on U.S. soil?

[Landlord]

You realize that Fort Mims was in U.S. territory, right?

 

 

You realize that it was native land first, right?

[NUance]

 

I wonder of the Indian tribes of 200 years ago felt a similar self loathing because of the other, earlier Indians who they wiped out from 400 years ago? But for some reason that topic never seems to come up.

 

1. Does it really never come up? Did you not just bring it up? Where'd you hear that from, if it never comes up?

 

 

I dunno. Point to where someone brought it up in this thread? Has it ever even been mentioned on this board?

 

 

 

2. There were a lot of Native American tribes. Some more violent than others. Didn't seem to matter that the peaceful, noble tribes such as the Wampanoag and the Arawak, greeted early European settlers without arms and with a willingness to trade and to teach - white people slaughtered them regardless.

Yes, that was very nice of them.

 

 

 

3. "They...brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks' bells. They willingly traded everything they owned.... They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance…. With 50 men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want." - Christopher Columbus

 

Thank you for cutting-and-pasting that sentence off of this website. LINK I will sleep better tonight knowing that Christopher Columbus had an ample supply of parrots and cotton balls.

 

 

4. How do you feel about black on black crime?

I feel the same as how I feel about black on white crime, white on black crime, white on white crime, yellow on black crime, white on yellow crime, or any other permutation of interracial crime that I can think of.

 

================================================================

 

One thing I notice about your posts, Landlord, is that you are a lot better at asking questions than answering them. Why do you ask so many questions? Is that how you carry on conversations in real life?

[NUance]

 

You realize that Fort Mims was in U.S. territory, right?

 

 

You realize that it was native land first, right?

 

 

Are you talking about the Native Americans who occupied it immediately before us, or the Native Americans they killed who occupied it before them?

[knapplc]

What about our history with the Wamapoke? I see nobody's brave enough to tackle those atrocities.

[Landlord]

One thing I notice about your posts, Landlord, is that you are a lot better at asking questions than answering them. Why do you ask so many questions? Is that how you carry on conversations in real life?

 

Wouldn't you want to raise your kids to be inquisitive instead of being know-it-alls? Asking a lot of questions turns into learning a lot. Answering all of the questions turns into being an ignorant blowhard. I am still an ignorant blowhard, but thanks for the compliment nonetheless.

 

 

 

 

Are you talking about the Native Americans who occupied it immediately before us, or the Native Americans they killed who occupied it before them?

 

I'm not sure that really matters when talking about how it was only U.S. land by stealing it.

[StPaulHusker]

Still waiting for Walksalone to make a comment about crazy white people.

[ZRod]

It's not in vogue, it's acknowledging reality. There are a lot of shameful events in American history that we like to gloss over. I don't know where you get the idea that people don't think things we do today aren't shameful. Some hot topics include; LGBT rights, Civil rights, Drone warfare and Obama, NSA data collection, CIA torture techniques, Abortion, The war in Iraq, Syria, African genocides, continued treatment of Native Americans, fast and furious.... and on and on.

 

No one is claiming a moral high grounds in regards to modern times. We're calling a spade a spade, and saying some men we hail as great men from hundreds of years ago, had some pretty dark actions in their past. We can also acknowledge that we continue to do some pretty messed up things and discuss each separately.

 

 

The fort may have been in US territory, but how did US territory get there? I bet it wasn't a happy gifting by the Indians. Again it's a macro level view. I'm not justifying burning a fort with women and children in it, but it's never just an out of the blue event. Piece by piece of land and cluture were stolen. Their livelihood taken from them...