Old Hickory

Sometime after the first bra was burned but before M.C. Hammer, Americans became familiar with the phrase "politically correct." Aaah the baby boomers. It occurs to me their entire generation (save the Vietnam Vets & Civil Rights) is one big Woody Allen self conscious monologue. Birthed in the shadow of the Greatest Generation it was almost as if they were born to not measure up. And like the children of many successful parents they sought to impress those who gave them life. But how do you top saving the world? ... by changing it. Or at least redefining it. Universities whom once fostered captains of industry and presidents of America were suddenly offering courses in Lesbian Orgasm Rituals (gives a whole new meaning to phrase "lab partner", ay?). Bananas were under sexual assault by misguided Jr. High counselors with more prophylactics then college credits. The word "American" was hyphenated by creed, color and even gender to the point where hearing an activist describe his or her self sounded like one was reading from a wedding invitation to an all Cuban wedding ... "the parents of Martina Raoul Fernando El Cortez are pleased to announce ..." Castro humanized, communes legitimized, and the founders ... demonized.

I'm not sure when I first heard the Founders described as "white, slave owning ethnocentrists", but it was well before I knew the definition of "ethnocentrism", I assure you. This is perhaps a useful philosophical exercise, but its like plutonium ... you must handle it with care, for if one pulls too hard on the thread of pride woven into our history, the entire tapestry could be undone.

Technically, its an accurate description. The Founders were white. They owned slaves. They did think, as I do, that the culture of liberty which they helped create and preserve, which spurned our Constitution and released Man's potential in way never before seen, was superior. Superior to what they had known under the monarchs of Europe, and as it turns out superior to any form of government formed since 1776. And before anyone feels the need to jump to the comment section with the idea that I think Andrew Jackson was a founding Father, please park yourself. I'm well aware he wasn't ... but neither was my grandfather.

My grandfather served in the Pacific during WWII, a Navy man. I never heard him use the dreaded racial "N" word, never. But I am aware that he served in segregated quarters, and thought that the norm. Is he a racist? Should I not teach my sons of his accomplishments nor hang his picture on the wall in no less than two spaces?

I have read mission documents of another grandfather. Things that would make James Bond's tea stained teeth chatter. As a member of the OSS he actually did things that most people only come in contact with today if they are avid video gamers. Undoubtedly he served in a segregated unit. In fact as a member of the OSS, I know he did. He probably thought that only right and normal. Is he any less a war hero?

I say this not to pick a fight. An honest question was asked and I am giving my honest response. But this is a game played in the modern era that has no definite end, and it can become maddening for sometimes great men of our history, like Jackson, do bad things and to acknowledge that without tearing down the legend can be a tricky thing.

I work at an establishment named for a brutal, anti-democratic, war mongering imperialist (and that's when the phrase really meant something). Does this mean to revel in the history of the period through commercial sales & gaming that I am advocating such a form of government or the man's actions? PC games are played in the Empire's honor, with glee. Is this "wrong?" In Las Vegas one can dine on a prized steak, succulent lobster, and wine whose price requires a second mortgage - "Neros." A restaurant named for a man whom gutted his pregnant wife ... that inscription doesn't appear on the cutlery, I assure you.

Now I am doing my best not to fall into the trap of "the victors write the history", I really am. But the point is that plucking a revered figure from history and putting him on trial by modern rules of evidence is a fool's errand. Are diseased blankets given to Indians a travesty? Without question. Is centuries of slavery a blight we can never remove? Of course. Were Andrew Jackson's actions towards Indians less than honorable, and in some cases a flat out atrocity? To be sure. But did you know he also adopted an Indian orphan boy? He did. Raised him as his own, the child never wanted for anything. The phrase "Jacksonian Democracy", born of the man and his governance, gave a distinctive definition to classical and Renaissance notions of republicanism which were struggling to be maintained in the first "post founders" era. In the election of 1824 he set the standard reaction for all future presidential candidates whom felt "cheated" out of the big seat. He didn't raise an army and march on the capitol. He raised political capital and in 4 years was voted commander-in-chief of the army. And in 1828 the national ideological debate between he and John Quincy Adams of a limited versus pro active government set the tone for discussions still being had today.

The point is human beings are complicated, and our revered figures are no exception. I am all for academic freedom and the exploration of travesties committed by our historical figures, in an AP class at university, and on sites like this one. But to "commonize" it. To make it part of our national identity, taught to school children, to make the phrase "war criminal" common place isn't just tearing down a man or tarnishing a single reputation, it's attacking an ideal that is America. For us to allow our historical figures to be judged by standards unfathomable to the accused and their time period is to do a disservice to all the good our nation has fostered in her short history.

To those whom would disagree I say add your dark footnotes and caveats regarding our fabled American figures at the bottom of the page if you must, but that is where they must stay. Leave in bold, large type the glory, the sacrifice, the contributions to the human condition these men have made. Their flaws are worth noting, but not at the expense their accomplishments, nor their place in history.