First, it wasn't Jambo that pointed to the "Jacksonian Era" and what it meant. That was my post.
Second, George Washington stands alone, with no equal. On that we agree. And I wouldn't rank any president or historical figure ahead of or on par with the Founders, save Lincoln. That is why I seized upon Jambo's description of a "giant" on the American historical landscape. I think that apt for Jackson while stopping short of ranking him with the Founders & Lincoln. So there we have no quarrel.
I also have heard of this push for Reagan. I don't think it has as much to do with Indians as your post seemed to let on. From the day he left office Reagan fans have been pushing for his face on the currency, and it has had an organized lobby for at least a decade and a half. Grant's tenure was racked with scandal (Tea Pot Dome, etc), and history has widely considered him an ineffectual leader as CIC, unlike the battlefield. I think they picked an easy target in Grant. Were it anything to do with "Indians" or any other singular "stain", Jackson would have been the obvious choice. Within many a tribal community they won't even use the $20 bill. I've not seen nor heard of such a phenomena with the $50. My point here is this is much more about Reagan then it is about who his face replaces.
I don't know what you would define as "addressing" Jackson's stain. In every history book I have, including a very detailed biography of the President's, the Indian Removal Act is included. I'm not sure how we, as a nation, should further "address" this issue. So what exactly would the devil's advocate like to see? How would this be addressed in a satisfactory way? I ask earnestly ...
Thursday, March 4, 2010
The term is "devil's advocate"...
Ryan writes: "I think Jambo described Jackson accurately: "A giant in American history and politics." Only our giants get on the currency."
As I said, I (personally) don't feel that Jackson is on the same level of "greatness" as Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Green, Knox, or many other of our "founders", and there are many other Presidents that I feel did more as CIC than Jackson did... and I'll even include Reagan among them.
(On a side note, there is a bill before Congress now to replace Grant with Reagan as the face that graces the $50 bill... and Grant's record with Indians is part of the reasoning. Seems the GOP Reps and Senators who authored the bill feel that Grant wasn't "great" enough as President, even if he was as a General of the Army)
However, the quote you made of my previous post was simply my way of asking a "devil's advocate" question. Yes, I know there are Indian and indigenous groups that decry any celebration of Columbus... and Columbus did some bad things, I'm sure... but because he brought a contagion with him (smallpox) that eventually resulted in the deaths of millions of natives, I'm not sure you can compare him with Hitler or other criminals. The bringing of smallpox was unintentional... just like the bringing of 8 pigs within the holds of the Santa Maria also resulted in the current plague of wild boar that is breaking out across much of the country. Is Columbus responsible for that crime as well?
You can take such silly assumptions too far no matter what the discussion. When I speak of the "crime" of the Indian Removal Act, I do not speak of it as if it is something that can be corrected. Sometimes things happen that can't be changed... and when innocents die, nothing can bring them back, no matter how much someone wants it to be so. The land won't be returned, the dead won't be brought back, and no more money than has already been awarded will be given to the descendants of those who suffered. I speak of the "crime" as something that has a degree of culpability that hasn't been addressed by American history to date (again, as "devil's advocate") with ay real seriousness.
Jambo pointed out that the Jacksonian Era is the only "period" of American history named after a President, and that era is represented by a concerted effort to keep Federal authority within a limited scope and a focus on the rights and freedoms of the individual citizen as the "true" and ultimate authority in America. Perhaps at no other time, before or since, has the Government maintained such a focus, and that is a worthy characteristic of Jackson's legacy. But did his efforts as President change or develop the nation in some fundamental way that would compare with the Presidencies of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln or Adams? Did he fight to preserve our nation in the same manner as Lincoln, Roosevelt or Truman? (Actually, a good argument can be made that he did, indeed, preserve the Union for another 20 odd years...)
Where I agree that Jackson was "great" is in the fact that he wasn't simply maintaining the status quo. He fought to change what he felt wasn't working, and defended what he felt was vital and necessary. His contributions outside of his time as President are also important, and as a Major General of the Militia, he truly does rank as a giant. His ability to organize, lead and inspire men to achieve great things sets him well apart from most other leaders, both in his day and across the years.
I guess my point is that I feel Carl Sagan was right when he said that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and I feel that Jackson's claim to greatness must include a real and rational defense of his participation and support for something as questionable and controversial as the Indian Removal Act, even when measured by the standards of the 1830's.
Washington was a "great" leader, both before, during and after his Presidency, without having any particularly questionable actions to have to defend because they were outside of the norms dictated by society (then rather than now... something we both agree on I think). He defined the office of President and the Executive Branch, he almost single-handedly led the revolution to victory, and he proved to be a model statesman by remaining completely anti-partisan his entire political and post-political career.
Lincoln did what perhaps no other man (let alone politician) could have done when he managed to preserve the Union though 4 years of the bloodiest warfare that the country had seen, before or since, and provided the groundwork for the reconciliation between the States (I do not blame him for Reconstruction's failings). Add to this the fact that he gave his very life in the effort, and I think you see why I feel Lincoln ranks as #2 on my Great Presidents list.
Neither of these examples has anything remotely close to the "stain" on their reputation that Jackson has, and I feel there are other Presidents and political figures in our history that also did great things in extraordinary times under difficult circumstances that don't have the same "stain" that Jackson has... that is my point in "questioning" the placement of Jackson amongst the greatest of Presidents.
Am I wrong? Am I suddenly a revisionist for saying this? Am I being morally ambiguous? Or am I being too particular in my criteria for greatness?
As I said, I (personally) don't feel that Jackson is on the same level of "greatness" as Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Green, Knox, or many other of our "founders", and there are many other Presidents that I feel did more as CIC than Jackson did... and I'll even include Reagan among them.
(On a side note, there is a bill before Congress now to replace Grant with Reagan as the face that graces the $50 bill... and Grant's record with Indians is part of the reasoning. Seems the GOP Reps and Senators who authored the bill feel that Grant wasn't "great" enough as President, even if he was as a General of the Army)
However, the quote you made of my previous post was simply my way of asking a "devil's advocate" question. Yes, I know there are Indian and indigenous groups that decry any celebration of Columbus... and Columbus did some bad things, I'm sure... but because he brought a contagion with him (smallpox) that eventually resulted in the deaths of millions of natives, I'm not sure you can compare him with Hitler or other criminals. The bringing of smallpox was unintentional... just like the bringing of 8 pigs within the holds of the Santa Maria also resulted in the current plague of wild boar that is breaking out across much of the country. Is Columbus responsible for that crime as well?
You can take such silly assumptions too far no matter what the discussion. When I speak of the "crime" of the Indian Removal Act, I do not speak of it as if it is something that can be corrected. Sometimes things happen that can't be changed... and when innocents die, nothing can bring them back, no matter how much someone wants it to be so. The land won't be returned, the dead won't be brought back, and no more money than has already been awarded will be given to the descendants of those who suffered. I speak of the "crime" as something that has a degree of culpability that hasn't been addressed by American history to date (again, as "devil's advocate") with ay real seriousness.
Jambo pointed out that the Jacksonian Era is the only "period" of American history named after a President, and that era is represented by a concerted effort to keep Federal authority within a limited scope and a focus on the rights and freedoms of the individual citizen as the "true" and ultimate authority in America. Perhaps at no other time, before or since, has the Government maintained such a focus, and that is a worthy characteristic of Jackson's legacy. But did his efforts as President change or develop the nation in some fundamental way that would compare with the Presidencies of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln or Adams? Did he fight to preserve our nation in the same manner as Lincoln, Roosevelt or Truman? (Actually, a good argument can be made that he did, indeed, preserve the Union for another 20 odd years...)
Where I agree that Jackson was "great" is in the fact that he wasn't simply maintaining the status quo. He fought to change what he felt wasn't working, and defended what he felt was vital and necessary. His contributions outside of his time as President are also important, and as a Major General of the Militia, he truly does rank as a giant. His ability to organize, lead and inspire men to achieve great things sets him well apart from most other leaders, both in his day and across the years.
I guess my point is that I feel Carl Sagan was right when he said that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and I feel that Jackson's claim to greatness must include a real and rational defense of his participation and support for something as questionable and controversial as the Indian Removal Act, even when measured by the standards of the 1830's.
Washington was a "great" leader, both before, during and after his Presidency, without having any particularly questionable actions to have to defend because they were outside of the norms dictated by society (then rather than now... something we both agree on I think). He defined the office of President and the Executive Branch, he almost single-handedly led the revolution to victory, and he proved to be a model statesman by remaining completely anti-partisan his entire political and post-political career.
Lincoln did what perhaps no other man (let alone politician) could have done when he managed to preserve the Union though 4 years of the bloodiest warfare that the country had seen, before or since, and provided the groundwork for the reconciliation between the States (I do not blame him for Reconstruction's failings). Add to this the fact that he gave his very life in the effort, and I think you see why I feel Lincoln ranks as #2 on my Great Presidents list.
Neither of these examples has anything remotely close to the "stain" on their reputation that Jackson has, and I feel there are other Presidents and political figures in our history that also did great things in extraordinary times under difficult circumstances that don't have the same "stain" that Jackson has... that is my point in "questioning" the placement of Jackson amongst the greatest of Presidents.
Am I wrong? Am I suddenly a revisionist for saying this? Am I being morally ambiguous? Or am I being too particular in my criteria for greatness?
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Oh put your purse down Nancy ...
I write 2 posts in response. The first you described as "good", the second leaves you wanting to take your ball and go home. Look, when I was writing in the first post, employing phrases like "those who would disagree", etc I assumed you would carry my general "to whom it may concern" direction in my argument into the second post. When I was directing fire at you I clearly stated your name - and the reason I went into 4th gear rant mode about your wanting to take Jackson off the $20 bill was due to the following line of yours:
"If there is no defense [of Jackson], then perhaps we do need to review which five Presidents grave the face of our national currency. After all, we have 43 faces we can choose from, and there are far better candidates than Andrew Jackson, I am sure, among them."
"I am sure" you wrote. "I am sure there are far better candidates." I took that as an avocation of his image removal from our currency. I don't think you're a wacko, liberal, politically correct whatever. I used to (once a mutual feeling regarding myslef & the right, I'm sure), I'll cop to that, but not in quite a while.
By the way ... Bill Clinton on the money? Close as he'll come to that is slipping it into a strippers G string. And the reason is precisely what makes that line funny. I think Jambo described Jackson accurately: "A giant in American history and politics." Only our giants get on the currency.
Now once and for all, my position is that regarding our historical figures, those whom are regarded in good standing (enough to grace our currency anyway), legendary, bigger than life, etc - acknowledging their faults and flaws, as measured by today's standards, is worthy of academic pursuit & philosophical inquiry, on an advanced level. I do not think such points of reasoning (my opinion) should be imparted on school children (teach the Indian Removal Act, I mean this point of debate - the general vs Jackson question); or inscribed on statues; or part of the common conscious regarding the giants of our history (in other words at the name Washington I don't want my son's first, or second, thought to be"slave owner"). Otherwise the proper historical perspective will never be achieved. If you start out pointing at a big, gaping, pulsating zit the young student may find it hard to ever look at the entire face.That's all I'm saying. And any real move to take Jackson, et al, off the currency would surely be a step towards that, and as I stated, a reparation of sorts.
There are Indians that protest the Columbus Day Parade in New York every year. They yell epitaphs, things like "war criminal", and hang an effigy of the explorer. Many Italians take offense to this, as Columbus is an ethnic hero. And whom among us didn't learn the quaint little poem: "In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue." My point is if one wants to discuss the treatment towards Native Americans suffered at the hands of ol' Chrissy C., fine. But it shouldn't be at the expense of the smiling faces in that parade, especially the children ... just my opinion.
"If there is no defense [of Jackson], then perhaps we do need to review which five Presidents grave the face of our national currency. After all, we have 43 faces we can choose from, and there are far better candidates than Andrew Jackson, I am sure, among them."
"I am sure" you wrote. "I am sure there are far better candidates." I took that as an avocation of his image removal from our currency. I don't think you're a wacko, liberal, politically correct whatever. I used to (once a mutual feeling regarding myslef & the right, I'm sure), I'll cop to that, but not in quite a while.
By the way ... Bill Clinton on the money? Close as he'll come to that is slipping it into a strippers G string. And the reason is precisely what makes that line funny. I think Jambo described Jackson accurately: "A giant in American history and politics." Only our giants get on the currency.
Now once and for all, my position is that regarding our historical figures, those whom are regarded in good standing (enough to grace our currency anyway), legendary, bigger than life, etc - acknowledging their faults and flaws, as measured by today's standards, is worthy of academic pursuit & philosophical inquiry, on an advanced level. I do not think such points of reasoning (my opinion) should be imparted on school children (teach the Indian Removal Act, I mean this point of debate - the general vs Jackson question); or inscribed on statues; or part of the common conscious regarding the giants of our history (in other words at the name Washington I don't want my son's first, or second, thought to be"slave owner"). Otherwise the proper historical perspective will never be achieved. If you start out pointing at a big, gaping, pulsating zit the young student may find it hard to ever look at the entire face.That's all I'm saying. And any real move to take Jackson, et al, off the currency would surely be a step towards that, and as I stated, a reparation of sorts.
There are Indians that protest the Columbus Day Parade in New York every year. They yell epitaphs, things like "war criminal", and hang an effigy of the explorer. Many Italians take offense to this, as Columbus is an ethnic hero. And whom among us didn't learn the quaint little poem: "In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue." My point is if one wants to discuss the treatment towards Native Americans suffered at the hands of ol' Chrissy C., fine. But it shouldn't be at the expense of the smiling faces in that parade, especially the children ... just my opinion.
I knew we couldn't have this kind of discussion here...
Ryan, I never said I thought Jackson was a "war criminal" or put him on par with Karadzic, or Saddam, or Hitler or any other genocidal maniac you care to list.
I never mentioned Washington at all, for a very specific reason... he never apologized for his position and opinion concerning race. He made it abundantly clear that, both before his Presidency and after, that there was no "equality" in his eyes between a black man and a white man. I am forced to assume he felt the same about Indians. I do not say this is pardonable behavior based on today's moral standards, but he was basing his opinion, actions and stated position on a cultural and personal standard that offered him no moral dilema.
I mentioned Jefferson because he openly admitted the incongruity of his advocating abolition while keeping a plantation full of slaves. This tells me that he knew and understood the immorality of keeping slaves, even in a society where the importing, selling, buying and employing slave labor was the status quo.
That is the fundamental difference between the two examples from our past. One understood the institution of slavery and society's open racism as WRONG, while the other saw it as the natural order of things, as he understood them to be.
Now, to make sure there are no more misunderstandings, I will say (again) that I feel Jackson was also aware of the contradiction inherent in his position on both slavery AND Indian removal. Jackson owned slaves, and owned them outright at his death, so he could have freed them on his deathbed... but he didn't. However, witnesses to his last words all agree that he apologized for the "state of servility" that he kept them in. We do not apologize for things we feel are not "wrong" do we? His adopted son, Linkoya, was a Creek Indian. How could he raise the child from infancy to adulthood and NOT recognize the humanity inherent in the person? Of course he recognized it, and that is why the boys death as a young man affected Jackson so deeply. The boy died just a few years before the Indian Removal Act was signed into law.
Now that I have said all this (again), I am forced to repeat that I DID NOT ADVOCATE his removal from the $20 bill... I simply asked if his place on our national currency was questionable if we agreed there was a degree of culpability in his actions and policies regarding Indian removal. It would seem that both Ryan and Jambo agree that his actions as President were morally questionable (at least), and that the responsibility for any injury or loss resulting from his actions and policies are his to bear. He can't answer in person, but I do feel his "legacy" should reflect his actions. I was simply putting forth the question of how that "reflection" should be achieved.
Now, were I to be a complete ass, I could extrapolate Ryan's sentiments and his misreading of my post and go so far as to suggest that, were some future Secretary of the Treasury suggest William J. Clinton as a good candidate for a spot on our currency, he couldn't be condemned for the suggestion lest any cloud of doubt be cast on contemporary views of America's past Presidents. Perhaps that is why Richard M. Nixon isn't gracing our currency, even though I am utterly convinced that the man truly did have what he considered "America's best interests" at heart (as misguided as that may sound), and even I can look at some of his White House policies and applaud them as 100% "right".
And lastly, even if I HAD said I thought he should be taken off the $20, I could easily (EASILY) give you reason why without ever mentioning slavery OR the Indian Removal Act of 1830. Say what you will, but I do not place Jackson in the same catagory of "great" Presidents as Washington, Lincoln, or Jefferson... or even among "great" Americans as Franklin or Hamilton. Have we forgotten that he fought, tooth and nail... even going so far as to refute the Supreme Court... to DESTROY the national bank and keep American currency a State matter? Does anyone here actually think he would have SUPPORTTED the Federal Reserve's ability to print money on demand?
Please...
So, Ryan thinks Titus is a whacko, liberal, politically-correct idiot (AGAIN) simply because I raise a question about moral and ethical relativism... not because I accuse anyone of doing it, or that there is any evidence of my doing it. I was simply trying to get everyone elses point of view on a topic I thought interesting.
Won't happen again.
I never mentioned Washington at all, for a very specific reason... he never apologized for his position and opinion concerning race. He made it abundantly clear that, both before his Presidency and after, that there was no "equality" in his eyes between a black man and a white man. I am forced to assume he felt the same about Indians. I do not say this is pardonable behavior based on today's moral standards, but he was basing his opinion, actions and stated position on a cultural and personal standard that offered him no moral dilema.
I mentioned Jefferson because he openly admitted the incongruity of his advocating abolition while keeping a plantation full of slaves. This tells me that he knew and understood the immorality of keeping slaves, even in a society where the importing, selling, buying and employing slave labor was the status quo.
That is the fundamental difference between the two examples from our past. One understood the institution of slavery and society's open racism as WRONG, while the other saw it as the natural order of things, as he understood them to be.
Now, to make sure there are no more misunderstandings, I will say (again) that I feel Jackson was also aware of the contradiction inherent in his position on both slavery AND Indian removal. Jackson owned slaves, and owned them outright at his death, so he could have freed them on his deathbed... but he didn't. However, witnesses to his last words all agree that he apologized for the "state of servility" that he kept them in. We do not apologize for things we feel are not "wrong" do we? His adopted son, Linkoya, was a Creek Indian. How could he raise the child from infancy to adulthood and NOT recognize the humanity inherent in the person? Of course he recognized it, and that is why the boys death as a young man affected Jackson so deeply. The boy died just a few years before the Indian Removal Act was signed into law.
Now that I have said all this (again), I am forced to repeat that I DID NOT ADVOCATE his removal from the $20 bill... I simply asked if his place on our national currency was questionable if we agreed there was a degree of culpability in his actions and policies regarding Indian removal. It would seem that both Ryan and Jambo agree that his actions as President were morally questionable (at least), and that the responsibility for any injury or loss resulting from his actions and policies are his to bear. He can't answer in person, but I do feel his "legacy" should reflect his actions. I was simply putting forth the question of how that "reflection" should be achieved.
Now, were I to be a complete ass, I could extrapolate Ryan's sentiments and his misreading of my post and go so far as to suggest that, were some future Secretary of the Treasury suggest William J. Clinton as a good candidate for a spot on our currency, he couldn't be condemned for the suggestion lest any cloud of doubt be cast on contemporary views of America's past Presidents. Perhaps that is why Richard M. Nixon isn't gracing our currency, even though I am utterly convinced that the man truly did have what he considered "America's best interests" at heart (as misguided as that may sound), and even I can look at some of his White House policies and applaud them as 100% "right".
And lastly, even if I HAD said I thought he should be taken off the $20, I could easily (EASILY) give you reason why without ever mentioning slavery OR the Indian Removal Act of 1830. Say what you will, but I do not place Jackson in the same catagory of "great" Presidents as Washington, Lincoln, or Jefferson... or even among "great" Americans as Franklin or Hamilton. Have we forgotten that he fought, tooth and nail... even going so far as to refute the Supreme Court... to DESTROY the national bank and keep American currency a State matter? Does anyone here actually think he would have SUPPORTTED the Federal Reserve's ability to print money on demand?
Please...
So, Ryan thinks Titus is a whacko, liberal, politically-correct idiot (AGAIN) simply because I raise a question about moral and ethical relativism... not because I accuse anyone of doing it, or that there is any evidence of my doing it. I was simply trying to get everyone elses point of view on a topic I thought interesting.
Won't happen again.
Flirting with the absurd ...
No, this isn't a post on how I met my ex wife.
Titus, you have a misguided definition of moral relativism, at least as it pertains to what I wrote. Are you telling me that there is a code of "MORAL ABSOLUTES" that is impenetrable to time and space? I would argue the definition of "moral absolutes" has changed throughout the ages, evolving into what it is today. Child labor, women's suffrage, the fact that George Washington owned slaves - of course these are all worthy of an accurate historical treatise, they happened. My point isn't to air brush them out, but that it is foolish in my opinion to pluck figures from history, men not evolved into our modern sense of moral absolutes, and put them on trial by that evolved standard and declare them a "war criminal."
I'm not defending the Indian Removal Act, but its' defense isn't what you asked originally, is it? You asked if Jackson should be regarded as much a war criminal as that Eastern European general (whose name escapes me at the moment). And I am saying no. And Dear Lord man, take Jackson off the $20 bill? Shall we take Washington off the $1, & the quarter? Certainly as a slave owner he is evil incarnate. The statues of FDR removed for the internments? The Lincoln memorial removed for his blatant intolerance of liberty during times of crisis? We can go down the list of deconstructing many a revered American figure until there is NO ONE left to admire. And you can't simply stop with removing Jackson from our currency. Intellectual honesty demands you then return the lands to the heirs of those tribes whom fell victim to this crime against humanity. You want as a response to "war crimes" to remove the man from the twenty? That is symbolic horse crap, that gives you some sense of moral karma. As a response to 12,000 deaths simply removing this "war criminal" from the 20 is wantonly insufficient. We must have a post mortem trial. We must remove all statues idolizing him in New Orleans. We must cast his heirs out into the street from their homes! Remove a single image? THAT is no response to a crime against humanity!
Do you see how absurd this is? As a response to what you describe as a "war crime" or crime against humanity, you want his face off the $20. Well that'll show him.
If humanity's code of moral absolutes has not evolved over the years then shouldn't the Slav General face the same fate? If there is but ONE standard throughout time and memorial then why not simply ban the general's image from currency and send him on his way?
Acknowledging the status quo of a time period, and factoring that in to how we view individuals living centuries ago is not moral relativism. Moral relativism would be for the Hague (or wherever this guy is being tried in Europe) to announce they have no moral authority in which to try this man because the monarchs of their past are guilty of actions far beyond the general's. Judging a man in a vacuum, not taking into account the period in which he lived seems to me to be a purposeful distortion of perspective. Hitler = EVIL in our society. So does Stalin, Pol Pot. The size and scope of their crimes, the era in which it occurred being so recent, it all factors into that judgement. Now, is the name Marcus Arileus (sp?), etched in the Western psychic as "evil?" He persecuted Christians with great vigor. So why not? How about Genghis Khan? Is he considered "evil" on a level with Milosevic? No. Why not? Khan slaughtered perhaps 10 times the number of people. Should the nation of France take great pride in Napoleon, or shame? The national symbol of pride for the nation of Egypt is the Pyramids, the Sphinx. Built by a generation of enslaved peoples under a brutal regime. Should they bring in detonation crews and remove this blight? And I assume the pyramid should be off the currency as well.
Look, removing Jackson from the $20 bill IS a reparation, its just a sorry excuse for one is all.
Now I'll be the first to admit that as an American I can never provide full objectivity here. I can not divorce my patriotism from the discussion. However, by your own standard, Woodrow Wilson was a more moral person and admirable Commander-In-Chief then was George Washington. One showed Birth of a Nation in the White House ... the other employed slaves in the White House. Is this where you are prepared to go? Wilson over Washington in your presidential report card? Don't tell me taking in a man's time period and the status quo of his society at the time of his life in order to properly "judge" him is moral relativism, and is thus rejected. What you describe as moral relativism I call historical perspective. Yes, acknowledge and understand the "warts & zits" of our history, so as to guard against them in the future and properly understand our past. But embracing these flaws to the point of removing presidents from our currency because they fail to meet our modern standard of morality is ... well ... there is just no end to whom we will need to tear down to in order to pay that tab.
Titus, you have a misguided definition of moral relativism, at least as it pertains to what I wrote. Are you telling me that there is a code of "MORAL ABSOLUTES" that is impenetrable to time and space? I would argue the definition of "moral absolutes" has changed throughout the ages, evolving into what it is today. Child labor, women's suffrage, the fact that George Washington owned slaves - of course these are all worthy of an accurate historical treatise, they happened. My point isn't to air brush them out, but that it is foolish in my opinion to pluck figures from history, men not evolved into our modern sense of moral absolutes, and put them on trial by that evolved standard and declare them a "war criminal."
I'm not defending the Indian Removal Act, but its' defense isn't what you asked originally, is it? You asked if Jackson should be regarded as much a war criminal as that Eastern European general (whose name escapes me at the moment). And I am saying no. And Dear Lord man, take Jackson off the $20 bill? Shall we take Washington off the $1, & the quarter? Certainly as a slave owner he is evil incarnate. The statues of FDR removed for the internments? The Lincoln memorial removed for his blatant intolerance of liberty during times of crisis? We can go down the list of deconstructing many a revered American figure until there is NO ONE left to admire. And you can't simply stop with removing Jackson from our currency. Intellectual honesty demands you then return the lands to the heirs of those tribes whom fell victim to this crime against humanity. You want as a response to "war crimes" to remove the man from the twenty? That is symbolic horse crap, that gives you some sense of moral karma. As a response to 12,000 deaths simply removing this "war criminal" from the 20 is wantonly insufficient. We must have a post mortem trial. We must remove all statues idolizing him in New Orleans. We must cast his heirs out into the street from their homes! Remove a single image? THAT is no response to a crime against humanity!
Do you see how absurd this is? As a response to what you describe as a "war crime" or crime against humanity, you want his face off the $20. Well that'll show him.
If humanity's code of moral absolutes has not evolved over the years then shouldn't the Slav General face the same fate? If there is but ONE standard throughout time and memorial then why not simply ban the general's image from currency and send him on his way?
Acknowledging the status quo of a time period, and factoring that in to how we view individuals living centuries ago is not moral relativism. Moral relativism would be for the Hague (or wherever this guy is being tried in Europe) to announce they have no moral authority in which to try this man because the monarchs of their past are guilty of actions far beyond the general's. Judging a man in a vacuum, not taking into account the period in which he lived seems to me to be a purposeful distortion of perspective. Hitler = EVIL in our society. So does Stalin, Pol Pot. The size and scope of their crimes, the era in which it occurred being so recent, it all factors into that judgement. Now, is the name Marcus Arileus (sp?), etched in the Western psychic as "evil?" He persecuted Christians with great vigor. So why not? How about Genghis Khan? Is he considered "evil" on a level with Milosevic? No. Why not? Khan slaughtered perhaps 10 times the number of people. Should the nation of France take great pride in Napoleon, or shame? The national symbol of pride for the nation of Egypt is the Pyramids, the Sphinx. Built by a generation of enslaved peoples under a brutal regime. Should they bring in detonation crews and remove this blight? And I assume the pyramid should be off the currency as well.
Look, removing Jackson from the $20 bill IS a reparation, its just a sorry excuse for one is all.
Now I'll be the first to admit that as an American I can never provide full objectivity here. I can not divorce my patriotism from the discussion. However, by your own standard, Woodrow Wilson was a more moral person and admirable Commander-In-Chief then was George Washington. One showed Birth of a Nation in the White House ... the other employed slaves in the White House. Is this where you are prepared to go? Wilson over Washington in your presidential report card? Don't tell me taking in a man's time period and the status quo of his society at the time of his life in order to properly "judge" him is moral relativism, and is thus rejected. What you describe as moral relativism I call historical perspective. Yes, acknowledge and understand the "warts & zits" of our history, so as to guard against them in the future and properly understand our past. But embracing these flaws to the point of removing presidents from our currency because they fail to meet our modern standard of morality is ... well ... there is just no end to whom we will need to tear down to in order to pay that tab.
Picking scabs
This is just a thought.
I was having a conversation with my oldest on Monday. She has a friend in her 7th grade class that's Jewish, and another friend, I guess a military kid, born in Germany. She was asking about the Holocaust and how anything like that could ever happen. So in my kind of wordy explanation I gave her a brief rundown of European anti-semitism and post Treaty of Versailles Germany. And while painting the picture of Hitler's use of the Jews as a tool for the consolidation of power it struck me.
Sharpton, Jackson, that reverend Obama hung out with... Same tool.
And NOT just anti-semitism. Here you have a charismatic individual using inflammatory rhetoric to: 1) Tell the congregation/population that THEY are not to blame, THEY are the victims of injustice, THEY are not responsible, and 2)Who is to blame for their current lot in life.
No where in any of these speeches is there a pro-active plan on FIXING these perceived injustices. Just, "You're the victim, they are to blame, I'm your champion."
You'd think those speeches, after 40+ years, would get old. Don't you think the population, after a while, would demand RESULTS?
I was having a conversation with my oldest on Monday. She has a friend in her 7th grade class that's Jewish, and another friend, I guess a military kid, born in Germany. She was asking about the Holocaust and how anything like that could ever happen. So in my kind of wordy explanation I gave her a brief rundown of European anti-semitism and post Treaty of Versailles Germany. And while painting the picture of Hitler's use of the Jews as a tool for the consolidation of power it struck me.
Sharpton, Jackson, that reverend Obama hung out with... Same tool.
And NOT just anti-semitism. Here you have a charismatic individual using inflammatory rhetoric to: 1) Tell the congregation/population that THEY are not to blame, THEY are the victims of injustice, THEY are not responsible, and 2)Who is to blame for their current lot in life.
No where in any of these speeches is there a pro-active plan on FIXING these perceived injustices. Just, "You're the victim, they are to blame, I'm your champion."
You'd think those speeches, after 40+ years, would get old. Don't you think the population, after a while, would demand RESULTS?
Revisionism
Is the greatest evil against truth, but moral relativism is not the tool to touch up past indignities.
Hey, Andrew Jackson, for good or for ill, was a giant in American history. FDR, Richard Nixon, Woodrow Wilson (when it comes to presidential turds, I love flushing THIS guy!) Herbert Hoover, Warren G. Harding, I can go on and on about personal and professional failings. Jimmy Carter, while no doubt a decent human being which no one, not even Ryan has attacked on the merits of his humanity, was irredeemable as an executive. The beauty of our government is the fact that we can look back and judge the merits and faults of our presidents against a growing line of successors. Should Andrew Jackson be tried for crimes against humanity? Yes. Would he stand a chance? No. FDR, for the internment of Japanese-Americans during WW2? Impeached. Lincoln, for suspending habius corpus and preventing the State Assembly of Maryland, (a lawfully elected body of the people)from voting on succession? Impeached and perhaps imprisoned.
It is not an indictment of the system, the society, or the country itself to point to Andrew Jackson and say, "There's no justification." Are we as Americans fundamentally evil because of slavery? ("I say, "God Damn America! God Damn America!"") No. As a government we corrected the problem and as a society it remains an issue as long as we ALLOW it to remain an issue.
I think the true test for the love of one's country is to look at it, with its flaws, warts, zits, bad hair days, pot belly, morning breath and all the other less than savory qualities, and embrace it because 1) It's OUR nation and 2) It's STILL infinitely superior to anything else out there. Accepting our flaws and mistakes may be the single greatest act of patriotism arm chair intellectuals can exercise.
Hey, Andrew Jackson, for good or for ill, was a giant in American history. FDR, Richard Nixon, Woodrow Wilson (when it comes to presidential turds, I love flushing THIS guy!) Herbert Hoover, Warren G. Harding, I can go on and on about personal and professional failings. Jimmy Carter, while no doubt a decent human being which no one, not even Ryan has attacked on the merits of his humanity, was irredeemable as an executive. The beauty of our government is the fact that we can look back and judge the merits and faults of our presidents against a growing line of successors. Should Andrew Jackson be tried for crimes against humanity? Yes. Would he stand a chance? No. FDR, for the internment of Japanese-Americans during WW2? Impeached. Lincoln, for suspending habius corpus and preventing the State Assembly of Maryland, (a lawfully elected body of the people)from voting on succession? Impeached and perhaps imprisoned.
It is not an indictment of the system, the society, or the country itself to point to Andrew Jackson and say, "There's no justification." Are we as Americans fundamentally evil because of slavery? ("I say, "God Damn America! God Damn America!"") No. As a government we corrected the problem and as a society it remains an issue as long as we ALLOW it to remain an issue.
I think the true test for the love of one's country is to look at it, with its flaws, warts, zits, bad hair days, pot belly, morning breath and all the other less than savory qualities, and embrace it because 1) It's OUR nation and 2) It's STILL infinitely superior to anything else out there. Accepting our flaws and mistakes may be the single greatest act of patriotism arm chair intellectuals can exercise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
