Has anything changed? The man who signed and implemented this lopsided "agreement" was president and is still celebrated by many. His nickname was "the Indian killer". His portrait hangs in the Oval Office.
Progress doesn't happen in a straight line. The last President, who was elected as a reaction to the one before him, attempted to remove Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill. The current President, who was also elected as a response to his predecessor, put Jackson's portrait in the Oval Office to make liberals mad.
...but the reaction to the current backlash will likely end with Andrew Jackson removed from our currency and the Oval Office.
The fact that most people acknowledge that what was done to Native Americans was bad is at least some small progress.
"This unfortunate race, whom we had been taking so much pains to save and to civilize, have by their unexpected desertion and ferocious barbarities justified extermination and now await our decision on their fate."
General Sherman on exterminating natives
"After the 1866 Fetterman Massacre, Sherman wrote Grant that "we must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children."
Instead, the greed for gold wealth led to a second option which was, literally, termed a "war of extermination" by Governor Peter Burnett who declared warfare would not cease with Native Americans "until the Indian race becomes extinct"
The inescapable truth is this country ( and before if we include the pilgrims ) was subdued with conquest and series of genocides. Pretty much everyone political, academic and business leader implicitly or explicitly supported genocide. Of course some ( like Jefferson ) wanted to negotiate first but when push came to shove, they all supported explusion and/or genocide.
But they also did a lot of great things. You have to take the good with the bad. Else we are in an untenable position. Columbus was far more brutal to the natives and he didn't contribute anything to the growth of america ( like andrew jackson did ). George Washington was also far more brutal against the natives. What should we do? Rename Washington DC ( District of Columbia )?
The only reason Andrew Jackson is being targeted by the establishment today is because he was the most anti-central bank president we've ever had.
In terms of his racist views and policies, he wasn't anything exceptional ( especially during the 1800s ). If we have to remove him, then we have to remove Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Sherman and an unending list of public figures. Where does it end? We should teach and accept that genocide and slavery was part of the making of america rather than try to hide it. And it's okay to praise Washington, Jackson, Franklin, etc for their part in founding and building the country and also condemn them for their wrongs.
"And it's okay to praise Washington, Jackson, Franklin, etc for their part in founding and building the country and also condemn them for their wrongs."
How do you convince people that current portraits, monuments, etc aren't praising the good and bad OR (and I think this is much more the case) are praising the good and turning a blind eye to the bad?
It sounds like we need new portraits, monuments, etc to replace what we have currently.
Or maybe present them as they were, perhaps through explanatory plaques to go along with the statues, portraits and monuments: "To someone who did a lot of good for America through A, B and C, but also ratified/genocided/did whatever else we now know to be bad".
It probably wouldn't hurt to have commemorative objects of Indian leaders and country-shapers as well (of which I have no doubt there a good number), to present something more "complete" regarding American history (which, like any nation's history, is complicated and more like a series of connected creeks and streams than a single river sequence of events).
I feel like this standard is somewhat uniquely held for US historic monuments and artwork. I think it would be laughable to go over to Europe and start suggesting people tear down thousand year old works of art because the people who created them or are depicted in them weren't very nice. I suspect Michelangelo didn't have very progressive views on race or gender, but his works are safe. Is it because the US history isn't as old? This isn't a rhetorical question, and I'm not going to attempt to debate any points. I'm genuinely curious about the position.
>The inescapable truth is this country ( and before if we include the pilgrims ) was subdued with conquest and series of genocides.
Any sort of large scale immigration is going to cause friction. That doesn't have to take the form of wars and ethnic cleansing though.
The Pilgrims showed up in 1620 and occupied land that had formerly belonged to a tribe that was wiped out with smallpox and generally had peaceful relations with the natives.
The Puritans started their caliphate (I'm unaware of a corresponding Christian term) in 1630 and shortly thereafter got into wars with the natives, engaging in literal witch hunts and were generally so disagreeable that they provided the motivation for people to settle further and further west (away from them) further encroaching on the natives. Everybody tends to white wash this because they had high literacy rates and treated women better than most at the time.
The early pre-US settlers varied widely in their relations with the natives. The French had a pretty darn good relationship with the natives until they sold out to the US but they didn't do much settling (which probably helped).
>The only reason Andrew Jackson is being targeted by the establishment today is because he was the most anti-central bank president we've ever had.
I agree this is definitely a large part of it. If Jackson was a highly regarded president for other reasons people wouldn't complain about his mistreatment of the natives but instead he opposed central banking which does not make people hold him in high regard today.
>I don't think this squares with The Scarlet Letter being read in just about every high school in the US.
I guess I should have said "My Massachusetts public school education tends to white wash the Puritan regime".
I've made comments about it before but getting most of my high school education in a different state as well as having my siblings get their education in different states really opened up my eyes to how politically tilted school curriculum are. Anything that's politically inconvenient gets covered at an age to young to think critically about it or covered to fast to have time to think about it. I assume the southern states whitewash everything pre-1865 and the plains states whitewash the Indian wars.
I think that "burning at the stake" while not historically accurate better conveys the circumstances under which those people were executed because it calls to mind a "witch hunt" in the metaphorical sense which is a fitting description of the (literal) witch hunts in question. At the end of the day "witch hunts" were a thing of the past and Europe (rightfully) regarded the Puritan's witch hunts in Massachusetts colony the way we would regard hearing about a some practices that we consider barbaric and have long since moved on from.
In any case I have edited my original comment to be technically correct.
We should stop praising and erecting monuments or memorializations to murderers and slaveowners and teach and accept how this nation was founded by them, not pretend like this is a nuanced issue.
But it IS a nuanced issue. The founding fathers on one hand founded the nation ad a democratic republic with a government obligated to respect the rights of the people in an era when totalitarian monarchy was the norm. They also killed natives and kept slaves. That does not mean the good things they did do not deserve to be memorialized.
I think it's a little telling when people think slavery, imperial conquest, genocide, etc., which are features of a society designed by people who are avowedly in favor of Democracy, does not create a contradiction. You can either acknowledge the contradiction and resolve one end of it, or the word itself is incoherent.
