LogFAQs > #880004104

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, Database 1 ( 03.09.2017-09.16.2017 ), DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Andrew Jackson was the last great president.
Dash_Harber 05/29/17 5:46:45 AM #47:	WaterLink posted... You either support the natives and fuck the people you were elected to represent or you let a group of people be slaughtered. He found a compromise. This is ridiculous. It's like saying "our people want oil, there is oil in the country, so we either respect the other country's autonomy or we invade them and take what we want. It's still a bad choice. WaterLink posted... You think Christopher Columbus gave a shit about the natives? He took some to be his and his sailors sex slaves. Yet we still have Columbus Day. No, I know he didn't He was a raping, slaving, asshole and I don't particularly believe anyone should be celebrating the miserable failure that killed and enslaved tons of indigenous people. WaterLink posted... Some horrific shit happened back then. It was a different culture and different values and we were still trying to establish ourselves as a nation, and he did way more to protect the integrity of our nation than anyone between him and the civil war ever did. The civil war would have started under his term had he not intervened do you realize that? That doesn't really justify killing 4,000, displacing countless others from their homeland, not compensating them, and not actually taking any sort of proper precautions to make sure they arrive safely, all for your own personal profit. WaterLink posted... Like he literally had to threaten military force to prevent a slave state from seceding. And people act like he'd side with the Confederacy simply because he had slaves. I never claimed that. WaterLink posted... Also, you realize he adopted a native American child because his family abandoned him? Yeah, you don't read that in the history books. But he fucking did. Took him in, educated him, and got him a job. But hey, he hates natives is an easier narrative to write. The things he had to go through are too complex to really write about it because we prefer broad strokes Don't be condescending. I literally have a useless university degree in History that basically only exists for moments like these. Anyway, taking in one person and raising them in your culture doesn't really change the death and suffering caused by his decision. Not to mention the damage to the culture, or the morality of forcibly moving someone across the country and leaving them in a completely foreing territory. I also never said he hated the Native Americans. You are wrong there. I said he signed off on an immoral force relocation that resulted in 4,000 deaths. That's a pretty big blemish on his record. <cite>Dash_Harber posted [p:880004104] in Andrew Jac... [t:75397691]...</cite> <quote><cite>WaterLink posted...</cite> <quote>You either support the natives and fuck the people you were elected to represent or you let a group of people be slaughtered. He found a compromise. </quote> This is ridiculous. It's like saying "our people want oil, there is oil in the country, so we either respect the other country's autonomy or we invade them and take what we want. It's still a bad choice. <cite>WaterLink posted...</cite> <quote>You think Christopher Columbus gave a shit about the natives? He took some to be his and his sailors sex slaves. Yet we still have Columbus Day. </quote> No, I know he didn't He was a raping, slaving, asshole and I don't particularly believe anyone should be celebrating the miserable failure that killed and enslaved tons of indigenous people. <cite>WaterLink posted...</cite> <quote>Some horrific shit happened back then. It was a different culture and different values and we were still trying to establish ourselves as a nation, and he did way more to protect the integrity of our nation than anyone between him and the civil war ever did. The civil war would have started under his term had he not intervened do you realize that? </quote> That doesn't really justify killing 4,000, displacing countless others from their homeland, not compensating them, and not actually taking any sort of proper precautions to make sure they arrive safely, all for your own personal profit. <cite>WaterLink posted...</cite> <quote> Like he literally had to threaten military force to prevent a slave state from seceding. And people act like he'd side with the Confederacy simply because he had slaves. </quote> I never claimed that. <cite>WaterLink posted...</cite> <quote>Also, you realize he adopted a native American child because his family abandoned him? Yeah, you don't read that in the history books. But he fucking did. Took him in, educated him, and got him a job. But hey, he hates natives is an easier narrative to write. The things he had to go through are too complex to really write about it because we prefer broad strokes</quote> Don't be condescending. I literally have a useless university degree in History that basically only exists for moments like these. Anyway, taking in one person and raising them in your culture doesn't really change the death and suffering caused by his decision. Not to mention the damage to the culture, or the morality of forcibly moving someone across the country and leaving them in a completely foreing territory. I also never said he hated the Native Americans. You are wrong there. I said he signed off on an immoral force relocation that resulted in 4,000 deaths. That's a pretty big blemish on his record.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1