Current Events > Why is Andrew Jackson a low ranking in Civ V?

(+) Yeah! (+)

He's put between Nero and Neville Chamberlain
---

Because he ate a puppy, live on television in 1988.
---

Because he's a racist piece of shit

Darklit_Minuet posted...

Because he's a racist piece of shit

Lmfao
---

I mean wasn't like half of America racist as shit at that point?

Like, if we're talking modern morals, Augustus Caesar consolidated absolute power and ruled an empire built by slavery. And he's number one on the rankings above Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill.


As far as the United States goes, I feel like Jackson did a pretty good job in spite of being an asshole
---

Because he was a terrible president?

Because SJWism has infected game development
---

Doe posted...

I mean wasn't like half of America racist as shit at that point?

Like, if we're talking modern morals, Augustus Caesar consolidated absolute power and ruled an empire built by slavery. And he's number one on the rankings above Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill.


As far as the United States goes, I feel like Jackson did a pretty good job in spite of being an asshole

I would say like 95% of the country or more viewed colored people as inferior in Jacksons time. I agree Jackson did do a pretty good job, but sadly his good deeds are buried by the likes of the snowflake in post #3 that can only see in black and white.
---

Even if you're like 100% opposite opinion on Jackson's policies and decisions, there's still like 2 or 3 objectively worse presidents
---

jackson Damn_Underscore posted...

Because SJWism has infected game development

god damn SJWs opposing the trail of tears
---

glitteringfairy posted...

Doe posted...

I mean wasn't like half of America racist as shit at that point?

Like, if we're talking modern morals, Augustus Caesar consolidated absolute power and ruled an empire built by slavery. And he's number one on the rankings above Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill.


As far as the United States goes, I feel like Jackson did a pretty good job in spite of being an asshole

I would say like 95% of the country or more viewed colored people as inferior in Jacksons time. I agree Jackson did do a pretty good job, but sadly his good deeds are buried by the likes of the snowflake in post #3 that can only see in black and white.

ITP: Condemning the wanton genocide and removal of a race of people is being a snowflake

Racist views are one thing but the trail of tears is quite another

ChainedRedone posted...

Caesar didn't establish slavery, he had to continue it to keep power. Jackson literally didn't have to wipe people out, but he did just because.

As I understand it, he faced immense pressure by wealthy cotton-plantation owners that wanted the Natives' land. Like yeah he was also super racist, but it seems like something that would've happened regardless of who the president was at the time.
---

Axiom posted...

glitteringfairy posted...

Doe posted...

I mean wasn't like half of America racist as shit at that point?

Like, if we're talking modern morals, Augustus Caesar consolidated absolute power and ruled an empire built by slavery. And he's number one on the rankings above Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill.


As far as the United States goes, I feel like Jackson did a pretty good job in spite of being an asshole

I would say like 95% of the country or more viewed colored people as inferior in Jacksons time. I agree Jackson did do a pretty good job, but sadly his good deeds are buried by the likes of the snowflake in post #3 that can only see in black and white.

ITP: Condemning the wanton genocide and removal of a race of people is being a snowflake

Racist views are one thing but the trail of tears is quite another

But but the national Bank! The gold standard!!
---

I mean he introduced the spoils system and caused a massive financial crisis if genocide isn't reason enough for you.

Y'all do understand that Jackson removing the Indians more than likely saved them from getting murdered and slaughtered by the white settlers right. Was gonna happen one way or another. While I do not agree it was right, I do believe it was the best option at that time in history and alot of blood shed was avoided
---

lol is Crimson Rage somebody's alt? That's a pretty cringey troll attempt
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni_EdsL-avU
---

Doe posted...

lol is Crimson Rage somebody's alt? That's a pretty cringey troll attempt

Yes. He has some kinda hard on for me. Likes to claim all kinds of shit with no proof
---

Sounds like a less interesting RebelElite
---

glitteringfairy posted...

Y'all do understand that Jackson removing the Indians more than likely saved them from getting murdered and slaughtered by the white settlers right. Was gonna happen one way or another. While I do not agree it was right, I do believe it was the best option at that time in history and alot of blood shed was avoided

Or, how about, nobody murders them. That would be the ideal solution

Darklit_Minuet posted...

glitteringfairy posted...

Y'all do understand that Jackson removing the Indians more than likely saved them from getting murdered and slaughtered by the white settlers right. Was gonna happen one way or another. While I do not agree it was right, I do believe it was the best option at that time in history and alot of blood shed was avoided

Or, how about, nobody murders them. That would be the ideal solution

Obviously. But do you really think that was a viable option back then. The same thing that happened to the natives in the West would have happened to the ones in the East had they not moved. Atleast they had a chance at life that their brothers in the West didn't
---

glitteringfairy posted...

Obviously. But do you really think that was a viable option back then. The same thing that happened to the natives in the West would have happened to the ones in the East had they not moved. Atleast they had a chance at life that their brothers in the West didn't

Why wouldn't it be a viable option?

All the white people had to do was not kill em. Simple enough. Look at me - I'm a white guy, and I've never killed any natives. Or anyone else, for that matter.

Should have not killed the ones in the East as well.

Darklit_Minuet posted...

glitteringfairy posted...

Y'all do understand that Jackson removing the Indians more than likely saved them from getting murdered and slaughtered by the white settlers right. Was gonna happen one way or another. While I do not agree it was right, I do believe it was the best option at that time in history and alot of blood shed was avoided

Or, how about, nobody murders them. That would be the ideal solution

Would you rather the US looked like this?
https://www.varsitytutors.com/images/earlyamerica/1800.jpg
Because that's what would have happened if they weren't relocated.
---

Hey posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

glitteringfairy posted...

Y'all do understand that Jackson removing the Indians more than likely saved them from getting murdered and slaughtered by the white settlers right. Was gonna happen one way or another. While I do not agree it was right, I do believe it was the best option at that time in history and alot of blood shed was avoided

Or, how about, nobody murders them. That would be the ideal solution

Would you rather the US looked like this?
https://www.varsitytutors.com/images/earlyamerica/1800.jpg
Because that's what would have happened if they weren't relocated.

Sure, why not?

Darklit_Minuet posted...

glitteringfairy posted...

Obviously. But do you really think that was a viable option back then. The same thing that happened to the natives in the West would have happened to the ones in the East had they not moved. Atleast they had a chance at life that their brothers in the West didn't

Why wouldn't it be a viable option?

All the white people had to do was not kill em. Simple enough. Look at me - I'm a white guy, and I've never killed any natives. Or anyone else, for that matter.

Should have not killed the ones in the East as well.

Well friend, it seems like your problem is you are comparing your 21st century way of thinking to that of early 19th century thinking.
---

glitteringfairy posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

glitteringfairy posted...

Obviously. But do you really think that was a viable option back then. The same thing that happened to the natives in the West would have happened to the ones in the East had they not moved. Atleast they had a chance at life that their brothers in the West didn't

Why wouldn't it be a viable option?

All the white people had to do was not kill em. Simple enough. Look at me - I'm a white guy, and I've never killed any natives. Or anyone else, for that matter.

Should have not killed the ones in the East as well.

Well friend, it seems like your problem is you are comparing your 21st century way of thinking to that of early 19th century thinking.

I don't see how committing genocide was more acceptable in the 19th century than the 21st. I'd argue it was never acceptable. Just because something was more common in the older days doesn't make it right.

Remember that time he fought a battle and sacrificed people's lives for no reason because he wanted to show how little his dick was.

Fuck Andrew Jackson his tombstone should say ima basicbitch
---

Darklit_Minuet posted...

glitteringfairy posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

glitteringfairy posted...

Obviously. But do you really think that was a viable option back then. The same thing that happened to the natives in the West would have happened to the ones in the East had they not moved. Atleast they had a chance at life that their brothers in the West didn't

Why wouldn't it be a viable option?

All the white people had to do was not kill em. Simple enough. Look at me - I'm a white guy, and I've never killed any natives. Or anyone else, for that matter.

Should have not killed the ones in the East as well.

Well friend, it seems like your problem is you are comparing your 21st century way of thinking to that of early 19th century thinking.

I don't see how committing genocide was more acceptable in the 19th century than the 21st. I'd argue it was never acceptable. Just because something was more common in the older days doesn't make it right.

Maybe you should make a time machine and ask them
---

iosifsvoboda posted...

Remember that time he fought a battle and sacrificed people's lives for no reason because he wanted to show how little his dick was.

Fuck Andrew Jackson his tombstone should say ima basicbitch

Lol wut. All these leaders fought wars in some way.
---

glitteringfairy posted...

Maybe you should make a time machine and ask them

Why? I can just say it was wrong. The same way I can say slavery was wrong and the Holocaust was wrong. Just don't kill people.