87
submitted 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) by zyratoxx@lemm.ee to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

Depending on how the next four years go I'm on the fence between Bush Jr. and Trump but I'd like to hear from you

Edit:

Top 10 suggestions so far (unordered):

  • Andrew Jackson
  • Andrew Johnson
  • George W. Bush Jr
  • Ronald Reagan
  • Richard Nixon
  • James K. Polk
  • Woodrow Wilson
  • James Buchanan
  • Franklin Pierce
  • Donald J. Trump
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] BigBananaDealer@lemm.ee 21 points 5 days ago

andrew jackson (or johnson can never remember which) for the trail of tears. absolutely awful

[-] OmnipotentEntity@beehaw.org 10 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Andrew Jackson was Trail of Tears, but I actually think Andrew Johnson was arguably worse. He was Lincoln's Democrat vice president (he was brought on to help "balance the ticket" instead of sticking with his strongly abolitionist first term VP Hannibal Hamlin), who started dismantling reconstruction and giving the power back to the former slaveowners.

You can pretty much lay Jim Crow at his feet.

[-] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 days ago

kinda hard to argue apartheid is worse than genocide imo

[-] OmnipotentEntity@beehaw.org 1 points 4 days ago

I'm not really trying to weigh and decide if 6000+ deaths and forcible removal of 100k+ people from their homes is better or worse than 100 or so years of systemic oppression followed by more, quieter oppression. Instead, I'm looking at this from the perspective of alternatives.

After the Civil War we very nearly had a moment when we could have maybe did something real for racial equality beyond anything we've seen even up to the present day. The Freeman's Bureau was fighting for wages for former slaves, and was generally a force for working class empowerment. Black congressmen were already being voted into office rapidly. If it were left to do its work, it might even have helped to innoculate the Irish- and Italian-Americans against future union busting on Black/White racial lines a few decades down the line.

Instead, after only about a year, Andrew Johnson started fighting and dismantling the Bureau, placing the former slaveowners back into a de facto master/slave relationship with their former slaves, giving the old Southern Democrats back their political power, and generally restoring the status quo as much as possible. The Bureau itself lasted only 5 or 6 years, don't remember. The KKK rose up because reconstruction wasn't there anymore to prevent it, because the Democrats wanted so bad to just put all of the states back in the union and go back to bad old days, and so on.

That was never a realistic moment that I know of in American history where people against war with the native tribes of this land had outsized power and influence. Jackson completely ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling was awful, but while the ruling was grounded in good moral and legal principles, it was, like it or not, extremely unpopular. There wasn't an entire party with a supermajority in Congress that could have kept up the pressure on this issue.

[-] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 days ago

To only count the direct deaths of the forced march and not the deaths resulting in having your land stolen and along with it your ability to reproduce your society is straight up genocide denial.

After the Civil War we very nearly had a moment when we could have maybe did something real for racial equality beyond anything we’ve seen even up to the present day.

And this is absolving responsibility of all the people who maintained slavery, which one could argue is even worse than jim crow.

[-] OmnipotentEntity@beehaw.org 0 points 3 days ago

I think you're reading more intent in my post than was actually present. I'm not denying we did genocide to 100 million natives. All I'm denying is that Jackson specifically is significantly worse than the historically reasonable alternatives to the position. Had (for instance) John Quincy Adams, one of the authors of the Monroe doctrine and a big proponent of western expansion, won the presidency, I do not doubt that a similar overall trajectory would have taken place. Maybe we wouldn't have specifically had a trail of tears moment, but there's more to the genocide of native americans than just the trail of tears.

And this is absolving responsibility of all the people who maintained slavery, which one could argue is even worse than jim crow.

How so? I believe you're arguing in good faith, but I honestly don't see how you come to this conclusion from what I wrote?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2024
87 points (90.7% liked)

Asklemmy

43989 readers
797 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS