Rethinking What We Mean By “Great” Americans
To anyone wishing to know why Andrew Jackson’s image should be removed from U.S. currency, I refer this note in today’s Writer’s Almanac:
On this day in 1830, President Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act into law. It was the first legislation to diverge from the previous official U.S. policy to respect Native Americans’ legal and political rights. Jackson announced his policy by saying, “It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the benevolent policy of the Government, steadily pursued for nearly thirty years, in relation to the removal of the Indians beyond the white settlements is approaching to a happy consummation.” He also said, “Toward the aborigines of the country no one can indulge a more friendly feeling than myself, or would go further in attempting to reclaim them from their wandering habits and make them a happy, prosperous people.”
The policy primarily affected five tribes: the Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek, Chickasaw, and Seminole nations of the southeastern United States. In 1823, the Supreme Court ruled that the white settlers’ “right of discovery” superseded the Indians’ “right of occupancy.” The five nations resisted nonviolently at first, and tried to assimilate into Anglo-American practices of education, large-scale farming, and slave-holding, but to no avail, and about 100,000 Indians were forcibly marched thousands of miles – sometimes in manacles – to lands west of the Mississippi, most of which were deemed undesirable by white settlers. As many as 25 percent died en route.
The Cherokee nation battled the Removal Act in courts of law, and the Seminoles of Florida battled it literally; Chief Osceola said: “You have guns, and so have we. You have powder and lead, and so have we. You have men, and so have we. Your men will fight and so will ours, till the last drop of the Seminole’s blood has moistened the dust of his hunting ground.”
Of course we can remove Andrew Jackson’s picture from currency, and perhaps we should, but where would we stop? Other early politicians also behaved despicably.
That’s a point, but Jackson’s the only person currently memorialized who committed genocide.
Craig,
Revisionist history is always just a little risky. Injustice and “manif3st destiny” abound in history. The morality, philosophies, attitudes, and actions of yesteryear can’t be undone by hand-wringing imagined guilt and self-loathing by the beneficiaries of that history.
We seem to be living in a time when “someone” must be held to “blame” for events of history. The desire to suspend reality and apply inappropriate moral judgement to historical events is phenomena not to be encouraged.
Andrew Jackson may have signed the Indian Removal Act, but it took a majority of Congress to pass the act he signed.
More importantly, the removal of Indians and expansion of settlement into Indian territory was a major cause championed by George Washington and the leading figures of the American Revolutionary War.
Would you also advocate purging George Washington, and renouncing the righteousness of the War of Independence ? (If so, could I have my family’s confiscated 660 acres in NY and 4 Manhattan town houses returned ?:))
We can’t unwind history, and can only judge historical figures by the culture and circumstances in which they lived.
Jackson was sincerely convinced his policies were both wise and humane. He believed, on the best advice available at the time, the alternative meant the cruel and utter annihilation of the Indian peoples.
I once listened to a dissertation by an angry young man, who full of hatred for the US and American ideals, (a land he’d never visited) extolled the virtues of the noble culture of the Indians of the Great Plains.
Incensed by Sandra Dee Brown’s great book, “Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee, (but lacking any other historical knowledge of the American west except for cowboy movies) he proceeded to lecture some visitors from the North America about the iniquities of their homeland. (they were actually Canadians from Halifax).
His contention was that without the wicked “invasion by Columbus” the Plains Indians would still be happily living in harmonious brotherhood, hunting buffalo (in a sustainable manner) from horseback and pursuing a spiritual and peaceful cultural lifestyle.
In his outrage, it never occurred to him that Columbus never actually set foot in North America, nor that without Europeans the Indians would have no horses, nor did he want to believe the Plains Indians pursued a culture of tribal warfare, aggression and expansion without any European influence.
That’s the problem when trying to rewrite history in “politically correct terms”. The real history gets lost, and with it the valuable insights and lesson that can be gained.
This current fad for a “culture of blame” and sanctimonious “apologies” only add to ignorance and misconceptions.
My own family is found in the UK by an ambitious, but impecunious, young follower of William the Conqueror. At Battle of Hastings my ancestor sought out and deliberately killed a Saxon land owner and his sons, despite having been a guest of the Thane only two years earlier.
Gathering together 14 followers, he quickly rode North to seize not only the dead Saxon’s land but young betrothed who was also a local heiress (killing some members of her family in the process).
Prudently sending much the loot he gained to King William, he gained recognition and was granted the landholdings as part of the “Conquest”. (He had nine children by his “conquered wife” and remained married for 46 year until his death aged 69).
Terrible events by today’s morality, but commonplace in those days. Indeed the Saxon’s ancestors undoubtedly seized the land from some unfortunate Dane, who siezed it from a Briton, who took it from a Roman when the empire fell, so on…throughout histories lost in the mist of time.
I would know nothing of the event had not my ancestor left a history still preserved in an ancient church burial memorial.
Should I spend my time finding, and apologizing to any descendants of ancient Saxons ? Hmmm,…perhaps only half since he married a Saxon but one whose mother was French, ….
The point is, it’s trying to rectify historical reality is pointless, better to spend that energy moving forward to a better future.
Marcopolo,
I liked your post. It seems to me that instead of decrying the wrongs done by our ancestors, we should be more concerned than we are with rectifying the wrongs of the present which, in some cases, resulted from the wrongs done by out ancestors.
Problems are often passed on from generation to generation, including problems originally resulting from wrongs committed by our ancestors. For example, the history of slavery and the Jim Crow laws and customs which followed slavery, put blacks at a serious disadvantage. The resulting problems, which are complex and not easily rectified, exist to this day. Similarly, the injustices committed against the indigenous Americans created problems which still exist. Social justice demands that these problems be rectified, not because of the behavior of our ancestors for which we cannot be responsible, but rather, because people are put at an unfair disadvantage because of them.
Of course the world will never be 100% fair, but surely we can work more effectively to mitigate the most egregious problems.
I am not a “bleeding heart liberal”. I do not believe that every problem can be solved by spending more money, but sometimes spending more money is necessary. Sometimes what is required is good mentoring programs coupled with early childhood education. But such programs should first be implemented on a very limited basis so they can be evaluated before expanding them which, unfortunately, as not always been done the result being that unintended disastrous consequences have become widespread before corrective action has been taken.
Frank,
Thank you for your reply.
It’s very difficult for modern societies to absorb older, less adaptable indigenous societies.
While members of the older society often suffer from disadvantage, prejudice and neglect, assistance is often hampered by overly emotional interference from well meaning folk demanding that the indigenous culture should be respected and preserved.
This attitude is as disastrous to the indigenous people and culture as bigotry and discrimination. By making excuses and even praising anti-social behavior by indigenous citizens only breeds resentment and promotes discrimination.
Most cultures are a confused blend of older cultures. Usually the best, and most advanced aspects survive, while the rest are forgotten as assimilation is forced upon individual members.
This is an age old process. Not fair, certainly not just, but necessary for survival. The concept of a “multi-cultural” society where the populace have no common integration other than a noble idea of tolerating and encouraging a myriad of social groupings, is a recipe for disaster and civil strife.
Each member of a society must have more common beliefs as to the duties and responsibilities of citizenship than differences, or like a “house divided” the nation can’t survive.
Sometimes it’s sad to see older cultures disappear, but it’s inevitable. Attempting to preserve every aspect, and treating the remaining members as sort of living zoo-museum exhibits is more cruel than assimilation. At the best, assimilation works two ways. The older culture must adapt and assimilate to gain the benefits of the newer culture, while the newer culture gains from assimilation also.
In Australia the guilt/industry industry has devastated the indigenous people far more than assimilation.
Contemporary political grandstanding has produced a disaster for the aboriginal peoples. Any politician, or social commentator brave enough to point out this fact is instantly vilified by outraged self styled “anti-racists” most of whom have never met an indigenous Australian. Many leftist politicians champion the cause of native peoples while calling their conservative counterparts racists.
Other leftist political figures desperately try to find a distant native ancestor, then claim to “identify with the pain” of indigenous causes.
(Ironically, while the leftist Australian political parties have been devoid of indigenous members, the conservative have elected indigenous members to public office for decades).
The problem of leapfrogging the process of civilization by bestowing equal rights and opportunity, is it includes the right to fail, suffer and accept responsibility as an individual.
By continually excusing and inventing reasons why indigenous people should be treated as “special” and relived of responsibility or the consequences of failure, is a recipe for disaster and discrimination.
Australia is one of the world least racist societies, yet a huge industry has grown up (funded by the taxpayer) to combat “racism” most of which is exaggerated or misinterpreted as “racism”.
A few years ago there was an ugly clash between a groups of youths of mainly European extraction who regarded an Australian suburban beach as their turf, and youths of a nearby suburb populated by mostly youths from mid-eastern migrants who wanted to contest the “turf”.
This idiocy is hardly a new phenomenon in any major city, and usually dissipates with assimilation and as the participants get older. (Think of the just as pointless “mods and rockers” clashes in ’60’s UK). The big difference today, is the extensive coverage by the media, and social media.
Recently, I witnessed a Australian aboriginal performer singing a song in support of a “traditional” indigenous artist who died of alcoholism.
The lyrics of his song contained the sentiment that his music, like that of the native artist owed nothing to “white fella’s culture”, and lamenting that his own culture was superior had it not been destroyed by the greed of the “white invader”.
His audience, mostly middle class “white” university students, nodded wisely in agreement with these sentiments which were echoed by a local trade union leader and leftist candidate in the forthcoming election.
Later, I attended an after performance party and since I know both the performer and his parents (father Danish, mother Aborigine/Asian) conversed with him about the validity of his lyrics.
My contention that his lyrics were hypocritical given he was singing in English, playing an electric guitar through a highly sophisticated sound system, from a sheet of written music dressed in the latest fashion, arriving by car to an auditorium, and that the artist in question painted in acrylic on canvass etc..
In reply, he laughed and observed gleefully, “and all on a generous government grant ! Beat’s the hell out of busking !”.
His cheerful philosophy of opportunism and cynical “give the audience what they want to hear”, was very disarming.
My eldest son who as a Doctor to a remote Community hospital, with many indigenous patients had been invited as one of the speakers, expressed concern on behalf of many sympathizers to the cause to the young performer that my observation may have given offense. The young musician replied that far from offense, I was the only person that night to treat him as an equal, not patronize him as a protected species.
It’s a very sad, and challenging subject. Sometimes, there just are no “right” answers.
( oh, incidentally the young musician is a very accomplished blues musician which is his first love )
Marcopolo,
You do make many good and valid points. Finding the optimal way to deal fairly with indigenous cultures is not easy and, as you say, often there are no perfect solutions. But in the case of President Jackson, in about 1820 thousands of indigenous Americans were force-marched over 1,000 miles in cold weather without adequate food and clothing; about 25% died. Basically, it was land stealing. I think that we can agree that that was wrong. Many of them had adapted to European-type housing and clothing and many had even become literate. One tribe even devised their own method of writing. But not many years after the forced march, people who were more fair-minded felt horrible about it and made efforts to undo the damage.
In the case of Oz, according to what I’ve read, at one time it was not rare to consider the indigenous people to be far inferior to caucasians and sometimes they were even hunted like animals. I read about a rugby player in Oz who, after scoring, did a brief indigenous spear dance for which he was strongly criticized. I don’t think that he did anything wrong. People will decide for themselves what aspects of their culture they want to keep and which they will discard as not helpful. As long as they make responsible decisions I have no problem with that. I tend to have a more balanced outlook than some people do. As we both know, there are those who will object to anything different that indigenous people so and there are others that think that indigenous people can do no wrong. There are enough responsible and well-educated indigenous Australians that it makes sense to give them a voice in the matter.
Here in the U.S., people of different ethnic ancestries, such as German, French, Scottish, or whatever, have certain days in which they celebrate their cultural heritage at public parks by wearing traditional clothing, doing traditional dances, serving traditional foods, singing traditional songs, etc. Many people not of that ethnic tradition also attend just to enjoy it and some even join in. So it is only natural that indigenous people will do similar things.
Of course people, whether indigenous or not, must be responsible and avoid doing things which cause undo problems for other people, including people within their own group. When they do cause undo problems, action must be taken but only to the extent necessary. I’ve been in Oz several times and seen indigenous people playing a didgeridoo and wearing indigenous clothing near the historic old city hall and Queen Victoria building but of course that isn’t a problem.
Because there are always survival advantages to intelligence all ethnic groups have about equal brain power.
I’ve never been to QLD and am toying with the idea of visiting it perhaps around September when the weather there is nice. I already have a QLD road map. However, the unbelievably long lines at U.S. airports and the possible need to wait for eight hours at the LA airport make me hesitant. I’ve never been to QLD but in 2004 I drove a rental car all over Tassy and really liked the area.