|
Post by WildKnight on Dec 2, 2010 13:59:57 GMT -5
Nixon is a difficult guy to go to bat for. So is Jackson, really, and don't get me wrong... I'm by no means trying to put this guy up for sainthood.
|
|
|
Post by raynorn on Dec 2, 2010 13:59:59 GMT -5
Well....we're talking about a guy who caused the Trail of Tears after ignoring a Supreme Court ruling. It's kind of hard to make that sound good, at all. . . You beat me to it, he might be the only presedent I would punch With all due respect sir *WHAM*
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Dec 2, 2010 14:01:54 GMT -5
Judging a historical figure by modern standards is pretty assanine. FDR locked up Japanese and German American out of pure paranoia. Would you punch him?
|
|
|
Post by Dullahan on Dec 2, 2010 14:06:38 GMT -5
Is this really a guy you want to fight? I mean, I get the sentiment, and agree completely, but.....
This is one guy who almost assasinated his assasin. I've gotta give him high marks for that.
And I didn't think you were WK. Jackson did some good things, and some bad things. Let's not get into his destruction of the bank, which was a purely personal feud, and ended up causing an economic disaster. On the other hand, well, you have to give him credit for winning New Orleans, and taking Florida.
And Nixon....if he just hadn't broken the law, he would probably be one of our better presidents. Instead, well, he ends up on the bottom for subverting the rule of law. Go figure.
|
|
|
Post by Dullahan on Dec 2, 2010 14:07:55 GMT -5
Judging a historical figure by modern standards is pretty assanine. FDR locked up Japanese and German American out of pure paranoia. Would you punch him? No, but I would yell at him for a good minute about it. Then ask his autograph. One of my favorite presidents.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Dec 2, 2010 14:09:07 GMT -5
And my second-to-least favorite
|
|
|
Post by Dullahan on Dec 2, 2010 14:10:01 GMT -5
Meh.
I'm curious....who's dead last?
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Dec 2, 2010 14:11:15 GMT -5
That would be Jimmy Carter.
|
|
|
Post by raynorn on Dec 2, 2010 14:12:00 GMT -5
Judging a historical figure by modern standards is pretty assanine. FDR locked up Japanese and German American out of pure paranoia. Would you punch him? Perhaps... When it comes to historical figures, how much do we shrug off? Slavery, Illegal Land Grabs, Genoside, False Imprisonment, Conversion by the Sword, Witch Hunts*, no big deal just a product of the times/culture? * In many places Witchcraft is still a punishable crime. That freaks me out big time. . .
|
|
|
Post by Dullahan on Dec 2, 2010 14:21:01 GMT -5
Punishable? Yes. Enforceable? Unlikely.
No, but take a look at the world people live in. People want to be nice as a general rule, but the world doesn't always allow them to be, especially when your in power. If everyone's trying to grab land, to compete and survive and not be grabbed up yourself, you have to do something.
It's hard to speak out against slavery when most people just accept it as part of the way the world works. The thought probably just didn't occur to most of them(not to excuse those that should've known better, like the South before the Civil War).
The rest....pretty much the same. Look at what the world looks like, then judge. If the world is a cruel place, the people aren't likely to be nice.
Ah Jimmy Carter. Poor guy got handed one of the hardest presidencies around, and couldn't seem to get anything done. Better humanitarian than president, I have to say.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Dec 2, 2010 14:39:09 GMT -5
Slavery, Illegal Land Grabs, Genoside, False Imprisonment, Conversion by the Sword, Witch Hunts*, no big deal just a product of the times/culture? In historical context? Yes. Those things were acceptable, common behavior for EVERYONE at various points in time. You talk about witch hunts. Great. Are you aware that many pagan cultures did the exact same thing to Christians, Muslims, and Jews living in their territories? It's just how things were done. If you're going to say that Jackson was a bad person because of the Trail of Tears, then everyone prior to the 10th or 11th century AD was a bad person, because I'm not aware of any writings by anyone prior to then, that questioned the acceptability of pushing a native people from their lands if the land and its resources were desirable. It never ceases to amaze me that we judge people like Jackson for what they did, but we're perfectly happy to live in the world that they created. Or, maybe I'm wrong. I mean, you've given the land your home sits on back to the original native tribe, right? Right???
|
|
|
Post by Dullahan on Dec 2, 2010 14:47:00 GMT -5
Difference with Jackson was, people actually told him what he was doing was wrong. He had to be aware there was at least something wrong with what he was doing. Whether he actually cared or not, well.
The Supreme Court told him he couldn't do what he did. He ignored them. That says something about him.
I generall agree with you. The only cavaet I have, is if you have people in your time telling you your going to far, then you have less excuse, and I'm not going to be as forgiving. But that's just me. My opinion alone.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Dec 2, 2010 14:50:22 GMT -5
Again, context.
A blanket statement like "if someone tells you something is wrong you shouldn't do it" is a pretty bad idea, don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by Dullahan on Dec 2, 2010 15:04:21 GMT -5
I'm not saying that makes it wrong, not really. I'm saying....
Well, something like this. Medieval war was brutal, and the people leading the wars were well known for brutality and violence. But every so often, you would find someone like Vlad Tepes, who's brutality was so terrible it actually bothered other medieval war lords.
When your disturbing people who burn down villages for a living, something's not right here.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Dec 2, 2010 15:13:46 GMT -5
But Andrew Jackson wasn't doing anything that bothered other soldiers. He was doing something that bothered the Supreme Court, a bunch of politicians of the worst sort (i.e. beholden to no one, given lifetime appointments from which they cannot be removed).
To put it into a medieval context, what Vlad Tepes did may have bothered other warlords, but it would have really bothered a bunch of civil servants (and I'm really not that convinced that the other warlords of Vlad's time were all that disturbed by his brutality. The brutality was primarily for the sake of "publicity", because he knew the Turks well, and knew they couldn't support an invasion or sustain an occupation without the support of their populace, who were considerably less used to the horrors of war than your average warlord. I mean, c'mon... if you've seen the aftermath of a medieval battlefield, how freaked out are you really going to be by a guy putting a bunch of people's bodies on pikes?)
|
|