Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So what's your attitude, "I know there was a crime but I'm gonna benefit from the crime but complain about it while doing so"? You want it both ways, you want the benefit of the crime while at the same time claiming the moral high ground by rapping the people who commited it.
C'mon Buster, if you think it was such a terrible crime make amends. Or just take the benefits of our forefather's actions and give them a little credit for your prosperity.
Unless you're an Indian, I can't make this argument with an Indian.
Your imagination is far outstripping any positions stated by me. I reference recognizing that it was a crime, I have taken no position on whether or not it could, or should, be corrected or compensated in any manner. Nor can I think why you believe that anyone who recognizes that it was a crime, but fails to make personal and solitary amends, forfeits the ability or right to recognize that it was a crime.
Land was stolen, people were forcilbly removed from their own property and forced to march a less desirable location, a third of their numbers dying along the way. These were not people at war with the United States, they were peaceful but in the way.
That Jackson enjoyed popular support for this crime, does not mean it wasn't a crime. That you or I are enjoying the long range benefits of the crime, does not mean it wasn't a crime.
That Jackson enjoyed popular support for this crime, does not mean it wasn't a crime. That you or I are enjoying the long range benefits of the crime, does not mean it wasn't a crime.
The difference between us is that if I benefit from a crime I'm gonna keep my mouth shut. If I don't intend to make amends for the crime I'm not gonna condemn it, nor will I condemn the people who commited it. If someone performs me a service I'll show them that much loyalty, to not bumrap them for the service.
The difference between us is that if I benefit from a crime I'm gonna keep my mouth shut. If I don't intend to make amends for the crime I'm not gonna condemn it, nor will I condemn the people who commited it. If someone performs me a service I'll show them that much loyalty, to not bumrap them for the service.
I do not believe that you are really thinking this through. Perhaps if your philosophy was placed in an alternative setting...
Suppose that you had a newspaper delivery person who was lousy...frequently late, often no delivery at all, throws the paper into wet bushes or fails to wrap it in plastic on rainy days and so forth...stinko service.
Now, one day, you have a new paper delivery person who is diligent and always has it on time, dry and never misses a day. You later learn that the reason that you have a new paper delivery person is that the former incompetent one was murdered in a carjacking by persons unknown.
So...is your attitude one where you will not "bumrap" the murderers because you definitely benefited as a consequence of the crime and have no intention of making any personal amends or seeking justice for the murder? If you met these killers, would you "show them loyalty" in consideration of the service which they performed for you?
I do not believe that you are really thinking this through. Perhaps if your philosophy was placed in an alternative setting.........and so forth and so on
Swell. All of which has nothing to do with reality, it's just talk, an intellectual exercise. And doesn't correct anything. I had the Sisters of Mercy in grade school and the Jesuits in high school; I've had education in morals and ethics.
I think maybe you're a "social liberal" and I'm a hands on, hard nosed "get the money" economic liberal. I'm not very worried about things I can't effect or have no intention of effecting.
Or is that "affect", I have trouble with the effect-affect thing. I AM worried about that. But I can effect it. Or is that affect it?
Swell. All of which has nothing to do with reality, it's just talk, an intellectual exercise.
And which portions of this message board are devoted to action rather than talk? What here isn't an intellectual exercise? If a forum devoted to discussion is the improper place to stretch your intellectual muscles, what is the purpose of this board?
And which portions of this message board are devoted to action rather than talk? What here isn't an intellectual exercise? If a forum devoted to discussion is the improper place to stretch your intellectual muscles, what is the purpose of this board?
As much as anyone, Thomas Jefferson was culpable in the unofficial policy of applying the doctrine of inducing the Indians, especially the Chickasaws, to become indebted, so to speak, to the 'company store.' Jefferson issued a directive to "establish among the Chickasaws, a factory for furnishing them all the necessaries and comforts they may wish, spirituous liquors excepted, encouraging them and especially their leading men to run into debt for these beyond their individual means for paying: and whenever in that situation, they will always cede lands to rid themselves of debt."
Jefferson had long dreamed of a solution to the Indian problem, and the acquisition of the Louisiana Purchase seemed to provide the answer. Apparently, Jefferson's thought was to eventually relocate all of the Indians west of the Mississippi River. This policy of Indian indebtedness continued over several president's terms, and it worked very well -- for the white man. It took the Indians a while to realize that each time they were feted at the White Man's table that their land holdings shrank.
Later, when Andrew Jackson became president, he ruthlessly carried out the Removal Act of 1835 and the infamous forced migration of the Indians west. Jackson had even made Indian Removal a campaign issue in 1828, saying the removal of the Indians was inevitable. Of course, the Removal Act failed to mention that gold had been discovered in Dahlonega, Georgia, in 1828 and the Indians were inconveniently sited on the land. The pressures for their removal mounted as the White settlers poured in.
Note: I've paraphrased much of this information from Gloria Jahoda's great book "The Trail of Tears: The Story of the American Indian Removals 1813-1855." I also found an interesting online discussion of this era by doing a search on the following:
Cherokee -- Overview, History. Modern Era, Acculturation
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
