Thread by @IamShaneMorris, Let's talk about history. More importantly, let's talk about Andrew Jackson. But [...]

Let& #39;s talk about history. More importantly, let& #39;s talk about Andrew Jackson. But before we begin...

Pop Quiz: What year did the last state finally legalize interracial marriage?

I will note that it was state level (as interracial marriage was legalized at the federal level in 1967), so the vote was mostly symbolic, but still -- 40% of the vote was in opposition.

So, even after it was federally legal, people wanted to prove just how racist they could be.

Who remembers the Japanese Internment camps of WWII? Japanese Americans were put into camps because of Executive Order 9066.

Does that mean we shouldn& #39;t have statues of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt?

(Full text here: https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=74)">https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php...

After all, EO 9066 didn& #39;t say anything about internment camps, or Japanese people, specifically.

It was an act to prevent espionage.

Lt. Gen. John DeWitt was put in charge of the new CA, OR and WA Command, and he decided he was... doing what he thought was right.

Shortly after Pearl Harbor, a Japanese submarine surfaced off the coast of Santa Barbara, and lobbed a few small shells into town.

There& #39;s a 99% chance you aren& #39;t aware that happened, but check this out: People were freaked the fuck out.

Rumors started going around that the Japanese navy was able to send in spies via submarines off the coast, and all of a sudden, everyone was terrified of Japanese people.

All of a sudden, being anti-Japanese was mainstream. You weren& #39;t racist, after all. We were in a war.

I say this because given the climate of the time, almost 95% of Americans supported Lt. Col. DeWitt& #39;s decision to create internment camps for Japanese citizens.

Of course, it wasn& #39;t just the Executive Order alone that did it.

HR 6758 made it into law.

https://history.house.gov/Records-and-Research/Listing/lfp_004/">https://history.house.gov/Records-a...

I don& #39;t think that 95% of Americans would have otherwise advocated for putting American citizens into camps. After all, over two thirds of the 120,000 Japanese put into camps were born in America.

With that said, there was a suspect element of racism behind it.

German Americans were not put into camps, nor were Italian Americans.

In March of 1942, European immigrants were seen as "more" American -- despite the fact that we were at war with the Axis, as a whole.

Moreover, the Pearl Harbor attack was Japanese planes and ships.

Knowing all that, it& #39;s important that when we are discussing historical figures, we view them in the context of their era.

Many "progressive" politicians from as recently as the 1960s and 1970s would be viewed as wildly homophonic, transphobic, and racist in 2020.

Andrew Jackson was a real piece of shit, but I think we need to keep in mind that the Removal Act was written by Congressman John Bell of Tennessee. (His former Congressional peer.)

John Bell was, get this... against the expansion of slavery, and campaigned against secession.

In his era, as strange as this sounds -- Andrew Jackson& #39;s social views on Native American populations were fairly mainstream, and dare I say... he was more "Pro-Indian" than many of his peers.

He was at least willing to trade them land in the west for land in the east.

Today, we see the Indian Removal Act as a vile representation of American expansion as the cost of tens of thousands of lives -- the Trail of Tears, etc.

But Andrew Jackson wasn& #39;t impeached for being a repugnant piece of shit who hated Indians.

Andrew Jackson& #39;s impeachment fell one vote short in the Senate, over his assignment of Lorenzo Thomas as Secretary of War, and his subsequent abuse of power by doing insider deals for his friends.

(He totally did it.)

His peers didn& #39;t give a shit about Native Americans either.

Given enough time, most historical figures are going to fail you; socially, intellectually, economically, environmentally, etc.

Some do much worse than others. This is why, as a general rule, I& #39;m opposed to Confederate Statues. Those dudes were known for slavery.

Some Presidents, even during their era, were amazingly racist.

Just Google "Woodrow Wilson racist" -- and you& #39;ll come up with a treasure trove of insanity. Notably, Wilson re-segregated the government.

He wouldn& #39;t allow black clerks to be in the same room as judges.

WEB Dubois once famously wrote a letter to President Wilson, noting that he was appalled to find out President Wilson LITERALLY had a custom cage made for a black court clerk, who needed to be in the same room as white court clerks, but couldn& #39;t be segregated due to his job.

If you force every historical figure to pass a purity test, most will fail.

That doesn& #39;t mean we should tear down their statues on a whim. We should sometimes evaluate which statues should remain, and which needs to be removed -- that& #39;s perfectly fine.

It just seems crazy to me that we can& #39;t see history for all its context. Instead, we are ripping apart the statues of Presidents.

With that said... every Confederate statue can be cut in half, where we put them next to photos of slaves. That& #39;s where they belong.

Latest Threads Unrolled: