the Refinery

omchomsky:

ayiman:

svnoyi:

ctrl-alt-exterminate:

whims-of-a-feminist:

anarcho-drew:

thejazzwriter:

At the end of the day, this is inescapable.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, Andrew Jackson. The man behind the Trail of Tears. “Murderer” doesn’t even cover how atrocious of a man he was. Not only did he put into effect law that forced them out of their homes, but he also personally lead soldiers prior to his presidency to slaughter Native Americans.
Keep in mind that he graces our twenty dollar bills. A genocidal racist marks one of our most commonly used monetary bills.

:L…

I do agree with you, but to an extent. When you take the office of president, you will undoubtedly be required to make huge decisions that either way, would lead to the death of many, many citizens. By this logic, about a dozen or so presidents should also be called murderers.
Another thing is, while there have been countless numbers of atrocities in the past founded on racism and sexism, you can’t look at history through the lenses of the present. Morality was completely different in the 1830s, and racism was not a thing. The Native Americans were seen as ‘savages’ and outsiders; not to mention there was gold on the Cherokee lands, and their removal was necessary (or so Jackson thought) to resolve the crisis in Georgia going on between the people who wanted the gold and the Cherokee tribes. Now this isn’t to say the Relocation Act was right, because that couldn’t be farther from the truth considering the devastation and death it caused for the Native Americans, but when you’re the highest authority in the country, you sometimes have to make terrible decisions and you sometimes make the wrong decisions. Basically what I’m trying to say is, you can’t label a man from the 1830s as a genocidal racist because a) racism didn’t exist in the 1830s and b) he didn’t necessarily commit genocide.

Bro.
The North American genocide is one of the most successful and extensive in history. Hitler thought it was totally sweet and modeled his camps after reservations.
And Jackson was one of the biggest players in that.
His white ass was certainly racist, weather it was a well known concept or not (HE may not have known it, but all the brown folks knew why they were targeted. It wasn’t because of the land they lived on, because you dont hear stories of how all the white people living on land that was rumored to have gold were forced to walk thousands of miles to shitty POW camps)…and he was DEFINATELY, WITH NO POSSIBLE WAY TO DISPUTE IT, genocidal. He committed genocide, supported genocide, put forth laws and acts that supported genocide. HE LOVED GENOCIDE
Because he was a murderer, a racist, and a genocidal jackass. And I hope that if there is a hell he burns there for all eternity.

What snvoyi said. This bullshit equivocation? This sounds like apologism. Can we then not say that the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade was not, at it’s most fundamental, racist and genocidal?
So, ctrl-alt-exterminate, what then would you define as racist and genocidal?
because the UN defines it as thus:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

we can label him a genocidal racist because that’s exactly what he was.
And I’m sorry, but this historical relativism is a pile of steaming shit, too. He had them removed because everyone saw them as savages and wanted their land. Somehow that’s not racist because it happened in the 1830s? Does the fact that this thinking was normalized excuse the naked racism behind it?
Absolutely not, and he fucking well agreed with all of it, too. He was a racist, murdering piece of shit.
and you’re a fucking asshole.

FUCK genocide apologists.

monuments to state sanctioned DEATH, GENOCIDE, MURDER.
QUESTION:
how do you show pride in such a fucked up truth?
WAKE THE FUCK UP PEOPLE!

ayiman:

svnoyi:

ctrl-alt-exterminate:

whims-of-a-feminist:

anarcho-drew:

thejazzwriter:

At the end of the day, this is inescapable.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, Andrew Jackson. The man behind the Trail of Tears. “Murderer” doesn’t even cover how atrocious of a man he was. Not only did he put into effect law that forced them out of their homes, but he also personally lead soldiers prior to his presidency to slaughter Native Americans.

Keep in mind that he graces our twenty dollar bills. A genocidal racist marks one of our most commonly used monetary bills.

:L…

I do agree with you, but to an extent. When you take the office of president, you will undoubtedly be required to make huge decisions that either way, would lead to the death of many, many citizens. By this logic, about a dozen or so presidents should also be called murderers.

Another thing is, while there have been countless numbers of atrocities in the past founded on racism and sexism, you can’t look at history through the lenses of the present. Morality was completely different in the 1830s, and racism was not a thing. The Native Americans were seen as ‘savages’ and outsiders; not to mention there was gold on the Cherokee lands, and their removal was necessary (or so Jackson thought) to resolve the crisis in Georgia going on between the people who wanted the gold and the Cherokee tribes. Now this isn’t to say the Relocation Act was right, because that couldn’t be farther from the truth considering the devastation and death it caused for the Native Americans, but when you’re the highest authority in the country, you sometimes have to make terrible decisions and you sometimes make the wrong decisions. Basically what I’m trying to say is, you can’t label a man from the 1830s as a genocidal racist because a) racism didn’t exist in the 1830s and b) he didn’t necessarily commit genocide.

Bro.

The North American genocide is one of the most successful and extensive in history. Hitler thought it was totally sweet and modeled his camps after reservations.

And Jackson was one of the biggest players in that.

His white ass was certainly racist, weather it was a well known concept or not (HE may not have known it, but all the brown folks knew why they were targeted. It wasn’t because of the land they lived on, because you dont hear stories of how all the white people living on land that was rumored to have gold were forced to walk thousands of miles to shitty POW camps)…and he was DEFINATELY, WITH NO POSSIBLE WAY TO DISPUTE IT, genocidal. He committed genocide, supported genocide, put forth laws and acts that supported genocide. HE LOVED GENOCIDE

Because he was a murderer, a racist, and a genocidal jackass. And I hope that if there is a hell he burns there for all eternity.

What snvoyi said. This bullshit equivocation? This sounds like apologism. Can we then not say that the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade was not, at it’s most fundamental, racist and genocidal?

So, ctrl-alt-exterminate, what then would you define as racist and genocidal?

because the UN defines it as thus:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

we can label him a genocidal racist because that’s exactly what he was.

And I’m sorry, but this historical relativism is a pile of steaming shit, too. He had them removed because everyone saw them as savages and wanted their land. Somehow that’s not racist because it happened in the 1830s? Does the fact that this thinking was normalized excuse the naked racism behind it?

Absolutely not, and he fucking well agreed with all of it, too. He was a racist, murdering piece of shit.

and you’re a fucking asshole.

FUCK genocide apologists.

monuments to state sanctioned DEATH, GENOCIDE, MURDER.

QUESTION:

how do you show pride in such a fucked up truth?

WAKE THE FUCK UP PEOPLE!