usmbguest5318
Gold Member
During his campaign, Donald Trump asserted that he'd "choose the best people for my administration." How does one reconcile the veracity of that assertion with the fact that among all the people Trump hired, not one has the presence of mind to swap out a painting of Andrew Jackson for some other painting (or just remove it) for the period of time that a handful of Native Americans were in the Oval Office for a ceremony commending their contribution to WWII? For Trump's statement to be true, nobody who is otherwise qualified to serve in a Presidential Administration could have and/or would have thought to do so.
Why do I say that? Because everybody in the Trump Administration is well aware that whenever of late that Trump has remarked upon or interacted with minorities, each instance is "colored" by some sort of "dog whistle" for abject racists, that is when his words/deeds aren't irrevocably racist in and of themselves and uttered not "in code" but with the full force of a bullhorn. For example:
Is this oversight the "biggest deal in the world?" Of course not. What it is is yet another patent illustration among the litany of illustrations we have that show damn near everything Trump asserts(-ed) he will do or has done bears little to no resemblance to he in fact does or has done. It is too yet another illustration of Trump's insensitivity. It's yet another "dog whistle" to racists by dint of it being flat-out insulting to the very people whom Trump ostensibly was honoring.
References:
Why do I say that? Because everybody in the Trump Administration is well aware that whenever of late that Trump has remarked upon or interacted with minorities, each instance is "colored" by some sort of "dog whistle" for abject racists, that is when his words/deeds aren't irrevocably racist in and of themselves and uttered not "in code" but with the full force of a bullhorn. For example:
- "Good people, on both sides." -- There is no such thing as a racist who is also a good person; the two states of being are mutually exclusive.
- Matthew 22:36-40:
Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” - Luke 6: 43-44:
“For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit, for each tree is known by its own fruit."
- Matthew 22:36-40:
- "Look at my African-American over here." -- Really? "His" African-American? I wonder, does he in private actually use the language of ownership/possession when referring to his black employees or supporters?
- “He’s a Mexican. We’re building a wall between here and Mexico. The answer is, he is giving us very unfair rulings -- rulings that people can’t even believe.” -- JFC! No remark could better align with the very definition of racism.
Is this oversight the "biggest deal in the world?" Of course not. What it is is yet another patent illustration among the litany of illustrations we have that show damn near everything Trump asserts(-ed) he will do or has done bears little to no resemblance to he in fact does or has done. It is too yet another illustration of Trump's insensitivity. It's yet another "dog whistle" to racists by dint of it being flat-out insulting to the very people whom Trump ostensibly was honoring.
References:
- Trail of Tears
- Primary Documents: Indian Removal Act of 1830 [1]
- Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal Act of 1830
- Indian Removal and the 1832 Election
Supplementary Note for folks who don't want to read all those documents:
- Summary of main arguments for and against the Indian Removal Act of 1830
Issues of equality and justice, national economic development, and security from military attack were central to the arguments of both proponents and opponents of Removal. Both said they were concerned with political justice in a good society and they were opposed to oppression and for justice. The obvious question was that of who was being oppressed, and liberty for whom? The opponents argued that Georgia was oppressing the Cherokee and the proponents argued that the federal government was oppressing Georgia. Justice, for Georgia, was for the 1802 agreement to be fully implemented and the Cherokee expelled. Justice, for the Cherokee, was for the treaties with the US to be honored, her borders and people protected, and agreed upon payments to be issued.
The oppression of the Cherokee people was done in the name of political principles rather than their negation. The proponents did not say to the US public “we don’t care what the rules are; we only care about winning this struggle.” Instead of saying that they stood for the US disavowing and breaking agreements they found disagreeable, the proponents said they were honorable men who were resisting the oppression of the federal government and the Cherokee; Lumpkin said the spokesmen for Georgia were fighting for their rights. They said they were asking for equality of the southern states with those to the north and east in what had been allowed in dealings with Indians. They argued that the opposition to Removal was only prolonging the Indian’s misery and that expulsion would be of benefit to the Indians as well as to the United States. They spoke in the name of progress and national security in a sort of eminent domain on a colossal scale ensuring economic growth, social and political advance, and military security.
The arguments of the proponents of Removal were clearly self-serving and offered as a justification for the pillage, dispossession, and expulsion of Indian communities. However, their arguments resonated with a large number of people in the country. An essential argument of the proponents was that the treaties were not valid agreements because they were not agreements between civilized nations, but between whites and Indians. By characterizing the resisting Indian communities as savage, heathen, wandering peoples the proponents were laying the basis for dissolving their claims to land and sovereignty. Characterized as a lower race, the Indians were stripped of their standing as recognized in treaties and instead treated as wards and subjects.
The proponents of Removal argued that in order for the US to be an independent republic in the world of the 19th century it needed to be strong economically and internationally, which required secure borders and a growing population. The proponents were arguing for the continuation of the US policy of expansion that had been followed since the end of open war with Britain in 1783. The opponents of Removal were arguing for a change of policy. The change is hinted at by Evarts when he talks about the slave trade being legal in the past and now being illegal.
At the same time the stand of the opponents did not fully meet the political offensive of the proponents. They were silent on the charge that the southern states were being held to a different standard than other states that had dealt harshly with Indian communities within their borders. In charging the opposition with unfairly judging southern states by denial of the past history of US/Indian relations, Georgia was on solid ground. I found no apologies in the debates in Congress for the practices, including military campaigns, which resulted in the settlements in the Northwest Territories and their incorporation into the states of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, for example.
The opponents were arguing for basic principles of honest dealings in calling for the recognition and application of treaty agreements, but those were not the principles employed in the past, and to ignore that fact was a curious loss of memory. Thus the opposition did have the moral high ground of proclamations and documents but also had the baggage of living in a part of the country that had engaged in imperial and colonial expansion and the destruction of many Indian communities.
The proponents worked to write off the opposition and its appeal to the principles of equality and mutual respect by arguing that those opposing the dispossession and deportation of the Indian people were ignoring the constitutional rights of citizens of the states and the needs of the people.
The proponents preferred to have the focus of the debate on questions of colonial practice and legislation and US practice and legislation that agreed with that. The proponents cast the opposition to Removal in somewhat the same light as the opposition to Slavery was cast, as a threat to the established order and the progress of US society.
Ross, Evarts, and Sprague were calling for a turn away from the colonial policies of expansion and control practiced by European countries and continued by the US from the time of its independence. The turn would involve respecting the sovereignty of Indian communities and treating agreements with them in practice as they were written. The turn would involve abandoning, or at least greatly modifying, the incorporation of cheap land as a resource driving the US economy.
The proponents were able to block that turn and successfully press for the continuation of the principles and policies of colonial expansion that had prevailed up to that time. The racist views of the time and the expectation of many whites that land they could own and develop was an opportunity they were guaranteed were powerful impediments to the reconsideration that recognition of Indians rights would entail.
