- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/26767213
You must log in or register to comment.
Look I agree with the overall sentiment but 1 of these is not like the others, especially if you’ve read the history of the Dakota War of 1862. Should the US in general not have wholesale slaughtered an indigenous people and stolen their land? Obviously not. Did that reality lead to the war of 1862? Sure did. Does that make massacring people on either side ok? No not really. Lincoln was given a recommendation to execute 303 people who participated in battles and, in some cases, massacred civilians. He asked for details of their convictions. Then he decided that the 38 who actively participated in massacres of innocent people should be executed, not the others who participated in battles. That kinda feels like the best of a fucked up situation to me.
They also did that just do vandalize a sacred mountain.
The Lincoln one isn’t fair. After the Dakota uprising, the court sentenced HUNDREDS of natives to death for the murder of almost 500 settlers, including women and children. Lincoln commuted the sentences of almost all the convicted natives, save for the ones that personally murdered women and children.
-
Do you have a source on this?
-
You know that women can be fascist too right? There were tons of women Nazis and tons of women fascist in history. Do you believe that women are capable of the same things as men or do you think that they are these brainless little angels with no cognitive capacity for evil?
The 38 hangings were far from the worst of the Dakota genocide. Lincoln’s role was one of reducing cruelty while still punishing those guilty of massacres of civilians. Originally, hundreds of men were going to be hanged, but Lincoln commuted the sentences of all but the worst offenders. Unfortunately, two of the hanged men were innocent, and it’s unclear how the mistake was made. Far worse was the banning of Dakota people from Minnesota and the internment in camps, leading to widespread death by disease, though these were the actions of the Minnesota government.
There are very legitimate criticism to be had of Lincoln, like being the sitting president as one of the states committed genocide, or the appeasement tactics to slaveowners before civil war became inevitable. I do not think this one makes sense to be top of the list, as by all accounts Lincoln was attempting to reduce cruelty where possible and yet still punish mass murderers.
For a bit of additional background, the Dakota war, during the Dakota genocide, was an uprising of some Dakota, attacking anyone of white or “mixed-blood” descent. The state of Minnesota had broken numerous treaties and continued to seize land from the Dakota people, leading some to fight back. However, the massacring of civilians and anyone of non-pure blood is evil, and many Dakota who did not join the rebellion rescued hostages and helped resist wholesale slaughter. The Minnesota government is absolutely at fault for the conditions leading to and the execution of the Dakota genocide, but the rebels chose to commit racially motivated massacres of non-military targets. This does not make the later retaliation justified, but it does explain the hangings.
As for number two, I cannot speak to the other commenter’s beliefs or intentions, though I do not believe women were combatants in the Dakota war.
Note: Some historians object to the term Dakota war, as only a small faction joined the conflict, while a much greater number did not. I’m using the term as the consensus name for the conflict, not out of belief that it is accurate.
Average ml overreaction.
I mean you know how insane you sound right now, right? Like I doubt you are being serious in what you are saying, cause we’re over here saying “Hey some of those people murdered women and children who had nothing to do with the attacks on the Dakota people and that is frequently a death penalty kind of situation” and you’re over there implying those women and children could have totally deserved it or something so that would have make it ok, kinda hard to tell which is why I have to assume you just don’t like people disagreeing with you.
-
Two of these guys are much more complicated. Most people have already pointed out Lincoln but Teddy is more complicated than how he viewed Native Americans. He was out first Trust Buster as President. The robber barons thought they had bought him but once he was in office, after the death of McKinley, he went after them. He broke up Standard Oil. He went after those fuckers with his big stick and helped a lot of people because of it. He also created National Parks, which is complicated but still more positive than the destruction of the land that was happening.
Of course he was also racist, but there are presidents who are complicated and manage to do both terrible and actually very positive things at the same time. Teddy wasn’t perfect and he was often an asshole, but he did good things too.
"I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are the dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every 10 are, and I shouldn’t like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth.” Not complicated, Roosevelt was an awful human.
He also personally invaded cuba with the intention of conquering it for the united states but changed his mind when he saw how many black people were in cuba
This just in: Everyone is bad and the world should all collectively give up for our lack of unblemished virtue.
This kind of relativism is reactionary and reductionist. TBH I never participated in or funded a genocide. Likewise I never had any slaves. These presidents are objectively garbage humans.
dang never realized where the saying “the only good cop is a dead cop” came from
