Reading Zinn’s chapter, “As Long as Grass Grows or Water Runs” was extremely enlightening and upsetting at the same time. This chapter again left me questioning everything I had learned previously. In this chapter Zinn goes into great detail about American and Indian relations in the 1800s. Zinn discusses the evil/selfishness that was the American government. The government and prominent figures such as President Andrew Jackson supported the “Indian Removal” because it, “was necessary for the opening of the vast American lands to agriculture, to commerce, to markets, to money, to the development of the modern capitalist economy.” (126) This indian removal consisted of the use of force to drive native tribes from their home lands. This created great suffering, loss of a huge amount of Indian lives, and the destruction of Indian ways of life/culture/and traditions. The American government continuously oppressed, lied to, and endangered the indian population of America. This disgusts me. Even when tribes would attempt to assimilate to “white” American culture the government still took advantage and harmed them. I never knew the extent of government wrongdoing until reading this chapter. “ The leading books on the Jacksonian period, written by respected historians…do not mention Jackson’s Indian policy, but there is much talk in them of tariffs, banking, political parties, political rhetoric. If you look through high school textbooks and elementary school school textbooks in American history you will find Jackson the frontiersman, soldier, democrat, man of the people-not Jackson the slaverholder, land speculator, executioner of dissident soldiers, exterminator of Indians.” (130) This quote struck a chord in me. This whole chapter left me with many questions. Why is it that our history teaches a figure like Jackson in this way? Does it have to do with American patriotism? Why are we unable to teach American failures and wrongdoings? Why could we just not have a peaceful relationship with the Indian tribes who were settled long before the white Americans?
I find it absurd as well that Andrew Jackson can be described with all of these positive attributes and characteristics, yet he has an even more extensive list of negative ones that many people barely know about. How can one person have one set of qualities, but also an entire set that contradict those? It really makes me question opinion-based “facts” that we all hold true, and if they are even true.
I think thats a super valid point Sofia. I feel that same confusion. Hard for me to reconcile with the fact that a large part of my education growing up was a lie. I’m starting to wonder if the reason we weren’t taught certain parts of history is because it is just too dark and deep for younger kids to grasp and understand.
Your post put into words how I was feeling reading Zinn’s chapter. I feel like a lot of time when we talk about people or things that get lost or discredited in history, we talk about women and slavery and don’t talk about the suffering and lack of humanity that the native americans experienced at the hands of the United States. Why do you think they specifically are left out the most? Is it because they are a very small minority? Can we fix this?
You raise a very good point about how Andrew Jackson is depicted and how he is treasured as a strong political and economic leader throughout our US history. This makes me wonder, does the US care more about making money and becoming the strongest political force in the world more than it cares about decent human rights? Where do our priorities fall as a country? If we answered that question with our history I think the answer is that we care more about the economy.