Did you read the same article I did? There have been ambiguous interpretations and tellings almost from the time of Aesop.
Jackson was so corrupt the spoils system and most nepotism and anti-corruption laws we have came out of response to his Presidency. There are stories of people openly bribing him in view of the public.
When I saw that photo the first thing I thought was that they looked like they were wearing Tallits. I can't find a good picture of a tallit at the moment, on my phone, but it's a Hebrew prayer shawl.
The founder of the Democratic Party. It's only in the last few years that they stopped having annual "Jefferson-Jackson Day" dinners. Now that would pretty much be the same as having and annual "Lee-Davis Luncheon"
Yes, I don't care what anyone says, I will be chanting Guillermo. At least for the first game, maybe not subsequent.
Of course it does--but that more reflective on how it's viewed now than 50 years ago when I was learning it in school. We learned about Aesop. We didn't learn about de la Fontaine. He's big in France. Here? Not so much. Wikipedia has it's biases and flame wars. Try reading about the post WWI plebiscites in Eastern Europe for one.
That's beside the point. There have been alternative tellings since Aesop. You can edit the page like anyone else. Have at it.
Did you miss the part where I wrote "by the meager standards of the 1820s"? By which, I mean that he defied the Supreme Court of the United States to break treaties that the United States had signed with the Five Civilized Tribes and forceably relocate them to what is now Oklahoma. In the process of said relocation, a sizeable chunk of those people being relocated died. And while you speak of "advancing American interests," I will remind you that those people who were forced from their lands and died were Americans. And then there's this. There are plenty of hills on which one can choose to die. Defending Andrew Jackson would seem to be an unfortunate one, especially since one doesn't need to have modern sensibilities to consider what he did to be abhorrent.
What was, perhaps, worse was that he relocated the natives in order to make the land available for cotton planting, which of course went hand in hand with a huge expansion of slavery into Alabama and Mississippi. And of course he himself bought up enormous tracts for pennies and then sold it at a huge profit. Andy has a whole bunchof evil to answer for.
Editing Wikipedia is a fools game, frankly. But that's not the point. No one in US schools 50 years ago were using any of these alternatives. There was one interpretation. That's changed--and indicates the change in our culture. But let's see who we got in the draft, eh?
Slavery might be America's Original Sin, but its history of visiting genocide, forced relocation, family separation, and broken promises on American Indians is America's Original Addiction. It's been something that universal to all political stripes, we've justified it and rationalized it and excused it for so long that it's second nature, we have operated so long with it baked into our national fabric that it sometimes seems impossible to see how things could've been different, and it's been a slow-acting poison the entire time.
I forget the (SF) author, but there was a quote along the lines that it's hard to find a political figure anywhere with no blood on their hands. We're human. Any hero (heck, even merely a respected figure) we have will have feet of clay, somewhere--somehow.
The history of both parties is an ethical and doctrine/policy trainwreck that would make even the most ardent supporter of either side uncomfortable if they looked at them long enough.
That's a super-hollow sentiment in a number of cases. By that standard, Stalin is a "hero", and not just of the Soviet Union.
So much is wrong with this statement and its representation of history it is amazing. For one large tracts of the Roman empire were willed to Rome by various monarchies to avoid a civil war after the passing of a monarch.