NOW, THE 94% OF THE ARGUMENT THAT IS A BETTER ARGUMENT
IS ON THE OTHER SIDE.
>> AND SHE IS AN ADMIRABLE FIGURE FROM AMERICAN HISTORY,
NOT JUST FROM HER WORK IN FREEING SLAVES BUT ALSO HER
CAMPAIGN TO RECEIVE THE PAYMENT SHE WAS DUE BASED ON HER WARTIME
ACTIVITIES.
DESPITE HER FIGHT SHE NEVER MADE AS MUCH AS OTHER
SOLDIERS, SHE MADE SOMETHING LIKE 25% LESS.
BUT EVEN GETTING
THAT WAS A VICTORY.
OBVIOUSLY OUTSPOKEN ON A NUMBER OF ISSUES.
AN INSPIRATIONAL FIGURE FOR BOTH AFRICAN-AMERICANS AND
WOMEN, SO IT IS GOOD -- TWO BIRDS, ONE STONE, AND IN A NUMBER
OF WAYS, INSPIRATIONAL.
THREE BIRDS, BECAUSE FUCK ANDREW
JACKSON.
THE PEOPLE DEFENDING HIM DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT
HIM, ASIDE FROM THE 10% WHO DO KNOW IT, AND THAT IS WHY THEY
LIKE HIM.
AMERICA'S PAST IS COMPLICATED AND IT WOULD BE
DIFFICULT TO LAUD ANYONE IF WE LOOK AT THEIR LIVES FROM THE
POINT OF VIEW FROM WHERE WE ARE, BECAUSE MANY OF THEM WERE
SLAVEOWNERS.
ANDREW JACKSON IS A SPECIAL VERSION OF ASSHOLE FROM
THAT TIME.
I COULD HAVE PULLED SO MANY QUOTES, I JUST GOT ONE.
HE OWNED HUNDREDS OF SLAVES -- NOT JUST A MINOR SLAVEOWNER --
>> ON THE SLAVERY ISSUE HE IS WRONG, BUT PERHAPS EVEN WORSE,
WHEN IT COMES TO HIM AND NATIVE AMERICANS, THERE IS ALMOST NO
ONE FIGURE WHO IS MORE OBJECTIONABLE, MORE
REPREHENSIBLE.
ALL HE DID TO DEFRAUD DIFFERENT NATIVE
AMERICAN COMMUNITIES, TO KILL AND BRUTALIZE, DRIVE THEM OUT OF
AREAS, CONSTANTLY MAKING TREATIES WITH GROUPS SAYING WE
WILL MOVE YOU A COUPLE DOZEN MILES IN THIS DIRECTION, BUT AS
LONG AS THE TREES BLOSSOM AND THE WATERS RUN YOU WILL HAVE YOUR
LAND, AND SIX MONTHS LATER HE BEATS THEM OUT OF THE LOCATION
-- YOU CAN LAY THOUSANDS OF DEAD NATIVE AMERICANS SOLELY ON
HIS BACK, AND THAT IS JUST THE TRAIL OF TEARS.
NEVER MIND THE
CAMPAIGNS THAT HE MASTERMINDED IN FLORIDA.
IT IS A GOOD THING THAT HE IS AT LEAST BEING PUT ON THE BACK
OF THE BILL.
>>I HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE MIXED FEELINGS.
GIVEN WHAT JOHN SAID,
HOW COULD IT POSSIBLY BE MIXED?
OVERWHELMINGLY I AGREE, LET'S BE
CLEAR.
BUT THE THINGS THAT WERE -- LET'S PUT IT THIS WAY, NUMBER
ONE, ALL THE FOUNDING FATHERS -- NOT ALL, MOST OF THEM OWNED
SLAVES.
SOME OF THEM WERE GENIUSES, SOME OF THEM WERE PROGRESSIVES, THAT
LED TO MORE FREEDOM AND LIBERTY TO A BIGGER CIRCLE OF PEOPLE.
WHAT?
A SLAVEOWNER, PROGRESSIVE?
PROGRESSIVE FOR THAT TIME.
>>THAT IS TRUE.
>> AND YES, THEY HAD MILES TO GO, WE WISH THEY GOT THERE
QUICKER, AND THEY KIND OF ALREADY KNEW.
THEY KNEW AT THE
TIME.
BUT WITHIN THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF WHERE THEY LIVED THEY
WERE LIKE -- LOOK AT THOSE SLAVEOWNERS WHO SAY MAYBE WE
SHOULDN'T HAVE SLAVES LATER, WHICH IS CONVENIENT, I WILL
GRANT YOU.
SO ANDREW JACKSON IS IN THAT GROUP, HE IS SEPARATED
FROM THE FOUNDING FATHERS, BUT HE IS IN THE GROUP OF
SLAVEOWNING PRESIDENTS.
NATIVE AMERICANS, HE WAS PARTICULARLY
BRUTAL TOWARDS.
A LOT OF NATIVE AMERICANS WERE KILLED, WE
BETRAYED THEM IN ALMOST EVERY DEAL WE MADE, AGAIN THAT IS TOO
STRONG, BUT IN A LOT OF THE DEALS WE MADE WITH THEM.
BUT HE
WAS THE RINGLEADER OF THAT CIRCUS.
ON THE OTHER HAND HE WAS
A POPULIST, SO ONE OF THE THINGS HE DID WAS INSTEAD OF LETTING
THE RULING CLASS HOVER ABOVE THE CROWD -- HE WOULD MERCILESSLY DO
THAT AGAINST AFRICAN-AMERICANS AND NATIVE AMERICANS, ETC., BUT
FOR THE POOR WHITE PEOPLE, HE ACTUALLY LET THEM INTO THE WHITE
HOUSE.
WHICH WAS LIKE, WHOA.
WHAT IN THE WORLD?
>>YOU CAN'T EVEN GO IN THERE NOW.
>>HE IS INVITING POOR PEOPLE INTO THE WHITE HOUSE AND LETTING
THEM BE PART OF THEIR HOUSE.
IT IS A SLIGHTLY MORE MIXED RECORD
BECAUSE THAT STRAND OF POPULISM HAD SOME POSITIVE PARTS TO IT.
AND WITHIN ITS HISTORICAL CONTEXT, ALTHOUGH HIS ACTS WERE
MONSTROUS, THEY WERE NOT AS MONSTROUS AS IF SOMEONE HAD DONE
THEM TODAY.
HAVING SAID ALL THAT, OF COURSE HE SHOULD BE
TAKEN OFF THE $20 BILL.
AND FURTHERMORE, MAYBE THE MOST
CONVINCING POINT IS, PUTTING ASIDE THE ATROCITIES, WHICH YOU
SHOULD NOT PUT ASIDE, HE WAS AGAINST PAPER CURRENCY.
IT IS
THE MOST IRONIC PERSON ON A PAPER BILL YOU COULD POSSIBLY
HAVE.
ON THAT ALONE -- ACTUALLY ANDREW JACKSON MIGHT FEEL LIKE
YOU WERE DISHONORING HIS MEMORY BY PUTTING HIM ON THE $20 BILL.
>>REALLY FAST, I HAVE TO SAY ONE STORY, AND YOU SHOULD READ -- GO
BACK TO YOUR HISTORY TEXT BOOKS FROM HIGH SCHOOL, READ
"A PEOPLE'S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES," BUT IN ONE CASE HE SAID
TO A GROUP OF I BELIEVE CREEK INDIANS, I KNOW YOU DON'T WANT
TO BE MOVED OUT OF YOUR AREA, SO WE LET YOU STAY BUT IN RETURN
ALL THE MEN IN YOUR GROUP NEED TO GO TO FLORIDA, I BELIEVE IT
WAS THE SEMINOLES, WE NEED YOU TO CONDUCT A MILITARY EXPEDITION
AGAINST THEM.
THEY WOULD RATHER INDIANS KILL INDIANS, THAN WHITE
PEOPLE KILL INDIANS.
THE CREEK MEN ARE LIKE, OKAY.
SO THEY
TRAVEL DOWN THERE AND ENGAGE IN THIS HORRIFIC BATTLE AGAINST THE
SEMINOLE NATIVE AMERICANS THERE.
SO AS SOON AS THE MEN LEAVE,
THEY SWOOP IN AND TAKE ALL THE WOMEN AND RAPE THEM AND
FORCE THEM TO LEAVE THE AREA.
AND BY THE WAY, SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU ARE PUT ON THE BILL,
FOR THE NEXT 10,000 YEARS YOU HAVE TO STAY ON IT?
HOW ABOUT WE ROTATE IT?
THE FOUNDING FATHERS ARE GREAT IN A LOT OF CASES, BUT
THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER GREAT AMERICAN SINCE THEN.
>> ONTO HARRIET TUBMAN FOR A SECOND, JOHN WAS REFERRING
HOW SHE WORKED FOR THE UNION IN THE CIVIL WAR AS A SPY, A NURSE,
A COOK, SHE WAS SUPPOSED TO GET $25 BUT THEY WOULD NOT GIVE HER
THE FULL $25.
SHE WAS USED TO INJUSTICES, BUT THAT ONE STUNG
GIVEN HOW MUCH SHE HELPED THE UNION, AND THEY ONLY GAVE HER
$20 A MONTH.
SO NOW SHE'S ON THE $20 BILL.
THE LEFT-WING
CRITICISM JOHN IS REFERRING TO IS SO LEFT-WING I THOUGHT IT WAS
RIGHT-WING, THERE IS A QUOTE THAT I COULDN'T EVEN BELIEVE --
TUBMAN DID NOT RESPECT AMERICA'S ECONOMIC SYSTEM, SO MAKING HER A
SYMBOL OF IT WOULD BE DISRESPECTFUL.
WAIT, WAS SHE
SUPPOSED TO RESPECT SLAVERY?
OH, SHE IS LEFT-WING, SHE IS SAYING
DON'T MAKE HER A PART OF THIS SYSTEM THAT SHE HATED.
I DON'T
AGREE WITH THAT EITHER BECAUSE THIS IS A DIFFERENT SYSTEM.
>> I GET WHAT SHE IS SAYING, BUT IT IS NOT LIKE SAYING SHE LOVES
CAPITALISM, IT IS SHOWING, WHEN PEOPLE PICK UP THE BILLS, THEY
SAY THERE ARE DIFFERENT SORTS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE IMPORTANT AND
SIGNIFICANT IN OUR HISTORY.
SOME PEOPLE ALSO ARE FRUSTRATED,
PISSED OFF, THAT IT WILL TAKE 14 YEARS FOR THIS
TO GO IN EFFECT.
AND EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE ACTIVISTS WHO WOULD BE
PUT ON ONE OF THE BILLS, THEY SAY THE FACT THAT THERE ARE SO
MANY OF THEM, EACH INDIVIDUAL ONE WILL BE SMALL, AND IN ONE OF
THE CASES THEY WILL BE ON THE BACK OF THE BILL, THAT IS
ACTUALLY AN INSULT.
I GET WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, BUT IT IS
PROGRESS.
>>I CONFESS I DON'T KNOW ALL OF THE VIEWS OF HARRIET TUBMAN ON
CAPITALISM, BUT THERE IS A GIANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CAPITALISM
WITH SLAVERY AND CAPITALISM WITHOUT SLAVERY.
MAYBE SHE
TALKED ABOUT THAT DISTINCTION, BUT HISTORICAL CONTEXT MATTERS A
LOT.
THE FLIP SIDE FOR REPUBLICANS IS, REPLACE A MAN
WHO HATED BANKS BY A COMMIE SLAVE STEALER WHO HATED
CAPITALISM?
SEVEN LAYER DIP OF IRONY.
YOU ARE CRITICIZING HER TODAY FOR
BEING A COMMIE BECAUSE SHE WAS A SLAVE STEALER?
>>ODDLY ENOUGH, THE ARGUMENTS OF PEOPLE ON TWITTER DON'T
MAKE RATIONAL SENSE.
>>TO THINK THAT IS AN INSULT YOU COULD USE IN 2016, SLAVE
STEALER.
AS AN INSULT!
IF YOU THOUGHT THERE WAS NOT RACISM IN
THE WORLD, THINK AGAIN.