By Albert Bender
The drama is permeated with crude, artless anti-Indian humor. Euro-American audiences have frolicked at this dreadful performance in its off-Broadway run, to the extent that an internationally prominent Native American literary figure, a good friend of mine who attended the play to review it, left halfway through the performance because she felt in physical jeopardy.
Some critics have pointed out in defense of this sordid drama that other groups are also lampooned—Spaniards, gays, Southerners in general and rich whites. But where are the black people? Jackson was as much pro-slavery as he was anti-Indian, and the Hermitage was maintained by African-American slaves. There are no black characters in the play at all, much less any demeaning African-American stereotypes. Can anyone imagine a white audience in this day and time evincing riotous, knee-slapping guffaws at the portrayal of demeaning stereotypes of African-Americans or any other race in this country? If there had been even one demeaning stereotype of black Americans, there would have been a national uproar.
Deadliest Warrior vs. The Dudesons
The Dudesons, Polish jokes, and minstrel shows
Okay to stereotype in "satires"?
Again, the key point that no "spoof" defender has ever addressed: "If there had been even one demeaning stereotype of black Americans, there would have been a national uproar." Yet we not only tolerate the equivalent Native stereotypes, we defend and champion them. Why is racism against one American minority still perfectly acceptable?
For more on the play, see Stereotypes in Bloody, Bloody Andrew Jackson and Bloody, Bloody Andrew Jackson Reviewed.
For your more recent post:
In socialism, man oppresses his fellow man.
In capitalism, it is the other way around.
Why is racism against one American minority still perfectly acceptable?
This is a very good question. It would not be fair to judge all African Americans as ignorant to this affair since tribes themselves, namely the Pequot and Naragansetts, both sided with the colonists to against one another only to be both massacred by the English in the end.
Many African Americans proudly claim native blood and even fought alongside tribes as former slaves during the 19th century.
Andrew Jackson should always be regarded as the American Hitler, but one would be hard pressed to find even a few that would agree with me.
"Andrew Jackson should always be regarded as the American Hitler, but one would be hard pressed to find even a few that would agree with me."
I won't agree, of course. Are you buying into some imaginary theory that AJ engineered the entire New World holocaust, as Hitler engineered the Holocaust over much of Europe?
Of course he did not. He was just one of way too many, countless many white Americans/etc who participated and added to the genocide. There was nothing about him to make him stand above all to take the blame for the vast majority of the genocidal actions.... which he was never involved with in reality. The man was long dead by the time of the Wounded Knee massacre, for crying out loud. And the purging of the Sioux from Minnesota in 1962... Jackson had been dead for 17 years.
This being said, he was a detestible human being, for his involvement in genocide, probably not worthy of being on currency, or being always greatly honored by the Democratic Party
Jacksons tenure as a military commander and President opened an era in settlers and Native relations that continues into today dmarks.
If you do not know American history, you should just shut-up!
George Washington had fought against tribes but what led to forced relocations and a federal policy of "extermination" was largely a Jacksonian method.
Again, you speak for other people dmarks when I never used the word "engineered". Hitler had help dmarks and the era of the nazis' was shortlived compared to Andrew Jacksons success in keeping racism against Natives alive, as we so see today!
Good try though!
Who is really living in an "imaginary world" dmarks with your counterproductive input?
I'm sure DMarks knows a lot of US history. He just doesn't like comparing anyone to Hitler. ;-)
I wouldn't call Jackson an "American Hitler," but I wouldn't call him "just one of many" either. He was a leading architect of America's genocidal actions and attitudes.
I'm not thinking only of the Trail of Tears, either. Telling Americans they could ignore a Supreme Court ruling was tantamount to saying the US would never enforce a treaty if it meant inconveniencing non-Indians.
Post a Comment