Friday, July 13, 2007
Who's Who in History?
On Monday we talked a lot about Andrew Jackson, and how some of his political decisions were not only bad but unconstitutional. We also talked about how nothing in history is segregated, but rather a series of interconnected happenings that all affect each other. I believe that it is easy to look at an event and look at all the different causal factors, and look at the good and bad that came out of the event, history tends to be more strict when looking back on specific people. Practically every famous person we know is labeled as hero, patriot, or villain and murdered. We have put people in segregated categories and labeled them good or bad, which I think goes against the nature of history. In class we likened Andrew Jackson to Herbert Hoover, because he was blammoed entirely for the depression, and that's what comes to mind when most people think of him. I think historically people are made either famous or infamous, and we like to view them under that label instead of looking at the whole person. No one remembers the great humanitarian efforts Hoover made during WWI, we only remember him for his faults, and most are never taught that the majority of our 'founding fathers' were slave owners. I just think that we need to view men, and women, in the same way we view events: as a whole and interconnected piece of history.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I have to disagree, the comment you said, "we like to view them under a label instead of the whole person." I believe, that a person has his/hers entire life to show what type of person he/she is. For example, Hitler. He started a geniocide, that killed millions of people. I'm sorry but thats all I need to know about what a horrible person he was.
I agree that some people in history are sometimes perceived in a false light. However, in most cases they are labeled according to their actions that had the greatest impact. The founding fathers did own slaves, but people tend to look past that because they were responsible for founding America. I think in history people are judged by whether their good actions out-weighed the bad and vise versa.
I think that the people you mentioned (Hoover, Jackson) were really only symbols of the terrible times they brought about. For simplicity's sake is a reason why this may occur, but also because they were the President, ideally the symbol of the American population. But think...can one man, in a democratic system of checks and balances really bring about all these hardships himself? No. But, his leadership or poor qualities can really influence a lot of important people in the cabinet, congress, and the nation itself.
Natalie it is an important point to look at people as complex and contradictory but not necessarily good or bad. It seems that judgment tends to be based on perspective. In studying Native peoples, Jackson's removal policies could be interpreted as outweighing anything good he may have done. However, as we discussed in class and as Corban mentions, Jackson was not the only person who supported Indian removal and he did not pass the legislation completely on his own. The things Jackson and any other historical figure deserve credit or blame for are usually the product of many other interconnected events/people.
Post a Comment