Thank you Rick. I also said something to the same effect but using language that was deemed unsuitable hence it was deleted.
The Cherokee as whole were not removed as Jack grossly mistakenly implies because they were raiding farms in the middle of nowhere.
I'm on the same page with Jack 90% of the time. I thought he missed the fairness mark with his post. It came from a much biased perspective. It gets back to who's historical perspective, often biased, and language one is going to heed. I'd like a larger perspective encompassing different viewpoints examining different sides before reaching judgments.
BTW Jack, moral judgments are made on people's past behavior 50, 150, 1000 or more yrs ago with regularity. You're playing a one sided game when you don't bring into question your side or your perspective passes moral judgement yet calls foul when moral judgement is passed on you. Uhh, Andrew Jackson was definitely passing moral judgment on the Indian so were some others who could gain from it through conquest. This is passing a whole lot of moral judgment: "What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic studded with cities, towns and prosperous farms, embellished with all the improvements which art can devise or industry execute occupied by more than 12,000,000 happy people and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization, and religion?" Andrew Jackson in 1829.
No less alarming it is coming from the then President of the United States.
Here's why this is important. It relates to what history can be learned when a hike is approached embracing more than hiking. One of the greatest opportunities to embrace history on a hike is the AT. GREAT trail for historical lessons.