• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we abolish Columbus Day?

Abolish Columbus Day, replace it with Bartolomé Day?


  • Total voters
    73
By taking the position that because a thing was done then it was [more] acceptable, you'd have to extend that logic to any atrocities committed today. The official count is that there are currently 30 million slaves worldwide today. From the viewpoint of those studying history four hundred years from now one might arrive at the conclusion that the 21st century was just a different time and that slavery was fine.
You are talking nonsense.
I am sure you are acquainted with the difference between legal and illegal, right?
What was done back then was legal. What is being done now is not.
 
The point is he was a savage who enjoyed torturing and maiming people.
Why are you making claims you can not support?
 
Why are you making claims you can not support?

Well you don't HAVE to do those things, so quite obviously they WANTED to do those things. Is common sense not allowed in your world?
 
You are talking nonsense.
I am sure you are acquainted with the difference between legal and illegal, right?
What was done back then was legal. What is being done now is not.

Legal does not equal right.
 
Except slavery is universally decried today and actively combated by virtually every government and international law enforcement organization. A more apt analogy might be how people four hundred years from now look upon our explanations for 'collateral damage' in warfare as acceptable and something we generally shrug at. Likewise some of the things Columbus did (the bloody raids against the Taino's) were more or less tolerated even in his time, others were considered terrible even for the 16th Century and he was punished as a result. It is the latter that makes him particularly unpleasant.
Everything above, but the last two sentences, I agree with, as the charge has not been proven.

By 1498, conditions were so terrible that Spain had to send someone else to govern the colony, and Columbus was arrested. He was transported back to Spain in chains, to stand trial for his crimes. He was stripped of his titles and all claims to the lands that he “discovered.” He was later cleared of the most serious charges, but his titles were no longer his to enjoy.
Christopher Columbus: The Man, The Myth, The Murderer - Liberty Crier

The ones that would have been considered terrible would be those which were most serious, and he was cleared of them.
Cleared of them and restored to his former position and glory and given monetary compensation for his incarceration.

The only thing I am aware of his being found guilty was maladministration.

The combination of his frail health and failing spirits could not deter Columbus. Even being shackled, with a trial and possible punishment looming, did not stop him from pursuing his goal. Columbus was returned to Spain by the end of October 1500. He was brought into the country in chains, a sad sight which sparked pity and compassion from those around him. After nearly six weeks the King and Queen ordered his release and called him before the royal court. This final meeting between the explorer and his royal benefactors was an emotional one, filled with apologies and tears from both sides. Columbus, mostly with the Queen’s insistence, was restored to his former position and glory and given monetary compensation for his incarceration. He was, however, still relieved of his position as ruler of the colonies in the New World.

Columbus After 1493, Christopher Columbus, Social Studies, Glencoe
 
Last edited:
Well you don't HAVE to do those things, so quite obviously they WANTED to do those things. Is common sense not allowed in your world?
Common sense is that this was the way things were done. Which has nothing to do with the assumptions you are making and can not support.



Legal does not equal right.
When illegal denotes wrong, yeah it pretty much does.
 
Last edited:
Common sense is that this was the way things were done. Which has nothing to do with the assumptions you are making and can no support.



When illegal denotes wrong, yeah it pretty much does.

Well illegal doesn't necessarily equal WRONG either. :shrug:
 
Yeah, it pretty much does.

No it does not. Alcohol USED to be illegal. Is it wrong to have a couple of drinks? Of course not. Slavery USED to be legal. Is slavery wrong? of course it is.
 
It'd be pretty hard for someone to say that what Christopher Columbus supposed did is "good" or "right" in any way. That's for sure. It's disgusting what he did, legal or not, DISGUSTING.
 
Yes I know. My IQ routinely tests between 153 and 167.
Anything else you would like to say Alec, or will you finally stop with getting personal?
My money is on you not stopping.

Routinely? I surely believe that. How many IQ tests have you taken and why? :lol:

When people toss out their IQ's so fast that is generally a sure fire indication that they are full of ****. Even if it is true there is more critical thinking, recognition, humility, etc than a person's IQ

And you just called me childish. Doesn't the one wanting to alter a behaviour model what they constitute appropriate behaviour?

For heavens sah-keh.
I said I parroted them back to you as they apply to you far more than they apply to me.
And yes that is throwing them back in your face.
It points out how juvenile you are being, and leaves no mistake how your own words are meant to be taken.
And make no mistake, I am going to continue to do it.
If you don't like it, your best bet is act like an adult and not throw them out there to begin with.

Sure thing scooter...

We know you are, but you shouldn't be confused on that issue at all. Killing is not murder.

Still confused...

Said the guy who said he wasn't arguing that it was.
Figures. I knew you didn't know what you were arguing.

That is not what I said...

Wrong.
You don't get it.
Killing like that has not always been murder.

Laws are based off of a societies morals. There have been murder laws since the Code of Hammurabi in ancient Mesopotamia. Really, you argument is pathetic.

This looks like it would be a great signature. :doh

Bodhisattva ~ "I didn't argue that it was murder"
Bodhisattva ~ "I have been arguing that it is murder all along. "

Not Murder under US Legal Code to Columbus as it was not written yet and as argued by you.
Yes Murder as in the immoral killing of other humans that has been recognized probably since cave men chilled back in the day...

First of all, this is your failure.
I stated that "He declared war", which is clearly supported by the information I provided.
That information states that the "King Ferdinand ... gave him anything he needed to break and conquer the natives."
Wtf do you think that means? Huh? Conquer. Is this another word you need explained to you?

When the report stated that "his demands were met with surprising defiance which allowed him to then declare war" what the heck do you think "allowed him to declare war means?

So no state sponsored declaration of war was declared. Got it. You lost. And worse, you fail to see the analogy I provided.

You are the one assuming and alleging that he needed the Queens approval. That is on you to support. So please provide proof of it.
I supported what I said. It is now up to you to support what you say.
But I know you wont.
Because you failed to support any of your claims that you have been asked to thus far.

US Constitution. "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Your understanding is what is ****ed up.
As with the Presidents during the Vietnam Conflict, he had the authority to act in such a way.
It wasn't illegal.

Who siad it was illegal? I said it was an undeclared war. "The Vietnam War was not a declared war... " 160 my ass... you are so full of crap.

They had to create the War Powers Act to reign in Nixon after they repealed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution back in '71 or '72.

Nor do our laws of today apply to yesterday. Or did you not know that?

Hence the undeclared war. You just love shooting yourself in the foot, don't you? That is not a crack at your disability status, BTW.

More confusion on your part. As a conquer, he was not.

Without declaring war he was really an illegal immigrant...

Yes you are.
Murder is an illegal act.
You can't call a legal killing murder.
And looky there. Here you are contradicting yourself again.

I am distinguishing between your "today it's murder and before it wasn't". And initially he was a visitor attempting to get to India. He broke their laws, undoubtedly.

You have no clue as what you have been arguing.

Keep up the brilliant analysis...

I think I understand what the problem is.
If you concede that simply killing is not murder, then your position that killing the unborn is murder falls.
I would suggest we drop the discussion if this is the case, because I am not wrong, and you could never show that you aren't.

You are bringing up abortion? WTF? Yeah, I think I will drop it as you are clearly delusional... wish I had seen this last part before I wasted my time above. :roll:
 
Yeah, it pretty much does.

Laws are subjective... that is why you fail.

When illegal denotes wrong, yeah it pretty much does.

Great argument for keeping separate but equal as a law...
 
No it does not. Alcohol USED to be illegal. Is it wrong to have a couple of drinks? Of course not. Slavery USED to be legal. Is slavery wrong? of course it is.
You are confusing personal opinion with illegal.
Something that is illegal is wrong under the law.
That is why during prohibition many folks went to prison for their violations.
It was still wrong then, though it may not be wrong now.

Slavery is only wrong because of the law.
That is evidenced by the many that still accept it.
The law makes something wrong for all regardless of personal opinion.
 
You are confusing personal opinion with illegal.
Something that is illegal is wrong under the law.
That is why during prohibition many folks went to prison for their violations.
It was still wrong then, though it may not be wrong now.

Slavery is only wrong because of the law.
That is evidenced by the many that still accept it.
The law makes something wrong for all regardless of personal opinion.


I think it's universal personal opinion (except for perhaps a MURDERER) to consider the unwarranted murder of a whole bunch of people in a brutal and painful way, not to mention the rape and mutilations, wrong.
 
I think it's universal personal opinion (except for perhaps a MURDERER) to consider the unwarranted murder of a whole bunch of people in a brutal and painful way, not to mention the rape and mutilations, wrong.

Give it up. Why bother?

Murder laws have been around for 4,000 years. It isn't a difficult concept... well, not to most.
 
Give it up. Why bother?

Murder laws have been around for 4,000 years. It isn't a difficult concept... well, not to most.

It's okay because he discovered America and we have a holiday named after him. :roll:
 
It's okay because he discovered America and we have a holiday named after him. :roll:

He discovered America. A place that had approximately 10 million people living in it that already had discoverd it 30,000 - 60,000 years before. Oh, and Lief Erickson discovered it prior to Columbus too... damn, I am gonna name a burger after columbus because he is that awesome!
 
He discovered America. A place that had approximately 10 million people living in it that already had discoverd it 30,000 - 60,000 years before. Oh, and Lief Erickson discovered it prior to Columbus too... damn, I am gonna name a burger after columbus because he is that awesome!

That Columbus, he was one special dude you know! :mrgreen: The next pet I have, I'm going to name it Columbus.
 
You are talking nonsense.
I am sure you are acquainted with the difference between legal and illegal, right?
What was done back then was legal. What is being done now is not.

It was what the kings and queens determined was legal, but not much more. No polls, internet, democratic media, you can't assume what was and wasn't popularly accepted as ethical. What's interesting is that when you fast forward to, say, the birth of the United States and its free speech, while slavery was still legal you suddenly became fully aware of the dissent against slavery. That should be telling.
 
That Columbus, he was one special dude you know! :mrgreen: The next pet I have, I'm going to name it Columbus.

Were you named after him Chris? ;)

Wasn't he up for Times "Man of the Year" back in '03?

I heard he might get a posthumous Nobel Peace Prize this next round.
 
Were you named after him Chris? ;)

Wasn't he up for Times "Man of the Year" back in '03?

I heard he might get a posthumous Nobel Peace Prize this next round.

Lol. If his real name was Christine, then perhaps.

:lol: I wouldn't be surprised if he did get the Nobel. It's a real joke. What will the category be? Humanitarian? Lol.
 
Lol. If his real name was Christine, then perhaps.

:lol: I wouldn't be surprised if he did get the Nobel. It's a real joke. What will the category be? Humanitarian? Lol.

With Obama and Gore getting one?

That award became a meaningless piece of crap the moment the gave it to Yasser Arafat. And Gandhi never won one? What a crock.
 
With Obama and Gore getting one?

That award became a meaningless piece of crap the moment the gave it to Yasser Arafat. And Gandhi never won one? What a crock.

I agree. They have no more value than the toy at the bottom of a cereal box.
 
Back
Top Bottom