• 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
If you'd rather be living in a teepee somewhere than with the technology and creature comforts Western Civilization provides, go right ahead and do it then. I doubt your presence would be much missed. :roll:

Yes, because as we all know - "civilization" is determined by Western culture only.
 
Bloody land grabbing and tribal conflicts in the ancient world does not constitute genocide. What Turkey did, in the modern world, does.

.... So what the Europeans did in Africa... is that genocide? Or bloody land grabbing?
 
.... So what the Europeans did in Africa... is that genocide? Or bloody land grabbing?

There was no attempt to wipe out an ethnic group. Horrible slaughter for land of Biblical proportion? Sure, it was very ugly just a few hundred years ago. War crimes were not much of a consideration, let alone prosecuting for such. We (the West) were barbarians, slaughtering anything before us in a mad land grab. If there was intent to wipe out an ethnic group, there would not be a dozen major tribal languages in Kenya. No tribe ceased to exist and there's no evidence of an attempt to eliminate an ethnic group. Without that intent, it doesn't meet the fundamental definition.

Colonialism was horrible, but it does not meet the (primary, intent-based) definition of genocide.


I find using the term loosely, for political gain no less, unreasonable. Neither the expansion west nor the a-bombs nor colonialism (with exceptions) were genocide. There was no intent to wipe out an ethnic group.
 
Last edited:
There was no attempt to wipe out an ethnic group in Kenya

That's but one country.

Horrible slaughter for land of Biblical proportion? Sure, it was very ugly just a few hundred years ago. War crimes were not much of a consideration, let alone prosecuting for such. We (the West) were barbarians, slaughtering anything before us in a mad land grab. If there was intent to wipe out an ethnic group, there would not be a dozen major tribal languages in Kenya. No tribe ceased to exist and there's no evidence of an attempt to eliminate an ethnic group. Without that intent, it doesn't meet the fundamental definition.

This is a pretty spurious argument you're making here. It doesn't take the complete wipe out of a group for it to be considered a genocide. The Herero, Namaqua and 20% of the Congo Free State were systematically attacked as a group over and over again.

Colonialism was horrible, but it does not meet the intent-based definition of genocide.

It seems history disagrees with you. German colonialism directly met the intent-based definition of genocide:

GENOCIDE - Namibia

The German Emperor replaced Major Leutwein with another commander, this time a man notorious for brutality who had already fiercely suppressed African resistance to German colonisation in East Africa. Lieutenant-General Lothar von Trotha said, 'I wipe out rebellious tribes with streams of blood and streams of money. Only following this cleansing can something new emerge'. Von Trotha brought with him to German South West Africa 10,000 heavily-armed men and a plan for war.

On October 2, 1904, von Trotha issued his order to exterminate the Herero from the region. 'All the Herero must leave the land. If they refuse, then I will force them to do it with the big guns. Any Herero found within German borders, with or without a gun, will be shot. No prisoners will be taken. This is my decision for the Herero people'.
 
Last edited:
Obviously, we cannot say that what happened in one place (my post notes exceptions) means that colonialism (as a whole) was genocide.
 
Obviously, we cannot say that what happened in one place (my post notes exceptions) means that colonialism (as a whole) was genocide.

I was addressing the claim that "Bloody land grabbing and tribal conflicts in the ancient world does not constitute genocide." - If that bloody land grabbing comes along with the extermination of many peoples, as it usually does, it's genocide. I'd say most European excursions into the New World as well as Africa most certainly counted as genocide. All this to say is that you're not seeing the forest for the trees. Land grabbing is a goal. Genocide is a method.
 
I was addressing the claim that "Bloody land grabbing and tribal conflicts in the ancient world does not constitute genocide."

That's a statement of fact. There's no debate. Look up the definition.
 
Yes, because as we all know - "civilization" is determined by Western culture only.

In comparison to what existed in the Americas before we arrived? Absolutely.

The best the Western Hemisphere had to offer in the Pre-Columbian era was scattered stone age tribes of hunter-gatherers, a smattering of primitive agriculturalists, and a handful of more "advanced" Civilizations that wouldn't have been terribly out of place in the Egyptian era back in Eurasia, while being five or ten times as bloodthirsty and barbaric.

The effects of the diseases and exploitive attitudes some European colonists brought with them may have been horrific, but it's hard to deny that Western influence has been a net benefit to the Americas in the longrun anyway regardless.

The Pre-Columbian Civilization was basically a dead end.
 
I wonder why...maybe because they were the last to get crushed... Or else they got the term from Canada....

I'm pretty sure it's a political correctness thing.
 
In comparison to what existed in the Americas before we arrived? Absolutely.

Considering the extent to which we exterminated most of the tribes in the Americas? No, we can't even begin to compare them.

The Pre-Columbian Civilization was basically a dead end.

Which is why they survived until the Europeans got here. Lolz. Your nonsense is nonsense.
 
That's a statement of fact. There's no debate. Look up the definition.

If the method by which the land is obtained is genocide, then yes, it most certainly does. Again, you're confusing methods with goals.
 
If the method by which the land is obtained is genocide, then yes, it most certainly does. Again, you're confusing methods with goals.

You fundamentally misunderstand what genocide is. You're using it to mean "killed a lot of people".
 
Thanks for voting, everyone. I admit I am a little surprised that 3 out of 5 people say we should continue celebrating it after reading the first two posts.
 
Considering the extent to which we exterminated most of the tribes in the Americas? No, we can't even begin to compare them.

We didn't "exterminate" anyone. Most of the native population would've died of disease before ever even having the chance to encounter a European, simply due to the manner in which diseases tend to travel along major trade routes.

Furthermore, of course we can compare European and Native American Civilization. Why on Earth wouldn't we be able to do so? Have you never heard of archaelogy?

The simple fact of the matter is that the Aztecs and Inca were basically the best the Pre-Columbian Americas had to offer, and they were both irredeemably brutal cultures, which possessed technology that was easily milennia behind Eurasian standards. They were a developmental dead end.

Which is why they survived until the Europeans got here. Lolz.

And there are still stone age tribes "surviving" in the Amazon and Oceania. What's your point?

"Surviving" is not the same thing as thriving.
 
Last edited:
Interesting point I guess, but it's not supposed to be a kind gesture to the natives so much as it is refraining from celebrating shameful acts. Might not be able to heal the wound but why mash salt into it?

No one who's a native in my family gives a damn.
 
I don't think you do know much about it. The only people who are really Americans are native Americans. Most of us white Americans are of European descent. America is a melting pot of different cultures and ethnicities. For example, I am Irish, Italian, English, Welch, Polish, Canadian Indian.

Exactly. It doesn't matter where your ancestors may have come from. If you were born here, you are an American.

That's all there is to it.

My family is Welsh-Irish, Scotch-Irish, Italian, German (Prussian), French-Canadian, Norwegian, and Cheerokee. We might be mutts, but it certainly doesn't make us any less fundamentally "American." :lol:
 
Exactly. It doesn't matter where your ancestors may have come from. If you were born here, you are an American.

That's all there is to it.

My family is Welsh-Irish, Scotch-Irish, Italian, German (Prussian), French-Canadian, Norwegian, and Cheerokee. We might be mutts, but it certainly doesn't make us any less fundamentally "American." :lol:




Bing. My family is Scots, Irish, English, German, Cherokee and Creek. Enough of the latter than we sometimes get asked if we're part native.

We're just Americans. Almost all native born Americans are mongrels.

Just like most South Americans are a mix of SA Indian and Spanish or Portuguese.

What happened centuries ago, happened in a different time when ALL peoples were a lot rougher and more ethnocentric....
 
No one who's a native in my family gives a damn.

The idea isn't in response to imagining today's natives care deeply about it. The idea is in response to learning the reality about the individual after whom we named a national holiday.
 
My relatives call Columbus Day by a different name: Invasion Day.
 
The idea isn't in response to imagining today's natives care deeply about it. The idea is in response to learning the reality about the individual after whom we named a national holiday.


IF all that is true, then yeah he was a pretty sorry wretch even by the rough standards of the time.
 
I thought it had been switched to "Explorers' Day" or "Discoverers' Day" a few years back anyway. /shrug Doesn't bother me if it gets changed or not. But if it is changed, just change it to something neutral, like the above two or something else like them.

It would still be viewed as it should, a day to celebrate Europeans first reaching America, and that leading to the culture that has now developed here.
 
Haven't you folks remade the country enough?
ok ok we get it America is the great satan enough already!
 
Funnily enough, we had a co-worker email the entire staff today talking about Columbus Day and Thanksgiving. Basically saying that instead of thanking Columbus we should thank the indians and give her stuff. :roll:

A few things to note.

You are correct that Columbus was a bastard and many other things which I dare not use as this would just be one long astericks sentence.

You are also "technically" correct when you state that Columbus did not discover America first. That the vikings didn't either. However, you are also technically wrong. It is all a matter of perspective. The Vikings did indeed "discover" the America's because they didn't know about it when they found it. The same applies to Columbus discovering it as those in Europe (england specifically) had no idea that the America's existed either. You can indeed "discover" something even if others have been to that place as a "discovery" can be based off of personal experiance and circumstances. When you "discover" something you find something that you previously had no idea existed.

Next, I always laugh at those that point out the savagery of a particular culture and while doing so ignores the savagery of another culture. Everyone always laments and cries out about what the English and European folks did to the Native Americans...but who laments and cries out over those that the same Native American's displaced? Do you really think that was peacefully done? Of course not. It too was done in savagery. That was the common theme in any primitive people no matter the culture or place. Hell, its a common theme in present day "civilized" society. The actual people that "technically" discovered the America's are long since forgotten but over thousands of years new immigrants to this country continued to poor in via the landbridge and they always displaced those that came before them. Which reminds me...the term "Native" is actually a misnomer as none of the people in either of the America's originally came from them. They were all immigrants. IE: Not Natives.

Now, I'm not going to Celebrate Columbus day or Thanksgiving day for the atrocities that Columbus did. But I am going to celibrate those days because if it wasn't for Columbus discovering the America's I would not currently be enjoying the life that I have right here, right now. I personally am not responsible for what he, or anyone else in the past or present time has done. I am only responsible for myself. And I refuse to let people blame me or mine for such things and will always point out the hypocrisy in people's response of Columbus Day, Thanksgiving day, or any other atrocity that was committed by people I not only have never even had a slight chance of meeting, but never will meet and/or be a party to. The Sins of the Father do not confer to the Child no matter what anyone says.
 
Yes my supposed lack of anti-American education, your self-imagined superiority
the left's virulent hatred of my country, you folks are too clever by half

it must be sad to go through life such as you do

I literally just explained this to you. Christopher Columbus was Italian, NOT American, so stop calling him part of your country.

And if you want to talk to someone, click "reply with quote" so that person gets notified. I only saw your response because people kept liking my post telling informing you that Christopher Columbus wasn't an American. And this was added as a holiday within your lifetime, so this isn't your ****ing heritage either.
 
Back
Top Bottom