• 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
Gathomas88 said:
Not necessarily. Most of the allegations brought against him involved his treatment of the natives.

Cortez may have very well been a conqueror, and Pizzaro may've been a particularly brutal conqueror. Columbus' actions, however; went far beyond any of that. He didn't "conquer" Hispaniola, so much as himself up as the reigning "Kurtz" in his own private heart of darkness.

The Spaniards might not have necessarily been opposed to slavery, and they certainly weren't opposed to conquest. However, that being said, they were not exactly orcs dead set on wanton cruelty and destruction either. Columbus crossed well over the line even by their standards.
Click to expand...

I have been reading up today and the more I read the more I tend to think that you got him dead on.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I have been reading up today and the more I read the more I tend to think that you got him dead on.
Click to expand...

It's actually kind of bizarre how Columbus has an almost glowing reputation in modern popular culture, where Cortez is largely remembered as being some sort of blood thirsty barbarian. It was really quite the opposite.

Cortez was a shrewd diplomat and pragmatic warrior who lead a native coalition to take down one of the most brutal regimes in recorded human history. Columbus was basically a power mad lunatic who got lucky enough to stumble upon one of the most important discoveries in Western history in spite of his own incompetence.
 
Last edited:
I think we shouldnt celebrate it at all.
He was trying to find India and failed landed here murdered hundreds of thousands of natives, kidnapped them, and opened the door to the slave trade. He was a murderous scum.
 
ChrisL said:
Of course they do. Ever hear of Cinco de Mayo? How about St. Patrick's Day? Kwanzaa? :roll:
Click to expand...

yeah great song by Liz Phair

 
Gathomas88 said:
Not necessarily. Most of the allegations brought against him involved his treatment of the natives.

Cortez may have very well been a conqueror, and Pizzaro may've been a particularly brutal conqueror. Columbus' actions, however; went far beyond any of that. He didn't "conquer" Hispaniola, so much as himself up as the reigning "Kurtz" in his own private heart of darkness.

The Spaniards might not have necessarily been opposed to slavery, and they certainly weren't opposed to conquest. However, that being said, they were not exactly orcs dead set on wanton cruelty and destruction either. Columbus crossed well over the line even by their standards.
Click to expand...

Spaniards may not have been cruel, but they changed the nature of a thriving culture for eurocentric ideals.
 
Hypersonic said:
Spaniards may not have been cruel, but they changed the nature of a thriving culture for eurocentric ideals.
Click to expand...

We introduced an entire continent's worth of people to technology and modes of living millennia ahead of their own while simultaneously putting an end to a hyper-violent native culture which hadn't even stumbled into the bronze age yet and a religion which perpetuated tens of thousands of institutionalized human sacrifices each year.

What's wrong with that? :shrug:
 
Last edited:
TheDemSocialist said:
I think we shouldnt celebrate it at all.
He was trying to find India and failed landed here murdered hundreds of thousands of natives, kidnapped them, and opened the door to the slave trade. He was a murderous scum.
Click to expand...

He's hardly a stellar individual but let's not rise to hyperbole. He didn't murdered 'hundreds of thousands' much of the documentation we have comes from his fiercest political opponents who lambasted him before the Court of Spain. Pre-modern history is frustratingly replete with impossibly high numbers that are recorded as factual. Simple logic should rule this one out however. Columbus at most commanded a few hundred full time soldiers with a few thousand colonists to support him and only reigned from 1492-1500 of which only a small portion was spent with an actual colony to govern. To suppose that he managed to kill hundreds of thousands is to posit that he did literally nothing but kill 24 hours a day for several years. Thousands perished in raids, under brutal labor conditions, and most prominently the lethal arrival of western disease.
 
Sherman123 said:
He's hardly a stellar individual but let's not rise to hyperbole. He didn't murdered 'hundreds of thousands' much of the documentation we have comes from his fiercest political opponents who lambasted him before the Court of Spain. Pre-modern history is frustratingly replete with impossibly high numbers that are recorded as factual. Simple logic should rule this one out however. Columbus at most commanded a few hundred full time soldiers with a few thousand colonists to support him and only reigned from 1492-1500 of which only a small portion was spent with an actual colony to govern. To suppose that he managed to kill hundreds of thousands is to posit that he did literally nothing but kill 24 hours a day for several years. Thousands perished in raids, under brutal labor conditions, and most prominently the lethal arrival of western disease.
Click to expand...

I fail to see how that makes anything better.
 
Gathomas88 said:
It's actually kind of bizarre how Columbus has an almost glowing reputation in modern popular culture, where Cortez is largely remembered as being some sort of blood thirsty barbarian. It was really quite the opposite.

Cortez was a shrewd diplomat and pragmatic warrior who lead a native coalition to take down one of the most brutal regimes in recorded human history. Columbus was basically a power mad lunatic who got lucky enough to stumble upon one of the most important discoveries in Western history in spite of his own incompetence.
Click to expand...

Hell, Andrew Jackson is on the twenty.
 
Gathomas88 said:
We introduced an entire continent's worth of people to technology and modes of living millennia ahead of their own while simultaneously putting an end to a hyper-violent native culture which hadn't even stumbled into the bronze age yet
Click to expand...
that made me smile ;)
 
Gathomas88 said:
We introduced an entire continent's worth of people to technology and modes of living millennia ahead of their own while simultaneously putting an end to a hyper-violent native culture which hadn't even stumbled into the bronze age yet and a religion which perpetuated tens of thousands of institutionalized human sacrifices each year.

What's wrong with that? :shrug:
Click to expand...

Yes but you also introduced disease, Europeanized language which many inhabitants spoke for generations, an almost lost culture not to mention a psychological influence of divisiveness. Most people of those regions do not speak their ancestral language. The Aztecs never spoke spanish they spoke Nahuatl, yet the arrival of the Spanish introduced Costillano spanish to replace the indigenous tongue. The idea of a hyper-violent society is meant to smokescreen the Aztec achievement which was many for such a "barbaric" society.
 
Hypersonic said:
Yes but you also introduced disease, Europeanized language which many inhabitants spoke for generations, an almost lost culture not to mention a psychological influence of divisiveness. Most people of those regions do not speak their ancestral language. The Aztecs never spoke spanish, yet the arrival of the Spanish introduced Costillano spanish to replace the indigenous tongue.
Click to expand...

The effects of the diseases we carried with us were unfortunate, but ultimately could not really have been avoided. Even if Europeans had "come in peace," so to speak, the diseases our diplomats carried with them still would have ravaged the Native American population anyway regardless.

As far as culture and language are concerned, I don't see why it should really matter. You don't see the French complaining about how they lost their "original" language and culture to the Romans, do you? :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Gathomas88 said:
The effects of the diseases we carried with us were unfortunate, but could not really have been avoided. Even if Europeans had "come in peace," so to speak, the diseases our diplomats carried with them still would have ravaged the Native American population anyway regardless.

As far as culture and language are concerned, I don't see why it should really matter. You don't see the French complaining about how they lost their "original" language and culture to the Romans, do you? :shrug:
Click to expand...

Well that is the French. The result of European colonialism in the Americas are those in contemporary times (such as descendants of oppressed cultures) who are prideful of their original heritage and language. Although now it's too late to turn back time, I think the idea of "we brought them this, or that" is indicative of Eurocentric mentality. Cortez certainly didn't come in peace and of course the invading Spaniards thought the Aztecs were "barbaric" because they were evangelized Christians who sought to evangelized a culture they thought was barbaric this is called colonialism. Sure technology such as science and medicine came out of it. But that culture has lived for centuries medicine was not a problem for them.

These people developed a complex math system which we are astonished even today, so these people were hardly mindless goons in the sense.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Right. What is being celebrated is honoring a guy that accidentally came across a land mass already occupied by people for 30,000 plus years. He then enslaved as many as he could. He never even knew that he had not found land around India. He failed and we honor him...
Click to expand...
Whaaaa!
We honor him for his discovery.

Get over it.
 
Hypersonic said:
Well that is the French. The result of European colonialism in the Americas are those who are prideful of their original heritage and language. Although now it's too late to turn back time, I think the idea of "we brought them this, or that" is indicative of Eurocentric mentality. Cortez certainly didn't come in peace and of course the invading Spaniards thought the Aztecs were "barbaric" because they were evangelized Christians who sought to evangelized a culture they thought was barbaric this is called colonialism. Sure technology such as science and medicine came out of it. But that culture has lived for centuries medicine was not a problem for them.
Click to expand...

They were cutting the hearts out of thousands of people each year while they were still alive, and eating them afterwards. That's "barbaric" by an objective standard which has nothing whatsoever to do with culture.

They were basically an entire society built around warfare, violence, and ritualistic bloodshed.

These people developed a complex math system which we are astonished even today, so these people were hardly mindless goons in the sense.
Click to expand...

True. However, you have to remember that the Egyptians, and arguably even the people who built Stonehenge, were capable of much the same.

Knowledge of mathematics does not necessarily make up for all the other failings their society possessed.
 
Gathomas88 said:
They were cutting the hearts out of thousands of people each year while they were still alive, and eating them afterwards. That's "barbaric" by an objective standard which has nothing whatsoever to do with culture.

They were basically an entire society built around warfare, violence, and ritualistic bloodshed.



True. However, you have to remember that the Egyptians, and arguably even the people who built Stonehenge, were capable of much the same.

Knowledge of mathematics does not necessarily make up for all the other failings their society possessed.
Click to expand...


Ok so were the Mongolians, Alexander the Great, The Roman Empire, The Ottoman Empire, and many others. As far as barbarism I would say the idea of barbarism when looking at a culture's ritualistic habits varies. Some might look at certain cultures where a male's rights of passage such as putting one's hand in a glove filled with bullet ants is gruesome and somewhat barbaric. Some might look at the cutting of an African kids face as a rite of passage cruel and child abuse. Whenever a culture has a certain perspective exclusive as to how they perceive the world, any culture that seems extreme from that would appear barbaric. What the Aztecs did in their time is what they saw the world and what they experienced from their spiritual faith.

For the Europeans who were evangelized in Christianity of course they'll perceive what the Aztecs did as barbaric, but it is not to be said that their perception upon the Aztecs was objective as we all know any culture which isn't as advanced as the Europeans at that time, they saw any culture inferior. This is why I used the term "Eurocentrism" because there was largely an idea that everything ought to revolve around European ideals. This spawn European colonialism. European colonialism let's not forget was not a moral movement.
 
Hypersonic said:
Ok so were the Mongolians, Alexander the Great, The Roman Empire, The Ottoman Empire, and many others.
Click to expand...

And would you have wanted to live under any of them if you were given the choice? :lol:

As far as barbarism I would say the idea of barbarism when looking at a culture's ritualistic habits varies. Some might look at certain cultures where a male's rights of passage such as putting one's hand in a glove filled with bullet ants is gruesome and somewhat barbaric. Some might look at the cutting of an African kids face as a rite of passage cruel and child abuse. Whenever a culture has a certain perspective exclusive as to how they perceive the world, any culture that seems extreme from that would appear barbaric. What the Aztecs did in their time is what they saw the world and what they experienced from their spiritual faith.
Click to expand...

While it might very well be true to say that all human societies possess certain intrinsic downsides, it cannot really be denied that, in the case of European contact with the Americas, our culture was less objectively terrible than that of the native peoples. We simply happened to possess more advanced technology, more progressive values, and a society less centered around pointless ritualistic bloodshed and violence than they could ever dream of possessing at the stage of cultural development they were in when contact was made.

For the Europeans who were evangelized in Christianity of course they'll perceive what the Aztecs did as barbaric, but it is not to be said that their perception upon the Aztecs was objective as we all know any culture which isn't as advanced as the Europeans at that time, they saw any culture inferior. This is why I used the term "Eurocentrism" because there was largely an idea that everything ought to revolve around European ideals. This spawn European colonialism. European colonialism let's not forget was not a moral movement.
Click to expand...

Competition between cultures is always ultimately an issue of "survival of the fittest." The native cultures of the Americas simply didn't make the cut. :shrug:
 
Gathomas88 said:
And would you have wanted to live under any of them if you were given the choice? :lol:



While it might very well be true to say that all human societies possess certain intrinsic downsides, it cannot really be denied that, in the case of European contact with the Americas, our culture was less objectively terrible than that of the native peoples. We simply happened to possess more advanced technology, more progressive values, and a society less centered around pointless ritualistic bloodshed and violence than they could ever dream of possessing at the stage of cultural development they were in when contact was made.



Competition between cultures is always ultimately an issue of "survival of the fittest." The native cultures of the Americas simply didn't make the cut. :shrug:
Click to expand...

The bold was interesting.

All I could think of was....

The Crusades.

Salem Witch Trials.

Leopold II upon the people of the Congo

Holocaust

If you look at the the Viking Anglo-Saxon and Norman incursions you'll see barbarism in Europe.

If the strength of what you're saying is coming from the Medieval period you'd be hard pressed since the Arabs such as the Saracens were very technologically advanced since Europe was in a dark age. But I do agree with you in your last statement. Most military incursions happen and who ever survives is the fittest. The only thing that gave Europeans in the Americas the upperhand is technology. However a lot of military technology came by trade from cultures who had already invented it....Such as the Chinese who invented gunpowder.

But if you look at the history of Genghis Khan upon conquering people (although he greusomely slaughtered his enemies and those that opposed him) he also convinced the people that his actions were for the good of the people and claimed that by riding the former rulers he rid the people of the opppressors as he (Genghis Khan) claimed to be the "wrath of God." So in essence, it wasn't just gunpowder and canons that won the wars for the Spainards, it was also psychological warfare. Since the Spanish were Christian I'm sure they tried tirelessly to convince the population that their gods were false and that there was only one god. Get enough people to believe the incoming conquerors are the true saviors you'll have a mass of people to believe the imperial forces are for the good of the people.

We see this now in the Iraq and Afghanistan war with the exception of teaching the people about Christianity.
 
Hypersonic said:
The bold was interesting.

All I could think of was....

The Crusades.

Salem Witch Trials.

Leopold II upon the people of the Congo

Holocaust

If you look at the the Viking Anglo-Saxon and Norman incursions you'll see barbarism in Europe.
Click to expand...

The only thing on this list which even begins to approach the levels of barbarism which were routine in Pre-Columbian America is the Holocaust. Frankly, even then, that was a pretty exceptional event which was perpetrated by a post-Enlightenment Western culture that was almost completely removed from the one responsible for colonizing the Americas.

As such, it doesn't really bear any relevance on the comparison between Europe and the Americas during that period.

If the strength of what you're saying is coming from the Medieval period you'd be hard pressed since the Arabs such as the Saracens were very technologically advanced since Europe was in a dark age. But I do agree with you in your last statement. Most military incursions happen and who ever survives is the fittest. The only thing that gave Europeans in the Americas the upperhand is technology. However a lot of military technology came by trade from cultures who had already invented it....Such as the Chinese who invented gunpowder.
Click to expand...

This is all a red herring. How the West happened to compare to any other culture around at the time of the our first contact with the Native Americans is ultimately completely irrelevant.

What is relevant is that we were clearly more advanced than the Pre-Columbian cultures of North and South America. This was true on a social, technological, and cultural level.
 
Gathomas88 said:
The effects of the diseases we carried with us were unfortunate, but ultimately could not really have been avoided. Even if Europeans had "come in peace," so to speak, the diseases our diplomats carried with them still would have ravaged the Native American population anyway regardless.

As far as culture and language are concerned, I don't see why it should really matter. You don't see the French complaining about how they lost their "original" language and culture to the Romans, do you? :shrug:
Click to expand...

Ehhh I don't know if that's really an accurate parallel. Don't mistake me, I'm actually quite a fan of Western imperialism believe it or not, as I think it's largely had a net benefit on the world's economic and social situation.

Even so, I do think there's merit in observing an untouched culture, for what you can learn about different cultural evolutionary pathways, and so it is something of a shame to see the cultures of the New World so utterly and totally extinct.

I think it's a defensible position to both support that the Western Hemisphere has become an extension of Europe and European ideals, and still mourn the loss of a culture that developed in strikingly different ways to those in the Old World.
 
Gathomas88 said:
And would you have wanted to live under any of them if you were given the choice? :lol:



While it might very well be true to say that all human societies possess certain intrinsic downsides, it cannot really be denied that, in the case of European contact with the Americas, our culture was less objectively terrible than that of the native peoples. We simply happened to possess more advanced technology, more progressive values, and a society less centered around pointless ritualistic bloodshed and violence than they could ever dream of possessing at the stage of cultural development they were in when contact was made.



Competition between cultures is always ultimately an issue of "survival of the fittest." The native cultures of the Americas simply didn't make the cut. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I have to do a doublethink on the "less objectively terrible" comment. That would be less objectionably terrible from the "European"oint of view - which makes it subjective. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom