• 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!

How should Christopher Columbus be judged?

How should Christopher Columbus be judged?

  • He should be judged strictly by today's standards and mores.

    Votes: 5 9.6%
  • Somewhere in the middle. (Please elaborate)

    Votes: 9 17.3%
  • He should be judged by the standards and more of the time in which he lived.

    Votes: 30 57.7%
  • Other

    Votes: 8 15.4%

  • Total voters
    52
Whether you judge Columbus by the merits of his time or the modern era, there were still people who hated him and found him despicable. But consider that he was also under the approval of Queen Isabella who was desperate to shore up the financial reserves of Spain, and saw the "new word" as raw material.

It's just really unfortunate because Europe's food and land resource issues could have been solved if they worked with the North American Indians instead of against them. The natives here had terraformed more than half the continent into ecosystems of sustainable agriculture, with little waste, based on ancestral wisdom that Europe had long since disposed of in its pagan conquests.
 
I want to know his view about sodomy on the high seas before I make a final judgment. *winks*
 
Eventually, not tomorrow and not next week, Columbus Day will be wiped off of the calendar.
Don't take my word for this, just wait and see.

The USA will not continue to honor this genocidal loser who couldn't find India, but did kill many thousands of Native Americans whose only crime was being in his way.
 
Most explorers know what they are looking for, be it a lost tomb or Asia. He was lost. The Americas were not lost to be found. There were already many peoples living here in many varied societies.
This made me chuckle. Especially the last sentence. What claptrap! I suspect you're willfully ignoring the meaning of 'discovered'... most explorers have might have an idea or a hope of what they're looking for, but also know that they'll probably end up completely surprised... but as you're so clearly biased I have zero faith you will concede the obvious.


Eventually, not tomorrow and not next week, Columbus Day will be wiped off of the calendar.
Don't take my word for this, just wait and see.

The USA will not continue to honor this genocidal loser who couldn't find India, but did kill many thousands of Native Americans whose only crime was being in his way.
The idiot!!! Yeah, you're right, he should have sailed through the Panama Canal and kept going to India!

:roll:
 
This made me chuckle. Especially the last sentence. What claptrap! I suspect you're willfully ignoring the meaning of 'discovered'... most explorers have might have an idea or a hope of what they're looking for, but also know that they'll probably end up completely surprised... but as you're so clearly biased I have zero faith you will concede the obvious.



The idiot!!!
Yeah, you're right, he should have sailed through the Panama Canal and kept going to India!




:roll:



At that time going around Africa would have been his best bet from Europe.
 
At that time going around Africa would have been his best bet from Europe.
:doh Do you really believe that his goal was to get to India solely for the sake of getting to India? Is it not possible that he was seeking a better and/or faster way to India?

You do understand that the purpose of exploring is to find new things or ways, not to simply retrace the already known paths, right?
 
:doh
Do you really believe that his goal was to get to India solely for the sake of getting to India? Is it not possible that he was seeking a better and/or faster way to India?

You do understand that the purpose of exploring is to find new things or ways, not to simply retrace the already known paths, right?



Columbus never made it to India.
 
Columbus never made it to India.
You have left me speechless. I... literally don't know what to say. Maybe I could pontificate on my liking of cheesecake. It would be about as relevant to this thread as your understanding of, and responses to, the topic itself. :shrug:
 
Jefferson didn't work "tirelessly" to end slavery. Franklin could possibly be seen as having done more than Jefferson. Was he philosophically against it? Yes. Was he, like many of his southern ilk, nevertheless tied to it? Yes. The "peculiar institution" did that to people, and Jefferson was no exception. He was fairly mum on the subject during his political prime. Sure, he thought much like many during his time, that perhaps you could free them, send them off to a remote colony somewhere; but with age came greater and greater reluctance to act. Toward the end of Jefferson's life, he had a letter from an up and coming gentleman (whose name escapes me). This young man wanted to rally support for more anti-slavery measures and sentiment. Jefferson in his more elderly years could have offered support, some social networks, whatever have you. Instead, the man diligently responded by telling the young man that the enterprise wasn't really worth the bother.

Does this to me mean that Jefferson's merits are destroyed? Not really, no. He did many great things. But much like John Adams' legacy had to endure for centuries, so too must Jefferson deal with the sensibilities of his successors of many generations down the line. It became somewhat of a canard to think that the greatness of american Presidents went from Washington to Jefferson, skipping poor frumpy Adams. Why? Because Adams not only made political errors with his cabinet, but he also was seen as this anti-democratic monster who crushed dissent during an emerging war. But now Mr. Adams is receiving a bit of a resurgence. Not just because of the War on Terror's reevaluation of civil liberties, but also because, quite frankly, Adams comes out smelling better with the slavery and race test than Jefferson does. It's the blunt truth.

Is the race or slavery test a bad idea? No. As I said before, each successive generation does this with the past anyway. We can't change that. But what has largely gone unsaid here (with exception to one poster) is that these ideas bring uncomfortable narrative changes to the predominant white historical narrative. Increases in criticisms of slavery or race are somehow construed as *merely* the creation of modernist sensibilities. This forgets, however, that there was another people living amongst the political class of the era, and they also sometimes happened to have a different skin color. Those people's perceptions matter. Black voice isn't isolated to modernist sensibilities. It's part of the past. It's inescapably tangled with it. Bringing that to the forefront isn't a dereliction of duty of being a scholar. It's perfectly in line with scholarship. should it keep in mind the dominant power structures in place and how that works? Absolutely. I have said so before numerous times. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean your slaves and black folks don't get a vote, either.

Will it change? Yep. Probably in directions which we can't quite predict yet. That's the way history works in the public's perception.

Well I linked a credible, well researched history for Jefferson's efforts re slavery and I believe that to be an honest history. It is always important when discussing history to know that one thing is different from another. To incorporate slavery into everything that Jefferson saw, taught, preached, proposed or did is to distort the history as much as leaving slavery out of it would distort the history.

It is the same with Columbus. The anti-American history people who want to make it all something sinister and bad, as opposed to the mostly leftist doctrines of what is good and noble and righteous today, will write a history that makes a Columbus or a Jefferson or pick a person look as terrible as possible. And the result is that any objective analysis of those times, those cultures, people being who and what they were in their own time gets lost in the demonization. A competent historian does not judge the past by the standards of the present.
 
Well I linked a credible, well researched history for Jefferson's efforts re slavery and I believe that to be an honest history. It is always important when discussing history to know that one thing is different from another. To incorporate slavery into everything that Jefferson saw, taught, preached, proposed or did is to distort the history as much as leaving slavery out of it would distort the history.

It is the same with Columbus. The anti-American history people who want to make it all something sinister and bad, as opposed to the mostly leftist doctrines of what is good and noble and righteous today, will write a history that makes a Columbus or a Jefferson or pick a person look as terrible as possible. And the result is that any objective analysis of those times, those cultures, people being who and what they were in their own time gets lost in the demonization. A competent historian does not judge the past by the standards of the present.

But we absolutely know that these situations occurred between foreman, overseer, and slave in Jefferson's management of his estate.

No, it's not a separate issue. This is philosophy and politics personified. Jefferson saw up close how racial mores, and slavery, and politics collided. They are not only an integral part of understanding the man and his social relationships, but also his philosophy, politics, and governance. Sally and any resulting children completely illustrate how politics and philosophy are necessarily entwined. It doesn't go away just because you wish it to.

Like I said, Jefferson did a lot of good, but as a result of changes in our society and our increased ability to take seriously black primary sources comes a more critical look at his life.

Columbus experiences the same fate. Before. White Americans writing the histories held indigenous source material with a lack of respect for many reasons, many of which were purely as a result of bigotry and belief in the inherent superiority of the written word. These things change with time. Nevertheless, the perspective of native peoples will now become something we have to weigh with more consideration than we had in the previous couple of generations.

My anti-Americanism is not at play, since I am not an anti-American leftist. I try to go where the materials will take me. tThat often leads me to uncomfortable areas, but I'm not out to massage Americans' psyche when I do my work. If I take positions which sound complimentary to the Right, so be it. If the Left, so be it.
 
Last edited:
But we absolutely know that these situations occurred between foreman, overseer, and slave in Jefferson's management of his estate.

No, it's not a separate issue. This is philosophy and politics personified. Jefferson saw up close how racial mores, and slavery, and politics collided. They are not only an integral part of understanding the man and his social relationships, but also his philosophy, politics, and governance. Sally and any resulting children completely illustrate how politics and philosophy are necessarily entwined. It doesn't go away just because you wish it to.

Like I said, Jefferson did a lot of good, but as a result of changes in our society and our increased ability to take seriously black primary sources comes a more critical look at his life.

Columbus experiences the same fate. Before. White Americans writing the histories held indigenous source material with a lack of respect for many reasons, many of which were purely as a result of bigotry and belief in the inherent superiority of the written word. These things change with time. Nevertheless, the perspective of native peoples will now become something we have to weigh with more consideration than we had in the previous couple of generations.

My anti-Americanism is not at play, since I am not an anti-American leftist. I try to go where the materials will take me. tThat often leads me to uncomfortable areas, but I'm not out to massage Americans' psyche when I do my work. If I take positions which sound complimentary to the Right, so be it. If the Left, so be it.

So we will just have to disagree. As a historian, I will not judge the past according to what is said to be good and evil in the current culture. Nor will I presume to be privy to what Jefferson knew or what mores guided his thoughts and actions or what Columbus knew etc. separate from the probabilities that would be part of what we know of the culture of their times and what they themselves revealed of their thoughts and beliefs. I think to presume to be privy to more than that is to base one's opinions upon prejudices and propaganda intended to indoctrinate.
 
European settlers. He was European and his actions as they relate to how we judge Columbus the man must be judged by the morality he lived under. That would
be European.
I see, so when we judge the racist bastards that lynched black people in the 60's we should only judge them by their peers of the same time perod. Not by today's standard or at least not by a black man's view. Are you sure this is the only morality we can judge people under?
 
I see, so when we judge the racist bastards that lynched black people in the 60's we should only judge them by their peers of the same time perod. Not by today's standard or at least not by a black man's view. Are you sure this is the only morality we can judge people under?

You've chosen a bad example. We all generally agreed in the 60s that racism and lynchings were bad things. We codified it in law one hundred years previously.


There are two separate things that need to be judged. The man is one, his actions the other. We can judge his actions as immoral based on our prevailing morality. But I suggest we have to judge the person himself based on the morality he lived under. Look at this way. Say you're a meateater and 100 years from now we figure out that cows actually are sentient, intelligent creatures and we accord them civil rights. By the lights of that future age your eating a hamburger was an immoral act. But are you an immoral person?
 
You've chosen a bad example. We all generally agreed in the 60s that racism and lynchings were bad things. We codified it in law one hundred years previously.


There are two separate things that need to be judged. The man is one, his actions the other. We can judge his actions as immoral based on our prevailing morality. But I suggest we have to judge the person himself based on the morality he lived under. Look at this way. Say you're a meateater and 100 years from now we figure out that cows actually are sentient, intelligent creatures and we accord them civil rights. By the lights of that future age your eating a hamburger was an immoral act. But are you an immoral person?
I don't think analogy is a bad example because it centers around how humans treat other humans. Any time there is a lot of controversy about someone being labelled a hero or great, it's time to re-elvaluate this position to see if they are really worthy. If we are going to judge Columbus on his merits we should also judge him on his faults, by all time and all people.
 
Something I read today suggested that he was out of line even by the standards of his time.

But he had lots of gold and so was able to bribe the people who would have held a poorer man accountable.

If you read articles written by hateful liberal wingnuts you get all sorts of wrong ideas.

Here's a book about Columbus with a balanced view:

Admiral of the Ocean Sea

To get an idea of the standards of the times one needs look no further than the Spanish explorers who came to the New World after Columbus and what they did to the natives. Not only were the natives massacred wholesale they were forced to convert to catholicism and their native cultures were destroyed, their written materials burned, their wealth stolen, etc.
 
Perhaps the better question is do we ever have a reason or condition to bring someone from history to be "judged" within the confines of today's standards and morals? I tend to think not, as all we end up doing is effectively re-writing history making it sound like those actions happened today.

As someone who enjoys reading plenty about history, there usually is less interest in judging someone along the newest moral standards and more interest in learning from period in question against period standards (or perhaps against monumental standards.) Those are two very different things even though they sound very simiar.
 
If you read articles written by hateful liberal wingnuts you get all sorts of wrong ideas.

Here's a book about Columbus with a balanced view:

Admiral of the Ocean Sea

To get an idea of the standards of the times one needs look no further than the Spanish explorers who came to the New World after Columbus and what they did to the natives. Not only were the natives massacred wholesale they were forced to convert to catholicism and their native cultures were destroyed, their written materials burned, their wealth stolen, etc.

The assignment for this thread was not to evaluate the colonization of America, however. So whatever anybody did after the fact of Columbus's voyages is moot when we are evaluating Columbus the person. Many if not most historians believe Columbus never set foot on the North American mainland, and he certainly did not engineer or provide counsel for those explorers who followed in his footsteps. He was not responsible for the Spanish Conquistadors, the influence of the Spanish Roman Catholic Church or any other activities that occurred during the colonization any more than Jesus of Nazareth is responsible for the Spanish Inquisition or the Salem witch burnings.
 
If you read articles written by hateful liberal wingnuts you get all sorts of wrong ideas.

Here's a book about Columbus with a balanced view:

Admiral of the Ocean Sea

To get an idea of the standards of the times one needs look no further than the Spanish explorers who came to the New World after Columbus and what they did to the natives. Not only were the natives massacred wholesale they were forced to convert to catholicism and their native cultures were destroyed, their written materials burned, their wealth stolen, etc.
Sounds pretty common throughout world history, and all over the world, not just Europeans vs native American societies.
 
The assignment for this thread was not to evaluate the colonization of America, however. So whatever anybody did after the fact of Columbus's voyages is moot when we are evaluating Columbus the person. Many if not most historians believe Columbus never set foot on the North American mainland, and he certainly did not engineer or provide counsel for those explorers who followed in his footsteps. He was not responsible for the Spanish Conquistadors, the influence of the Spanish Roman Catholic Church or any other activities that occurred during the colonization any more than Jesus of Nazareth is responsible for the Spanish Inquisition or the Salem witch burnings.

All of that is beside the point. The person I responded to alleged that Columbus was bad even for his day. I point to the behavior of other explorers to show that this allegation isn't true.
 
All of that is beside the point. The person I responded to alleged that Columbus was bad even for his day. I point to the behavior of other explorers to show that this allegation isn't true.

You're right. I didn't read the post you were responding to and I did phrase my post as a rebuttal instead of a comment on your intent which I am mostly in agreement with. Sorry about that and apologies.
 
Back
Top Bottom