• 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
Actually, I think that was one of the major reasons why Columbus struggled to find funding in the first place. Most educated people realized that his math was wildly off, and that he would probably starve to death in the middle of the ocean before he got anywhere near Asia.

He simply happened to get lucky by bumping into America instead. lol

I almost hate to do this, but here are some oldies...

"Christopher Columbus didn't know where he was going, didn't know where he had been, and did it all on someone else's money, and the white man has been following Columbus ever since."


One Indian to another when Columbus landed..."Well, there goes the neighborhood."

Sorry, I couldn't resist! :mrgreen:
 
Slavery back in the 1400's was a very legal commodity. Iceland 1117, Norway 1274, Sweden which included Finland at the time 1335 and the Republic of Ragusa were the only countries where slavery was illegal or abolished prior to Columbus setting sail. That does not make slavery a good thing, it just clarifies where the world at the time of Columbus was at regarding slavery.

At the same time in Central and South America human sacrifices were considered the norm. Norms, what is moral and is not change over time. The OP asked is it fair or should Columbus be judged by the norms and standards of his day or by today's standards? Why should anyone expect Columbus to do something different than everyone, almost every other country, nation, tribe, state, whatever was doing? All this means is Columbus was not enlighten by today's standards, but he didn't live today.

Columbus was condemned as essentially a morally repugnant and a murdering and abusive tyrant even in his day... the guy was scum.
 
Columbus was condemned as essentially a morally repugnant and a murdering and abusive tyrant even in his day... the guy was scum.

Agreed.

This nonsense of 'it was the times they lived in' is ridiculous.

What a cop out.

I imagine group rapists on trial use that excuse...'Hey, everyone else was doing it'.
 
Agreed.

This nonsense of 'it was the times they lived in' is ridiculous.

What a cop out.

I imagine group rapists on trial use that excuse...'Hey, everyone else was doing it'.

Seriously... invading armies used to rape and murder women in ancient days but since it was the norm that makes them OK people... :roll:
 
Well, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella were expecting something different. They did not want indigenous populations enslaved. Doesn't fit with your narrative, eh?

The question is should Columbus be judged by today's standards or by the standards of his time. To me the answer is simple, he should be judged by the standards of his time. It is that simple. No big deal.
 
Columbus was condemned as essentially a morally repugnant and a murdering and abusive tyrant even in his day... the guy was scum.

So? The question was should Columbus be judged by the standards of his time or by the standards of today? Whether or not he was scum is irrelevant to the question poised in the OP.
 
So? The question was should Columbus be judged by the standards of his time or by the standards of today? Whether or not he was scum is irrelevant to the question poised in the OP.

He is judged poorly in both times...
 
So? The question was should Columbus be judged by the standards of his time or by the standards of today? Whether or not he was scum is irrelevant to the question poised in the OP.

1) I think their answer did answer the OP question.

and 2) even if it didn't - what's it to you? Why would you care if a poster answers an OP question or not? Especially so when it is not even your OP.
 
How should Christopher Columbus be judged?

Being that day is Columbus Day, I read something this morning that included something to the effect of, "If judged by today's standards...", then went off to detail all his atrocities, and so on.

Is that fair? Should he be judged by today's standards and mores, or should he be judged according to the era in which he lived?

Note: This question is NOT about whether or not he should have a holiday named after him.



By the standards and norms of the times in which he lived, of course. I'd think this was obvious.


Of course, even by the rather harsh standards of his day, he was allegedly brutal enough that the King of Spain was obligated to end his governorship.... which does not speak well of him, if most of those accusations were in fact true.
 
Exactly. At least where serious history is concerned. The world loves their heroes and we have had generations of kids grow up idolizing an honest George Washington or an honest Abe Lincoln or thrilling at the heroic myths that grew up around such figures as Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett. There seemed to be no profit in also exposing the quite human but less than noble qualities in those historic figures. And for generations of school kids, Columbus has been much the same kind of mythical hero; i.e. the brave adventurer sailing into the unknown and discovering America so that others could follow. It was all true and why spoil it with the more human and less noble aspects of it? There would be plenty of time for historians to sort out the details later.

If the question were to take into consideration public school education, I have two modest suggestions: 1) Allow simplifications to foster for youngsters and increase complexity with age 2) Encourage multiple perspectives, including the population with whom Columbus and his men did not treat so well. One could incorporate either (or both) without conceptually ripping it all to shreds. I think most people agree with that. Conservative traditionalists and multiculturalist liberals mostly bicker about the fine details of such matters. Actually, if you looked closely at a meeting with...who was it..Chester Finn and I want to say Diane Ravitch (could be wrong) in the mid-1990s, you could quickly see that both agreed in principle, but nevertheless found each other in a verbal brawl over who was destroying American education with politically correct sentiment or wanting to ensure that contemporary racial and ethnic minorities didn't have a voice. Anyway, the younger the student, the more apt I am to accept the need for mythology in American public schools. I'm a nationalist and I am also of the mind that sometimes acting like the no-longer-enchanted child spoiling Santa Claus for his classmates isn't inherently beneficial. That being said, with age comes the necessity to challenge young minds, and as such, we can slowly delve into more uncomfortable questions.

For the public at large, these pedagogical limitations have less relevance. The adult ought to be able to handle the notion that, say, Thomas Jefferson's incredibly likely sexual relationship with Sally Hemmings would at least in part, be reflective of the inherent: 1) relationship between owner and slave 2) societal perception of white male on black woman sexuality 3) likely cause a series of conflicting feelings when romance may become involved.

And those historians did ultimately expose Columbus as quite human with some less than noble qualities. But his mother no doubt loved him as did many who would write about his adventures and exploits. It is a good thing to appreciate and understand the dark side of history but not to the exclusion of the good that came out of it. To demonize the whole man and what he accomplished because there is also a dark side is to be as short sighted and using selective history as do those who see only the hero.

Portrayals of past men and women as Satan-incarnates are often far off the mark, but that doesn't likewise prevent us from seeing men or women as participating in great evils (or being the master of great evils).

With Christopher Columbus the temptation is to save, rather than condemn, because he has become a patriotic and nationalistic figure for our American mythology. With another country's figure, we often have far less restraint in concluding them as figures to essentially hold in contempt.
 
How should Christopher Columbus be judged?

Being that day is Columbus Day, I read something this morning that included something to the effect of, "If judged by today's standards...", then went off to detail all his atrocities, and so on.

Is that fair? Should he be judged by today's standards and mores, or should he be judged according to the era in which he lived?

Note: This question is NOT about whether or not he should have a holiday named after him.

He should be judged as someone that is no longer alive today...and has been dead for centuries. IE: Not worth judging when there are more important things to consider.
 
If the question were to take into consideration public school education, I have two modest suggestions: 1) Allow simplifications to foster for youngsters and increase complexity with age 2) Encourage multiple perspectives, including the population with whom Columbus and his men did not treat so well. One could incorporate either (or both) without conceptually ripping it all to shreds. I think most people agree with that. Conservative traditionalists and multiculturalist liberals mostly bicker about the fine details of such matters. Actually, if you looked closely at a meeting with...who was it..Chester Finn and I want to say Diane Ravitch (could be wrong) in the mid-1990s, you could quickly see that both agreed in principle, but nevertheless found each other in a verbal brawl over who was destroying American education with politically correct sentiment or wanting to ensure that contemporary racial and ethnic minorities didn't have a voice. Anyway, the younger the student, the more apt I am to accept the need for mythology in American public schools. I'm a nationalist and I am also of the mind that sometimes acting like the no-longer-enchanted child spoiling Santa Claus for his classmates isn't inherently beneficial. That being said, with age comes the necessity to challenge young minds, and as such, we can slowly delve into more uncomfortable questions.

For the public at large, these pedagogical limitations have less relevance. The adult ought to be able to handle the notion that, say, Thomas Jefferson's incredibly likely sexual relationship with Sally Hemmings would at least in part, be reflective of the inherent: 1) relationship between owner and slave 2) societal perception of white male on black woman sexuality 3) likely cause a series of conflicting feelings when romance may become involved.



Portrayals of past men and women as Satan-incarnates are often far off the mark, but that doesn't likewise prevent us from seeing men or women as participating in great evils (or being the master of great evils).

With Christopher Columbus the temptation is to save, rather than condemn, because he has become a patriotic and nationalistic figure for our American mythology. With another country's figure, we often have far less restraint in concluding them as figures to essentially hold in contempt.

I think the public handles honest history quite well. But many of us don't handle quite so well the politically correct version that rewrites history in a way the left wants it to be seen instead of the more honest version of the way it was. Why is Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemings pertinent to his political views or his general philosophy or his tenure as POTUS for instance? One has nothing to do with the other. They are separate stories and we don't really know what relationship existed between Jefferson and Hemings though it was widely believed to be a consensual loving relationship and there is no evidence that Jefferson was a cruel or harsh slave master. There is plenty of evidence that he was philosophically opposed to slavery and very much opposed it spreading beyond the slave states in which it existed. The Monticello society that maintains the Jefferson family property and the Jeffersonian histories has done exhaustive research on Jefferson's relationship with Hemings but admits there is really little known.

The point to this being, of course, that such history can be distorted and used to discredit historical figures so that the leftist doctrines are more easily established in modern times. Or they can be portrayed honestly and as a matter of interest and in their proper context and importance.
 
I think the public handles honest history quite well. But many of us don't handle quite so well the politically correct version that rewrites history in a way the left wants it to be seen instead of the more honest version of the way it was.

That is a point of debate. For instance, your attempts to create a dichotomy between what you determine as the Left's history and "more honest" version, create a rather unnecessary and contentious border between accuracy and viewpoint.

Why is Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemings pertinent to his political views or his general philosophy or his tenure as POTUS for instance?

While this question is written with some sort of rhetoric behind it, the notion that his relationship with Sally held no relationship with his overall philosophy and political philosophy is beyond ludicrous. Philosophically, you have a free man engaging in the trafficking and maintenance of an institution which strips what Jefferson viewed as the natural liberty of man. Politically, you have to remember that the man in question had been instructed to create a rhetorical basis for the colonies' separation from England. Within that document's initial draft (constructed by Jefferson) were references to slavery (before being removed for equally obvious reasons). The U.S. government had during his time had to figure out what to do about various aspects around slavery, including but not exhausting: whether or not slaves could count toward a state's representation, whether or not the U.S. government could institute a ban on participating in the international slave trade, whether the nation's capital could likewise exercise control over whether or not it could engage in slavery enterprises, and especially, whether slavery itself should even legally exist. As Jefferson was morally repulsed by slavery, yet seemingly bound to it as a slave owner with an insatiable appetite for luxury and debt, any resulting relationship between he and a female slave would draw an immense number of philosophical and political questions. At the heart of Jefferson was paradox and contradiction, and his relationship with Sally Hemings was a good illustration of that complexity.

Judgments on Jefferson's relative treatment of slaves likewise needs to have an incredible number of qualifications. First, although he tried to not have management which resembled what slaves like Booker T. Washington or Frederick Douglass observed, he nevertheless engaged in that activity from time to time when he felt compelled to do so. Secondly, we have to keep in mind that while many overseers engaged in overwhelmingly deliberate sadistic behavior toward slaves, the institution of slavery still necessarily involves crushing human liberty, by refusing autonomy, threatening violence or death for non-compliance to being legal non-humans. Jefferson was no exception in this regard.

Observing these structures, readily pointed out by his own contemporaries (especially blacks), does not mean we are engaging in a less honest version of history. Even if his contemporaries did not recognize all of the inner-workings of the institution of slavery, pointing them out likewise does not mean we are engaging in a less honest version of the past. It often means we are coming to a greater understanding of its workings, even if as a result, scholars need to have internal debates as to whether we need to alter perception. Historians debate these questions endlessly, and at times the pendulum swings one direction to the other in even the most minute aspects of a given subject.
 
Last edited:
1) I think their answer did answer the OP question.

and 2) even if it didn't - what's it to you? Why would you care if a poster answers an OP question or not? Especially so when it is not even your OP.

Please! Please! Forgive me. Just wanted to keep the thread on the subject and not off on a tangent. Gee, kind of testy tonight aren't we?
 
How can you possibly judge someone by standards that weren't in effect during their life?
But are you judging him from the viewpoint of european settlers or by the native americans of the time.
 
How should Christopher Columbus be judged?

Being that day is Columbus Day, I read something this morning that included something to the effect of, "If judged by today's standards...", then went off to detail all his atrocities, and so on.

Is that fair? Should he be judged by today's standards and mores, or should he be judged according to the era in which he lived?

Note: This question is NOT about whether or not he should have a holiday named after him.

He should be judged a man that couldn't even find India albeit in a wooden boat.
 
It should be Da Vinci Day.

Da Vinci was something special. What a remarkable man he was.
I watched, and enjoyed the TV series Da Vinci's Demons seasons 1 and 2. Even though it is a series with a "fantasy" edge, it is interesting how Da Vinci was portrayed, his mind going in many different directions and having him see problems/solutions as art. Good series.
 
How should Christopher Columbus be judged?

Being that day is Columbus Day, I read something this morning that included something to the effect of, "If judged by today's standards...", then went off to detail all his atrocities, and so on.

Is that fair? Should he be judged by today's standards and mores, or should he be judged according to the era in which he lived?

Note: This question is NOT about whether or not he should have a holiday named after him.



Murder and genocide in any generation is still murder and genocide! The atrocities that they committed were barbaric!
 
I would agree with that.

While Columbus may have made for a rather terrible governor, he certainly was a great explorer. Ultimately, we have him to thank for any of us even being here to talk about it in the first place.

That accomplishment is worth honoring, even if the man himself is not.



BS, he found the Americas completely by accident!
 
How should Christopher Columbus be judged?

Being that day is Columbus Day, I read something this morning that included something to the effect of, "If judged by today's standards...", then went off to detail all his atrocities, and so on.

Is that fair? Should he be judged by today's standards and mores, or should he be judged according to the era in which he lived?

Note: This question is NOT about whether or not he should have a holiday named after him.

He should be judged truthfully: his words and deeds and their implications, both good and the bad.
 
If the question were to take into consideration public school education, I have two modest suggestions: 1) Allow simplifications to foster for youngsters and increase complexity with age 2) Encourage multiple perspectives, including the population with whom Columbus and his men did not treat so well. One could incorporate either (or both) without conceptually ripping it all to shreds. I think most people agree with that. Conservative traditionalists and multiculturalist liberals mostly bicker about the fine details of such matters. Actually, if you looked closely at a meeting with...who was it..Chester Finn and I want to say Diane Ravitch (could be wrong) in the mid-1990s, you could quickly see that both agreed in principle, but nevertheless found each other in a verbal brawl over who was destroying American education with politically correct sentiment or wanting to ensure that contemporary racial and ethnic minorities didn't have a voice. Anyway, the younger the student, the more apt I am to accept the need for mythology in American public schools. I'm a nationalist and I am also of the mind that sometimes acting like the no-longer-enchanted child spoiling Santa Claus for his classmates isn't inherently beneficial. That being said, with age comes the necessity to challenge young minds, and as such, we can slowly delve into more uncomfortable questions.

For the public at large, these pedagogical limitations have less relevance. The adult ought to be able to handle the notion that, say, Thomas Jefferson's incredibly likely sexual relationship with Sally Hemmings would at least in part, be reflective of the inherent: 1) relationship between owner and slave 2) societal perception of white male on black woman sexuality 3) likely cause a series of conflicting feelings when romance may become involved.



Portrayals of past men and women as Satan-incarnates are often far off the mark, but that doesn't likewise prevent us from seeing men or women as participating in great evils (or being the master of great evils).

With Christopher Columbus the temptation is to save, rather than condemn, because he has become a patriotic and nationalistic figure for our American mythology. With another country's figure, we often have far less restraint in concluding them as figures to essentially hold in contempt.

Not sure why any of columbus' faults must be taught. Nobody ever taught me however instill learned of it. Teach kids the basics of what his significance is and let self discovery occur from there.

This attempt to demonize historical figures by the left is another example of an insurgency in this country that truly wants to see its downfall
 
Back
Top Bottom