• 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
There's a lot that Columbus can be legitimately criticized for, but not making it to India is not one of them. If you find yourself presenting that as a serious point, you're just piling on out of bias.
 
Tuatara said:
But are you judging him from the viewpoint of european settlers or by the native americans of the time.
Click to expand...

Are you a Kiwi? I live on the North Island.
 
shrubnose said:
I'd rather learn about all of the terrible things that they did and the good things that they could have done, but didn't do.
Click to expand...

Most of the people getting their vaginas hurt over Columbus are pc tards who could care less about the good things people did.If they had it their way history class would only talk about the fact our founders were sexist slave owning racists and how 4th of July is a huge slap in the face to native Americans.
 
shrubnose said:
From what I read in the news that's happening right now in Syria and Iraq.
Click to expand...

... and that is why ISIS is on my "they are misunderstood" list.
 
jamesrage said:
.If they had it their way history class would only talk about the fact our founders were sexist slave owning racists and how 4th of July is a huge slap in the face to native Americans.
Click to expand...

Well... now that you brought it up...
 
shrubnose said:
Jefferson had escaped slaves captured and lashed, he was a brutal man.
Click to expand...

I don't find that in any credible Jeffersonian history. Do you have a citation for it that doesn't link to a leftwing Founder's hating website?
 
shrubnose said:
It wasn't irrelevant to the many thousands of Native Americans who died because of him.
Click to expand...


True, but if I understand that right, most died of disease Columbus and other Europeans carried.
 
DaveFagan said:
He is a large part of the revisionist/false history taught in the USA. They just can't say we are a Nation founded on war and continuing to war as a National Policy to this day. You have to read revised histories of Latin America, South America, Cuba, Vietnam, Japan, Iraq, and every other Nation we have sullied with our Imperialistic resource collection. To read the history books, you'd think the USA was continually under attack or threat. What a load of crap. "War is good business, and business is good" in the good ol' USA>
Click to expand...

Unfettered nonsense.
 
Was he successful (depending on how you define "success")? Yes. Did he impact the world enormously? Yes.

However celebrating him simply because of these is just plain stupidity. He was a murderous, incredibly greedy asshole even by the standards of that time. He did not prove that Earth was round, anybody knowledgeable of history knows that. The ancient Greeks proved that Earth was round (Eratosthenes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and Eratosthenes' method is widely known and taught in basic geometry. Anybody could see that the way the shape of the view of the moon changed, and the fact that there was always a round horizon, and conclude that the Earth was round. The knowledge that Earth was round has been around for several centuries before Columbus.

It is also ridiculous to excuse his flaws because he impacted the world or had positive qualities. That is akin to celebrating Stalin because he also undeniably impacted the world in which we live in and was a great politician who was excellent in maintaining power. Columbus should rightfully be remembered and be in textbooks but to celebrate him is being just ignorant of commonsense history.
 
Proud South Korean said:
Was he successful (depending on how you define "success")? Yes. Did he impact the world enormously? Yes.

However celebrating him simply because of these is just plain stupidity. He was a murderous, incredibly greedy asshole even by the standards of that time. He did not prove that Earth was round, anybody knowledgeable of history knows that. The ancient Greeks proved that Earth was round (Eratosthenes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and Eratosthenes' method is widely known and taught in basic geometry. Anybody could see that the way the shape of the view of the moon changed, and the fact that there was always a round horizon, and conclude that the Earth was round. The knowledge that Earth was round has been around for several centuries before Columbus.

It is also ridiculous to excuse his flaws because he impacted the world or had positive qualities. That is akin to celebrating Stalin because he also undeniably impacted the world in which we live in and was a great politician who was excellent in maintaining power. Columbus should rightfully be remembered and be in textbooks but to celebrate him is being just ignorant of commonsense history.
Click to expand...

Columbus was a great man of his era and arguably one of the most consequential persons ever to have lived. Greedy and murderous? You bet. But he was milquetoast compared to Cortez or Pizzarro, and many others. And greed has driven much exploration and many discoveries, so greed per se is not a bad thing. It doesn't even matter that he himself only half understood what he had done. Compared to Columbus for historical impact, Stalin is a gnat.
 
White Italian-born, gold-digging, slave-hunting, Spaniard brings death, famine and global warming to innocent naive tribesmen...uh native americans.

I think that about covers it, right? :lol:
 
American said:
White Italian-born, gold-digging, slave-hunting, Spaniard brings death, famine and global warming to innocent naive tribesmen...uh native americans.

I think that about covers it, right? :lol:
Click to expand...

You forgot saving their savage souls...
 
radcen said:
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.
Click to expand...

Columbus was a great man of his era and arguably one of the most consequential persons ever to have lived. It doesn't even matter that he himself only half understood what he had done. Evaluate his importance by our standards, but judge his morals by the standards of his own time.
 
Proud South Korean said:
Was he successful (depending on how you define "success")? Yes. Did he impact the world enormously? Yes.

However celebrating him simply because of these is just plain stupidity. He was a murderous, incredibly greedy asshole even by the standards of that time. He did not prove that Earth was round, anybody knowledgeable of history knows that. The ancient Greeks proved that Earth was round (Eratosthenes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and Eratosthenes' method is widely known and taught in basic geometry. Anybody could see that the way the shape of the view of the moon changed, and the fact that there was always a round horizon, and conclude that the Earth was round. The knowledge that Earth was round has been around for several centuries before Columbus.

It is also ridiculous to excuse his flaws because he impacted the world or had positive qualities. That is akin to celebrating Stalin because he also undeniably impacted the world in which we live in and was a great politician who was excellent in maintaining power. Columbus should rightfully be remembered and be in textbooks but to celebrate him is being just ignorant of commonsense history.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The way I see it, we really shouldn't celebrate the man, but rather his accomplishment.

Rename the holiday "Discovery Day," or something similar, give the Native Americans their own holiday, and be done with it. :shrug:
 
Gathomas88 said:
Exactly. The way I see it, we really shouldn't celebrate the man, but rather his accomplishment.

Rename the holiday "Discovery Day," or something similar, give the Native Americans their own holiday, and be done with it. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Good point. I am not really sure what we should call it. Regardless of what we think of the man, and whether or not he was actually the first to have discovered the new world, in the future, when the planet is united, and we are reaching out to the stars, surely his achievement will be recognized as having been where it all began.
 
radcen said:
Is that a fair point, or a biased criticism? In other words, was it common knowledge that the Americas existed where they are? If not, then pretty much anybody would have discovered them "by accident". That's kind of what 'discovering' is... finding something you didn't know was there. If Columbus finding the Americas was an accident, then the discovery/finding of penicillin was no less an accident. Hardly a valid criticism.
Click to expand...




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.
 
Perotista said:
True, but if I understand that right, most died of disease Columbus and other Europeans carried.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Dead is dead. They won't be making any more tomahawks




"All the problems that we face in the USA today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian." ~ Pat Paulsen
 
Sabanist said:
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
Click to expand...

We expect educators to at least give more than a cursory glance at subjecct content in mathematics, science, and literature. Why, besides your discomfort, hold ack in regard to history? I don't ask that we demonize, but I think as the student becomes older, it is important to instill some of the complications involved in looking at the past. By the time they are seniors, a large number of them will be exposed to it as they enter college. It's best to offer gradual bridges to the next level, so as to not disorganize a student as they progress through the academic ladder.

I won't entirely bother to pontificate on citizenship and historical knowledge, but that's something to keep in mind as well.

If you're a democratic person, you will perhaps believe that an average person should be exposed to both our inner demons as well as angels. If you're more of an aristocratic person, you may want to hide the masses from undesired content,, but expose those most worthy with the knowledge of the otherwise undesired content. Regardless, someone will have to know it, to be better prepared. Depriving the elites of this knowledge won't serve them well as they lead their societal inferiors. Depriving a democratic people of unsightly knowledge doesn't lead to a better informed aand wiser leadership when they are expected to help take the mantle.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I don't find that in any credible Jeffersonian history. Do you have a citation for it that doesn't link to a leftwing Founder's hating website?
Click to expand...

George Granger, I believe, would be an employee of Jefferson's you would want to look at. There's other individuals who had been exposed to the notion that where the carrot would not provide, a stick would finish the job. Of course, that doesn't necessarily cover the runaways, but Jefferson sought to secure them as well.

Is it really that difficult for you to consider that slavery necessitated both the threat and execution of violence to produce adequate crop or product output?
 
Last edited:
AlbqOwl said:
I did probably introduce an unnecessary sociopolitical element to the debate by accusing the left of using selective history to demonize historical heroic figures, but I have not seen those on the right doing that. You will see on this thread those who declare Columbus a terrible person and unworthy of any commendation because he did some bad things. The right is more likely to err in the opposite direction by omitting the less commendable in order to create historical heroes.

In my opinion, honest history accepts that all people will be a mix of noble and less noble, some good, some bad, and everything in between and allows them to be who and what they are within their own times and culture. Jefferson was definitely a product of his times and culture as were all the early presidents. Of the first 18 President of the USA, twelve of them owned slaves at some time in their lives and eight owned slaves while they served as President. The last U.S. President to have been a former slave owner was Ulysses S. Grant. That does not take away from Jefferson's accomplishments as statesman, author of founding documents, diplomat, POTUS any more than it takes away from any of the other Presidents. Jefferson himself, as POTUS, worked tirelessly to end or at least limit slavery as is well documented in the research of the Monticello Society here: Thomas Jefferson and Slavery « Thomas Jefferson

Honest history allows a Thomas Jefferson or a Christopher Columbus or anybody else acknowledgments of their accomplishments and contributions to society and does not diminish or negate those because they were not perfect people.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
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.
Click to expand...

Damn iPad. I forgot to add his support for barring the international slave trade.
 
radcen said:
This presumes current thought is indeed correct thought. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe 200 years from now people will look back and declare us idiots.

Generic comment, not Columbus-specific.
Click to expand...

There's no probably about it. Presuming somebody still exists then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom