• 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
Bodhisattva said:
Our cultures also brought us the Holocaust and both Mao and Stalins purges bringing that total to around 120 million dead. Does that work better? :roll:



The biggest factor to standard of living is happiness. It includes the level of wealth, comfort, material goods and necessities available. That is a subjective list. There is no way to quantify the standard of living and our Western medical knowledge at the time was horrid. Crystals or blood letting to cure a fever? Horse****. The natives used herbs and natural remedies. I am not saying they were advanced but making some argument about our technology and medical knowldge is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I don't see how the two can be compared since they are so different.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Our cultures also brought us the Holocaust and both Mao and Stalins purges bringing that total to around 120 million dead. Does that work better? :roll:
Click to expand...

Dude, that is reaching so far out of left field as to be completely irrelevant. Fascism and Communism had nothing at all to do with the European culture which first encountered the Native Americans.

The simple fact of the matter here is that the Spanish were ultimately preferable to the Aztecs.

The biggest factor to standard of living is happiness. It includes the level of wealth, comfort, material goods and necessities available. That is a subjective list. There is no way to quantify the standard of living and our Western medical knowledge at the time was horrid. Crystals or blood letting to cure a fever? Horse****. The natives used herbs and natural remedies. I am not saying they were advanced but making some argument about our technology and medical knowldge is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

The technology of the Aztecs was little better than stone age level. The Europeans, on the other hand, were a mere couple of centuries away from the societal revolution which would eventually result in the modern industrialized world.

Under which scenario would you say that the Americas are better off? Still cutting one another's hearts out by the tens of thousands while carrying sharpened sticks, or living with electricity, indoor plumbing, and modern medicine?
 
Last edited:
Gathomas88 said:
Dude, that is reaching so far out of left field as to be completely irrelevant. Fascism and Communism had nothing at all to do with the European culture which first encountered the Native Americans.

The simple fact of the matter here is that the Spanish were ultimately preferable to the Aztecs.
Click to expand...

Yeah... it was pretty far out. :lol:



The technology of the Aztecs was little better than stone age level. The Europeans, on the other hand, were a mere couple of centuries away from the societal revolution which would eventually result in the modern industrialized world.

Under which scenario would you say that the Americas are better off? Still cutting one another's hearts out by the tens of thousands while carrying sharpened sticks, or living with electricity, indoor plumbing, and modern medicine?
Click to expand...

The Aztecs were not the only natives living here. Millions of others did as well and they were peaceful, living off the land. They were clean and had rich cultural traditions. They were organized into nations. I would argue that that could easily be better than the horrid conditions that people lived in in the upcoming Industrial Revolution where the plumbing waqs throwing your urine and feces into the street where kids were playing. Read Sinclair's The Jungle and see how much better off the American's had it.
 
ChrisL said:
Yes it was murder. Didn't you read the OP? There were two you know.
Click to expand...
Yea I read the OP. There are no murders in it.
There are false claims of Murder, but there are no Murders.
Again .. Murder is the illegal killing, what Columbus did was not illegal.




Gathomas88 said:
The Spanish pretty clearly thought Columbus' killings were "unlawful." Why else would they have him imprisoned?
Click to expand...
WTF?
No where do they say they were illegal.
Why else?
My god man, do some further research and don't buy into this ****. The fact is that there are two sides. Use your head. The OP is only presenting one side in a most unfavorably way, to persuade folks to do away with Columbus day.


The combination of his frail health and failing spirits could not deter Columbus. Even being shackled, with a trial and possible punishment looming, did not stop him from pursuing his goal. Columbus was returned to Spain by the end of October 1500. He was brought into the country in chains, a sad sight which sparked pity and compassion from those around him. After nearly six weeks the King and Queen ordered his release and called him before the royal court. This final meeting between the explorer and his royal benefactors was an emotional one, filled with apologies and tears from both sides. Columbus, mostly with the Queen’s insistence, was restored to his former position and glory and given monetary compensation for his incarceration. He was, however, still relieved of his position as ruler of the colonies in the New World.

Columbus After 1493, Christopher Columbus, Social Studies, Glencoe​

If you think he was imprisoned for murder, you are sorely confused, misinformed, or all three.


Try Encyclopædia Britannica for a better understanding.
Page 3

Both the Taino and the European immigrants had resented the rule of Bartholomew and Diego Columbus. A rebellion by the mayor of La Isabela, Francisco Roldán, had led to appeals to the Spanish court, and, even as Columbus attempted to restore order (partly by hangings), the Spanish chief justice, Francisco de Bobadilla, was on his way to the colony with a royal commission to investigate the complaints. It is hard to explain exactly what the trouble was. Columbus’s report to his sovereigns from the second voyage, taken back by Torres and so known as the Torres Memorandum, speaks of sickness, poor provisioning, recalcitrant natives, and undisciplined hidalgos (gentry). It may be that these problems had intensified. But the Columbus family must be held at least partly responsible, intent as it was on enslaving the Taino and shipping them to Europe or forcing them to mine gold on Hispaniola. Under Columbus’s original system of gold production, local chiefs had been in charge of delivering gold on a loose per capita basis; the adelantado (governor) Bartholomew Columbus had replaced that policy with a system of direct exploitation led by favoured Spaniards, causing widespread dissent among unfavoured Spaniards and indigenous chiefs. Bobadilla ruled against the Columbus family when he arrived in Hispaniola. He clapped Columbus and his two brothers in irons and sent them promptly back on the ship La Gorda, and they arrived at Cádiz in late October 1500.

During that return journey Columbus composed a long letter to his sovereigns that is one of the most extraordinary he wrote, and one of the most informative. One part of its exalted, almost mystical, quality may be attributed to the humiliations the admiral had endured (humiliations he compounded by refusing to allow the captain of the La Gorda to remove his chains during the voyage) and another to the fact that he was now suffering severely from sleeplessness, eyestrain, and a form of rheumatoid arthritis, which may have hastened his death. Much of what he said in the letter, however, seems genuinely to have expressed his beliefs. It shows that Columbus had absolute faith in his navigational abilities, his seaman’s sense of the weather, his eyes, and his reading. He asserted that he had reached the outer region of the Earthly Paradise, in that, during his earlier approach to Trinidad and the Paria Peninsula, the polestar’s rotation had given him the impression that the fleet was climbing. The weather had become extremely mild, and the flow of fresh water into the Gulf of Paria was, as he saw, enormous. All this could have one explanation only—they had mounted toward the temperate heights of the Earthly Paradise, heights from which the rivers of Paradise ran into the sea. Columbus had found all such signs of the outer regions of the Earthly Paradise in his reading, and indeed they were widely known. On this estimate, he was therefore close to the realms of gold that lay near Paradise. He had not found the gold yet, to be sure, but he knew where it was. Columbus’s expectations thus allowed him to interpret his discoveries in terms of biblical and Classical sources and to do so in a manner that would be comprehensible to his sponsors and favourable to himself.

This letter, desperate though it was, convinced the sovereigns that, even if he had not yet found the prize, he had been close to it after all. They ordered his release and gave him audience at Granada in late December 1500. They accepted that Columbus’s capacities as navigator and explorer were unexcelled, [highlight]although he was an unsatisfactory governor[/highlight], and on Sept. 3, 1501, they appointed Nicolás de Ovando to succeed Bobadilla to the governorship. Columbus, though ill and importunate, was a better investment than the many adventurers and profiteers who had meantime been licensed to compete with him, and there was always the danger (revealed in some of the letters of this period) that he would offer his services to his native Genoa. In October 1501 Columbus went to Sevilla to make ready his fourth and final expedition.

Christopher Columbus (Italian explorer) :: The second and third voyages -- Encyclopedia Britannica​

They didn't give a rats ass about the natives. It was about the failure to return on investment. That is maladministration.

There is so much more to this event, and unbiased sources, than the bs in the OP.


For further reading try these or find your own unbiased sources.
The Crimes of Christopher Columbus | Article | First Things

Columbus After 1493, Christopher Columbus, Social Studies, Glencoe




Bodhisattva said:
I guess by ignoring it you are tacitly agreeing that you were wrong about who lead to the discovery of the America's.
Click to expand...
Wtf?
Nothing has been ignored.
Your failure to understand that has been noted.

As I stated; "His discovery lead to this Country being established. End of story."


Bodhisattva said:
Three: His contemporaries called him a criminal. He tortured Europeans and natives alike. Out of an estimated 3 million natives only 50,000 survived. He tortured and killed people for small crimes and even for slights to the family. The time period he lived in? In that time period he was removed from office and charged with offence.
Click to expand...
iLOL
What offense was he charged with?
Do you know?
There is so much more to that story other than the bias the OP presents.
Could it be that he was charged with maladministration? The only accusation to stick?

The combination of his frail health and failing spirits could not deter Columbus. Even being shackled, with a trial and possible punishment looming, did not stop him from pursuing his goal. Columbus was returned to Spain by the end of October 1500. He was brought into the country in chains, a sad sight which sparked pity and compassion from those around him. After nearly six weeks the King and Queen ordered his release and called him before the royal court. This final meeting between the explorer and his royal benefactors was an emotional one, filled with apologies and tears from both sides. Columbus, mostly with the Queen’s insistence, was restored to his former position and glory and given monetary compensation for his incarceration. He was, however, still relieved of his position as ruler of the colonies in the New World.

Columbus After 1493, Christopher Columbus, Social Studies, Glencoe​


Bodhisattva said:
Two: Killing the untold thousands that he did through the slave trade, torture and slaughter isn't murder because they didn't have that law yet. Don't try to be cute.
Click to expand...
:doh
Calling something Murder when it's not, is absurd. So you stop trying to be cute.
And the killing needs to be appropriately placed in the time of it's happening.
Not just; He killed folks so he is a bad, bad person. That is bs.
 
Excon said:
Yea I read the OP. There are no murders in it.
There are false claims of Murder, but there are no Murders.
Again .. Murder is the illegal killing, what Columbus did was not illegal.




WTF?
No where do they say they were illegal.
Why else?
My god man, do some further research and don't buy into this ****. The fact is that there are two sides. Use your head. The OP is only presenting one side in a most unfavorably way, to persuade folks to do away with Columbus day.


The combination of his frail health and failing spirits could not deter Columbus. Even being shackled, with a trial and possible punishment looming, did not stop him from pursuing his goal. Columbus was returned to Spain by the end of October 1500. He was brought into the country in chains, a sad sight which sparked pity and compassion from those around him. After nearly six weeks the King and Queen ordered his release and called him before the royal court. This final meeting between the explorer and his royal benefactors was an emotional one, filled with apologies and tears from both sides. Columbus, mostly with the Queen’s insistence, was restored to his former position and glory and given monetary compensation for his incarceration. He was, however, still relieved of his position as ruler of the colonies in the New World.

Columbus After 1493, Christopher Columbus, Social Studies, Glencoe​

If you think he was imprisoned for murder, you are sorely confused, misinformed, or all three.


Try Encyclopædia Britannica for a better understanding.
Page 3

Both the Taino and the European immigrants had resented the rule of Bartholomew and Diego Columbus. A rebellion by the mayor of La Isabela, Francisco Roldán, had led to appeals to the Spanish court, and, even as Columbus attempted to restore order (partly by hangings), the Spanish chief justice, Francisco de Bobadilla, was on his way to the colony with a royal commission to investigate the complaints. It is hard to explain exactly what the trouble was. Columbus’s report to his sovereigns from the second voyage, taken back by Torres and so known as the Torres Memorandum, speaks of sickness, poor provisioning, recalcitrant natives, and undisciplined hidalgos (gentry). It may be that these problems had intensified. But the Columbus family must be held at least partly responsible, intent as it was on enslaving the Taino and shipping them to Europe or forcing them to mine gold on Hispaniola. Under Columbus’s original system of gold production, local chiefs had been in charge of delivering gold on a loose per capita basis; the adelantado (governor) Bartholomew Columbus had replaced that policy with a system of direct exploitation led by favoured Spaniards, causing widespread dissent among unfavoured Spaniards and indigenous chiefs. Bobadilla ruled against the Columbus family when he arrived in Hispaniola. He clapped Columbus and his two brothers in irons and sent them promptly back on the ship La Gorda, and they arrived at Cádiz in late October 1500.

During that return journey Columbus composed a long letter to his sovereigns that is one of the most extraordinary he wrote, and one of the most informative. One part of its exalted, almost mystical, quality may be attributed to the humiliations the admiral had endured (humiliations he compounded by refusing to allow the captain of the La Gorda to remove his chains during the voyage) and another to the fact that he was now suffering severely from sleeplessness, eyestrain, and a form of rheumatoid arthritis, which may have hastened his death. Much of what he said in the letter, however, seems genuinely to have expressed his beliefs. It shows that Columbus had absolute faith in his navigational abilities, his seaman’s sense of the weather, his eyes, and his reading. He asserted that he had reached the outer region of the Earthly Paradise, in that, during his earlier approach to Trinidad and the Paria Peninsula, the polestar’s rotation had given him the impression that the fleet was climbing. The weather had become extremely mild, and the flow of fresh water into the Gulf of Paria was, as he saw, enormous. All this could have one explanation only—they had mounted toward the temperate heights of the Earthly Paradise, heights from which the rivers of Paradise ran into the sea. Columbus had found all such signs of the outer regions of the Earthly Paradise in his reading, and indeed they were widely known. On this estimate, he was therefore close to the realms of gold that lay near Paradise. He had not found the gold yet, to be sure, but he knew where it was. Columbus’s expectations thus allowed him to interpret his discoveries in terms of biblical and Classical sources and to do so in a manner that would be comprehensible to his sponsors and favourable to himself.

This letter, desperate though it was, convinced the sovereigns that, even if he had not yet found the prize, he had been close to it after all. They ordered his release and gave him audience at Granada in late December 1500. They accepted that Columbus’s capacities as navigator and explorer were unexcelled, [highlight]although he was an unsatisfactory governor[/highlight], and on Sept. 3, 1501, they appointed Nicolás de Ovando to succeed Bobadilla to the governorship. Columbus, though ill and importunate, was a better investment than the many adventurers and profiteers who had meantime been licensed to compete with him, and there was always the danger (revealed in some of the letters of this period) that he would offer his services to his native Genoa. In October 1501 Columbus went to Sevilla to make ready his fourth and final expedition.

Christopher Columbus (Italian explorer) :: The second and third voyages -- Encyclopedia Britannica​

They didn't give a rats ass about the natives. It was about the failure to return on investment. That is maladministration.

There is so much more to this event, and unbiased sources, than the bs in the OP.


For further reading try these or find your own unbiased sources.
The Crimes of Christopher Columbus | Article | First Things

Columbus After 1493, Christopher Columbus, Social Studies, Glencoe
Click to expand...

None of this necessarily implies that the Spanish "did not give a rat's ass" about the natives. Again, the majority of the charges which lead Columbus' to be imprisoned in the first place dealt with abuses done to the natives.

Furthermore, look at what your own source says.

The Crimes of Christopher Columbus | Article | First Things


Shortly after the Spanish established their settlements in the Americas, the King of Spain in the mid-sixteenth century called a halt to expansion pending the resolution of a famous debate over the question of whether Spanish conquest violated the natural and moral law. Never before or since, writes historian Lewis Hanke, has a powerful emperor “ordered his conquests to cease until it was decided if they were just.” The main reason for the King's action was the relentless work of exposing colonial abuses that was performed by a Spanish bishop, Bartolome de las Casas. A former slave owner, Las Casas underwent a crisis of conscience which convinced him that the new world should be peacefully Christianized, that Indians should not be exploited, and that those who were had every right to rebel. Las Casas wrote his Account of the Destruction of the Indies, he said, “so that if God determines to destroy Spain, it may be seen that it is because of the destruction that we have wrought in the Indies.”

Although Las Casas is sometimes portrayed as a heroic eccentric, in fact his basic position in favor of Indian rights was directly adopted by Pope Paul III, who proclaimed in his bull Sublimis Deus in 1537:

Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by the Christians are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen it shall be null and of no effect. Indians and other peoples should be converted to the faith of Jesus Christ by preaching the word of God and by the example of good and holy living.

Leading Jesuit theologians such as Francisco de Vitoria and Francisco Suarez interpreted the Bible and the Catholic tradition to require that the natural rights of Indians be respected, that their conversions be obtained through persuasion and not force, that their land and property be secure from arbitrary confiscation, and that their right to resist Spanish incursions in a “just war” be upheld.

More than a century before Locke, and two centuries before the French and American revolutions, theologians at the University of Salamanca developed the first outlines of the modern doctrine of inviolable human rights. Although these rights were often abused in practice, largely because there was no effective mechanism for enforcement, they provided a moral foundation for the eventual enfranchisement of the native Indians.
Click to expand...

As I said before, while Spaniards were certainly a bit more rough around the edges than anyone living today, they were hardly monsters. They could recognize objective wrong-doing just as well as anyone else.

Many of Columbus' actions were appalling even by their standards.
 
Last edited:
Bodhisattva said:
The Aztecs were not the only natives living here. Millions of others did as well and they were peaceful, living off the land. They were clean and had rich cultural traditions. They were organized into nations.
Click to expand...

I'll admit that most of the tribes living in the Americas were less brutal than the Aztecs. However, this does not mean that they were exactly "saintly" either.

If anything, they were roughly equivalent to cultures like the Celts and Germans who lived in Europe during the classical era. They were quite warlike, many still practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism (if, admittedly, on a more limited scale than the cultures which lived in Central and South America), and they were rather fond of slavery and torture as well.

I think a lot of modern people are a bit too quick to idolize the Native Americans, honestly. At the end of the day, they were just human beings like anyone else, and rather primitive ones at that.

They were really no more "noble" than the Europeans who conquered them.

I would argue that that could easily be better than the horrid conditions that people lived in in the upcoming Industrial Revolution where the plumbing waqs throwing your urine and feces into the street where kids were playing. Read Sinclair's The Jungle and see how much better off the American's had it.
Click to expand...

Without the Industrial Revolution, we wouldn't have any of the luxuries that are commonplace today. Development has got to start somewhere. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Gathomas88 said:
I'll admit that most of the tribes living in the Americas were less brutal than the Aztecs. However, this does not mean that they were exactly "saintly" either.

If anything, they were roughly equivalent to cultures like the Celts and Germans who lived in Europe during the classical era. They were quite warlike, many still practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism (if, admittedly, on a more limited scale than the cultures which lived in Central and South America), and they were rather fond of slavery and torture as well.

I think a lot of modern people are a bit too quick to idolize the Native Americans, honestly. At the end of the day, they were just human beings like anyone else, and rather primitive ones at that.

They were really no more "noble" than the Europeans who conquered them.



Without the Industrial Revolution, we wouldn't have any of the luxuries that are commonplace today. Development has got to start somewhere. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you are saying... the difference between us is that I think I am seeing this argument in a much more subjective way than you are. There really is no way to quantify any of this.
 
Gathomas88 said:
None of this necessarily implies that the Spanish "did not give a rat's ass" about the natives. Again, the majority of the charges which lead Columbus' to be imprisoned in the first place dealt with abuses done to the natives.
Click to expand...
So it isn't taken out of context of the discussion again. Let me rephrase what I said (which I shouldn't need to).
They (the authorities), didn't give a rats ass about the Columbus's treatment of natives.
He was the Governor. His actions and treatment of the locals was legal. The slavery, as spoils of war, was legal.
They (the authorities), were not seeing the return he promised.
He was removed for maladministration.
They (the authorities), were not at all concerned with the accusations of brutality, as it was allowed. The only concern the complaints made may have raised, was that it was interfering with their seeing the return they were promised. Which would again go to administration.

Their treatment of Columbus after the fact belies any claim about concern of treatment of the natives, especially as the argument was that there was no murder committed.

After nearly six weeks the King and Queen ordered his release and called him before the royal court. This final meeting between the explorer and his royal benefactors was an emotional one, filled with apologies and tears from both sides. Columbus, mostly with the Queen’s insistence, was restored to his former position and glory and given monetary compensation for his incarceration. He was, however, still relieved of his position as ruler of the colonies in the New World.

Columbus After 1493, Christopher Columbus, Social Studies, Glencoe​


Gathomas88 said:
Many of Columbus' actions were appalling even by their standards.
Click to expand...
Appalling to some. Not to all. And all legal.
 
Excon said:
So it isn't taken out of context of the discussion again. Let me rephrase what I said (which I shouldn't need to).
They (the authorities), didn't give a rats ass about the Columbus's treatment of natives.
He was the Governor. His actions and treatment of the locals was legal. The slavery, as spoils of war, was legal.
They (the authorities), were not seeing the return he promised.
He was removed for maladministration.
They (the authorities), were not at all concerned with the accusations of brutality, as it was allowed. The only concern the complaints made may have raised, was that it was interfering with their seeing the return they were promised. Which would again go to administration.

Their treatment of Columbus after the fact belies any claim about concern of treatment of the natives, especially as the argument was that there was no murder committed.

After nearly six weeks the King and Queen ordered his release and called him before the royal court. This final meeting between the explorer and his royal benefactors was an emotional one, filled with apologies and tears from both sides. Columbus, mostly with the Queen’s insistence, was restored to his former position and glory and given monetary compensation for his incarceration. He was, however, still relieved of his position as ruler of the colonies in the New World.

Columbus After 1493, Christopher Columbus, Social Studies, Glencoe​
Click to expand...

One reason he was released was becuase he gave them the gold
Another was because of his personal champion... the Queen.
And what he was also guilty of was his treatment of European colonists...

Appalling to some. Not to all. And all legal.
Click to expand...

Under today's laws it would be murder. Just because those laws were not written yet does not mean it was not murder. Only an uneducated tool would think otherwise.
 
Bodhisattva said:
One reason he was released was becuase he gave them the gold
Another was because of his personal champion... the Queen.
And what he was also guilty of was his treatment of European colonists...
Click to expand...
Wrong.
But if you think you are right, please show the decree/decision issued.


Bodhisattva said:
Under today's laws it would be murder. Just because those laws were not written yet does not mean it was not murder. Only an uneducated tool would think otherwise.
Click to expand...
Under today's laws?
He was operating under his days laws.
It wasn't murder.

Only an uneducated tool would judge him by today's standards.
 
Bodhisattva said:
One reason he was released was becuase he gave them the gold
Another was because of his personal champion... the Queen.
And what he was also guilty of was his treatment of European colonists...
Click to expand...

True. He was actually quite the manipulator, when you think about it.

He refused to remove his chains on the entire trip back to Spain in spite of the Captain explicitly offering to allow him to do so (it's not like he could really 'escape' from a ship in the middle of the ocean, after all :lol: ), just because he wanted to looked as broken and pathetic as possible when he eventually got his an audience with the queen. He also wrote a drawn out hyper-religious letter begging for forgiveness just because he knew how devout Queen Isabella happened to be.

The guy was basically a world class suck-up. lol
 
There have to be x number of holidays in the year, and they have to be distributed pretty evenly, or at least that's what an HR person would tell you. Columbus is a fair enough choice because it is a nice opportunity to give the kids a historical lesson about early American history, just like President's day and Thanksgiving, and to most people, it's not all that controversial.
 
We should abolish it and not replace it with anything. Geez we have to many holidays as it is and they continue to add them. In another 50 years our government employees and banks will only work half the year /sarcasm
 
Matt E said:
There have to be x number of holidays in the year, and they have to be distributed pretty evenly, or at least that's what an HR person would tell you. Columbus is a fair enough choice because it is a nice opportunity to give the kids a historical lesson about early American history, just like President's day and Thanksgiving, and to most people, it's not all that controversial.
Click to expand...

The real history or the made-up happy-happy joy-joy stuff? Personally, I'm outraged that I was lied to throughout school about Thanksgiving and Columbus.
 
ChrisL said:
The real history or the made-up happy-happy joy-joy stuff? Personally, I'm outraged that I was lied to throughout school about Thanksgiving and Columbus.
Click to expand...

The made up stuff. It makes people proud to be an american, and it makes the kids pay a little bit more attention in school. Sure, Columbus was a genocidal maniac, but it doesn't really matter for most people. There are bigger issues to worry about.
 
Matt E said:
The made up stuff. It makes people proud to be an american, and it makes the kids pay a little bit more attention in school. Sure, Columbus was a genocidal maniac, but it doesn't really matter for most people. There are bigger issues to worry about.
Click to expand...

What are you kidding? The bloody violence would make them pay attention more than the sweet lies. That is nothing but propaganda. Teaching fake history so that people are misinformed is not doing anyone a favor, except maybe the "subject" of the lesson.
 
ChrisL said:
What are you kidding? The bloody violence would make them pay attention more than the sweet lies. That is nothing but propaganda. Teaching fake history so that people are misinformed is not doing anyone a favor, except maybe the "subject" of the lesson.
Click to expand...

We don't teach children violence, though. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but we don't. Not until they're holder. (And I'm distinguishing "violence" from "wars," because history is oriented around wars, but there aren't all the gruesome details.

Of course it's propaganda. What do you think all that stuff on TV is? :)
 
Excon said:
Only an uneducated tool would judge him by today's standards.
Click to expand...

I am done with your ridiculousness... think what you want.
 
Gathomas88 said:
True. He was actually quite the manipulator, when you think about it.

He refused to remove his chains on the entire trip back to Spain in spite of the Captain explicitly offering to allow him to do so (it's not like he could really 'escape' from a ship in the middle of the ocean, after all :lol: ), just because he wanted to looked as broken and pathetic as possible when he eventually got his an audience with the queen. He also wrote a drawn out hyper-religious letter begging for forgiveness just because he knew how devout Queen Isabella happened to be.

The guy was basically a world class suck-up. lol
Click to expand...

Convince Excon of that now... good luck! :lol:
 
Bodhisattva said:
I am done with your ridiculousness... think what you want.
Click to expand...
Would you like some kleenex?
We all have seen your position of judging him by today's standards is flawed.


Bodhisattva said:
Convince Excon of that now... good luck! :lol:
Click to expand...
He doesn't need to.
Being a suck-up does not make one a murderer.
Duh!
 
Excon said:
Would you like some kleenex?
We all have seen your position of judging him by today's standards is flawed.


He doesn't need to.
Being a suck-up does not make one a murderer.
Duh!
Click to expand...

That was not once my argument. Your inability to understand what I was arguing was clear as day though.
 
Bodhisattva said:
That was not once my argument. Your inability to understand what I was arguing was clear as day though.
Click to expand...
I understood clearly what you said.

Bodhisattva said:
Under today's laws it would be murder. Just because those laws were not written yet does not mean it was not murder. Only an uneducated tool would think otherwise.
Click to expand...
That is pretty clear.
Did you not understand what you said?

My reply was apt.

Excon said:
Under today's laws?
He was operating under his days laws.
It wasn't murder.

Only an uneducated tool would judge him by today's standards.
Click to expand...
 
Excon said:
I understood clearly what you said.

​
That is pretty clear.
Did you not understand what you said?

My reply was apt.

​
Click to expand...

The argument was not about today's laws. The argument was that it is murder anyway. They did not have appropriate murder laws back then. Technically it was not murder but it was murder non-the-less. Killing is killing and terminology regarding that for back then is pretty meaningless. Your argument is pretty stupid actually. Only an uneducated tool wouldn't understand why. Please, humour me with another obvious response.
 
Bodhisattva said:
The argument was not about today's laws. The argument was that it is murder anyway. They did not have appropriate murder laws back then. Technically it was not murder but it was murder non-the-less. Killing is killing and terminology regarding that for back then is pretty meaningless. Your argument is pretty stupid actually. Only an uneducated tool wouldn't understand why. Please, humour me with another obvious response.
Click to expand...
Then you must be that uneducated tool you speak of.
In his days standards he was allowed to do what he did. That is not murder. As you admit, it is killing. Legal killing.

You are trying to apply today's standards to his time frame. That is wrong.

Like I said.
Only an uneducated tool would judge him by today's standards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom