Should we abolish Columbus Day?

Bodhisattva said:

That said, it was murder.

Click to expand...

No.
It is obviously you who don't get it.
You are arguing it is Murder when it is not.

Even by today's standards, as his actions were allowed under the law, it is not considered murder.
Just as Truman killed a bunch of natives. Native Japanese. All legal.

Excon said:

No.
It is obviously you who don't get it.
You are arguing it is Murder when it is not.

Even by today's standards, as his actions were allowed under the law, it is not considered murder.
Just as Truman killed a bunch of natives. Native Japanese. All legal.

Click to expand...

You are going to say that genocide is the same as war now? And I am not arguing legality... Your mother needs to monitor your internet usage better.

Bodhisattva said:

You are going to say that genocide is the same as war now? And I am not arguing legality...

Click to expand...

Besides his being allowed to do as he did as Governor, did you not read the relevant info about Columbus?
He declared war on them.

Bodhisattva said:

Your mother needs to monitor your internet usage better.

Click to expand...

Why do you want to be juvenile and get personal like that?
Do you not understand yet that I just throw it back in the persons face as it deserves to be?

My first post on this forum was letting folks know I am a Disabled Vet.
Later I provided a photo (with blocked out info and image) of my active duty ID card that expired in 92.

That is twenty years ago. For all you know I may be older than you are.


You are the only one acting like a child here, so grow up.

Excon said:

Besides his being allowed to do as he did as Governor, did you not read the relevant info about Columbus?
He declared war on them.

Why do you want to be juvenile and get personal like that?
Do you not understand yet that I just throw it back in the persons face as it deserves to be?

My first post on this forum was letting folks know I am a Disabled Vet.
Later I provided a photo (with blocked out info and image) of my active duty ID card that expired in 92.

That is twenty years ago. For all you know I may be older than you are.


You are the only one acting like a child here, so grow up.

Click to expand...

Did you brain get disabled? I don't care if you are a vet or not as it is irrelevant to these debates....

You started the juvenile crap... when you parrot what I say over and over you are acting like a ****ing *****... don't start whining about it now...

He signed a formal declaration of war on them with the Queens consent? Show some evidence or you ain't got squat.

I was not arguing legality... wrong and wrong

Bodhisattva said:

I don't care if you are a vet or not as it is irrelevant to these debates....

Click to expand...

I didn't say you should care, did I?

I was pointing out that your attempts at insulting my age were juvenile and ridiculous.

Bodhisattva said:

You started the juvenile crap... when you parrot what I say over and over you are acting like a ****ing *****... don't start whining about it now...

Click to expand...

Oy Vey!
No. :naughty
You started by using that juvenile crap in the first place.
As I stated, I will throw that crap back in a person's face when given.
And I did just that, which was a win-win for me because it applied to what you said, and not to what I had said.

Bodhisattva said:

He signed a formal declaration of war on them with the Queens consent? Show some evidence or you ain't got squat.

Click to expand...

Sigh! :doh
Did I say that, or did I say; "He declared war on them."
I am sure I know which one.
Care to correct yourself?



And those slaves were the spoils of war.
It is the way things were.
If you don't like it, that is fine, but it totally different from it being murder or illegal.

Bodhisattva said:

I was not arguing legality... wrong and wrong

Click to expand...

Bs! You are wrong and even more wrong.
Just like you said you weren't arguing it was murder (which as I showed to be false), you also argued the legality of it.

I swear, you do not know what the hell you are arguing.
You arguing legality is right there in what I quoted to prove you wrong that you were arguing that it was murder.

Why don't you just finish this by saying that your real position is you just don't like what he did.
I can't argue against that as it is just an opinion.
But keep claiming false facts like it was murder when it wasn't, and I will continue to argue against them.

Excon said:

I didn't say you should care, did I?

I was pointing out that your attempts at insulting my age were juvenile and ridiculous.

Click to expand...

My point about your age was not that you are literally a kid but your reasoning is like one... it is a sarcastic comment. Never mind.

Oy Vey!
No. :naughty
You started by using that juvenile crap in the first place.
As I stated, I will throw that crap back in a person's face when given.
And I did just that, which was a win-win for me because it applied to what you said, and not to what I had said.

Click to expand...

Calling you skippy, or whatever, could be seen as juvenile but is not decidely so.
Having you parrot back skippy is not throwing crap back in my face... it is ****ing retarded. THAT, is juvenile.

Sigh! :doh
Did I say that or did I say; "He declared war on them."
I am sure I know which one.
Care to correct yourself?

Click to expand...

:lol:

Wait.

Let me catch my breath. Killing is not murder because there was literally no legal code for killing with regards to Natives but declaring war on them does not mean literally declaring war? Is that what you are gonna try and claim? :lol:

On his second trip to Haiti, King Ferdinand replenished his resources and gave him anything he needed to break and conquer the natives. Once he and his crew made it to the island, his demands were met with surprising defiance which allowed him to then declare war on the Arawak tribe; an almost obvious plan. Using vicious and inhumane fighting tactics, Columbus and his Spaniards won the battle. With no luck finding the gold on this trip either, he rounded up approximately 500 Arawak Indians to bring to Spain as slaves and gathered 500 more for the new Spanish government of Haiti to use in the same barbaric manner. They had conquered the Arawak Indians and now declared that Haiti belonged to Spain.
Christopher Columbus the Barbarian​

And those slave were the spoils of war.
It is the way things were.
If you don't like it, that is fine, but it totally different from it being murder or illegal.

Click to expand...

So his war was like Vietnam? Not a real war? You are a vet but don't know what declaring war means? Isn't that boot camp 101 or something? :roll:

Bs! You are wrong and even more wrong.
Just like you said you weren't arguing it was murder (which as I showed to be false), you also argued the legality of it.

I swear, you do not know what the hell you are arguing.
You arguing legality is right there in what I quoted to prove you wrong that you were arguing that it was murder.

Why don't you just finish this by saying that your real position is you just don't like what he did.
I can't argue against that as it is just an opinion.
But keep claiming false facts like it was murder when it wasn't, and I will continue to argue against them.

Click to expand...

An apple was an apple prior to the English word for it.
A murder was a murder prior to the English legal code describing it as so.
It can't be any more simple than that.

Excon said:

Oh the pain, the pain! :doh :lamo :doh

Yeah, you did.
Your own words betray you in more ways then one, and show that you are telling an untruth.
Red to red underline, ridiculous contradiction.
Blue, to blue, to blue underline, proving you did argue such.

​

Next!

Click to expand...

It would be murder under today's laws. Just because it may or may not have been (although he was charged so obviously it was), that does NOT mean that anyone has to accept what he did with a wink and nod. He was a rotten person. End of story.

ChrisL said:

It would be murder under today's laws. Just because it may or may not have been (although he was charged so obviously it was), that does NOT mean that anyone has to accept what he did with a wink and nod.

Click to expand...

No it wouldn't be.
He was allowed to do what he did.
Under today's laws, doing something you are allowed, is not illegal.

Which is why it is comparable to Truman actions.
That is what you are not getting.


Secondly, it is wrong to judge a person from his time by today's standards.
You keep forgetting that.
Had he been under today's laws, he would have acted differently.


Bottom line is that you really don't know enough about him to judge whether or not he was a rotten person or not.

Excon said:

No it wouldn't be.
He was allowed to do what he did.
Under today's laws, doing something you are allowed, is not illegal.

Which is why it is comparable to Truman actions.
That is what you are not getting.


Secondly, it is wrong to judge a person from his time by today's standards.
You keep forgetting that.
Had he been under today's laws, he would have acted differently.


Bottom line is that you really don't know enough about him to judge whether or not he was a rotten person or not.

Click to expand...

Lol! IMO, anyone who feed alive people to dogs is pretty much a rotten person.

Bodhisattva said:

My point about your age was not that you are literally a kid but your reasoning is like one... it is a sarcastic comment. Never mind.

Click to expand...

Never-mind is right, as I think it is your reasoning that is child like.

Bodhisattva said:

Calling you skippy, or whatever, could be seen as juvenile but is not decidely so.
Having you parrot back skippy is not throwing crap back in my face... it is ****ing retarded. THAT, is juvenile.

Click to expand...

Wrong skippy, your complaint here is ****ing retarded.
Go back and look at what you said, and how it was thrown back.

Bodhisattva said:

Let me catch my breath.

Click to expand...

Yes catch your breath because you are again confused.

Bodhisattva said:

Killing is not murder because there was literally no legal code for killing with regards to Natives

Click to expand...

No, killing is not murder.
Are really that ignorant of the word?
What he did was allowed. It was not murder.
But let me guess, you are now going to say that you are not arguing that it was murder, right? Although you have already said that it technically isn't.

Bodhisattva said:

but declaring war on them does not mean literally declaring war? Is that what you are gonna try and claim?

Click to expand...

Wtf?
Here is more of that confusion.
Did I say he declared war on them, or did I say he didn't?
I also pointed out that under his declaration that the slaves were spoils of that war which was also allowed.
Why Are you so confused?

Bodhisattva said:

So his war was like Vietnam? Not a real war? You are a vet but don't know what declaring war means? Isn't that boot camp 101 or something? :roll:

Click to expand...

More confusion on your part.
Did I say he declared war on them, or did I say he didn't?
Huh?
If I said he did (like you and I both know I did), where the **** are you coming up with this nonsense about "not a real war"?
You are not making any sense.

Bodhisattva said:

An apple was an apple prior to the English word for it.
A murder was a murder prior to the English legal code describing it as so.
It can't be any more simple than that.

Click to expand...

:doh Do'h!
You are warping the truth.
If killing a native wasn't murder, you can not say it was. That is how the law works.

If what he did was allowed, it was not murder.


What you are doing is taking the absurd position that if in the future exploding a nuclear warhead is declared illegal, then Truman's actions are then illegal. Which is hog wash, as they weren't illegal, just as Columbus's actions were not illegal.
It is that simple.

ChrisL said:

Lol! IMO, anyone who feed alive people to dogs is pretty much a rotten person.

Click to expand...

Not from that day and age.
You are again judging him by today's standards and not his own day's standards.

Excon said:

Not from that day and age.
You are again judging him by today's standards and not his own day's standards.

Click to expand...

I think stuff like that was always kind of looked down upon, don't you? :lol:

ChrisL said:

I think stuff like that was always kind of looked down upon, don't you? :lol:

Click to expand...

I am pretty sure it wasn't.
Think back to the Roman Empire.
No, it has been that way pretty much our whole existence accept until recently.

Excon said:

Never-mind is right, as I think it is your reasoning that is child like.

Click to expand...

You got me... you are a really smart guy.

Wrong skippy, your complaint here is ****ing retarded.
Go back and look at what you said, and how it was thrown back.

Click to expand...

It was pretty clear. You parroted my words. I said you did. You justified why you did it even saying you were parroting. Now you have some tough guy chip on your shoulder and are calling it, "throwing it in your face ROAR!!!" And there you go again parroting what I said. Are you able to actually think for yourself and come up with something original? Try it. Makes life more interesting.

Yes catch your breath because you are again confused.

Click to expand...

I am confused as to why you think that you are right, that much is for certain.

No, killing is not murder.
Are really that ignorant of the word?
What he did was allowed. It was not murder.
But let me guess, you are now going to say that you are not arguing that it was murder, right? Although you have already said that it technically isn't.

Click to expand...

I have been arguing that it is murder all along. Just not by the modern definition of the word. The modern definition is irrelevant to the fact that killing like that has ALWAYS been murder just as an apple has ALWAYS been an apple. Our terminology is irrelevant. Look, you don't get it. I think I might be done with your foolishness on this subject.

Wtf?
Here is more of that confusion.
Did I say he declared war on them, or did I say he didn't?
I also pointed out that under his declaration that the slaves were spoils of that war which was also allowed.
Why Are you so confused?

Click to expand...

You said that he declared war on them. That requires a Declaration of War. That requires state approval. Where is the Declaration? They are written documents. Where is the Queens consent? This would be documented. You fail so big it is amazing.

More confusion on your part.
Did I say he declared war on them, or did I say he didn't?
Huh?
If I said he did (like you and I both know I did), where the **** are you coming up with this nonsense about "not a real war"?
You are not making any sense.

Click to expand...

The Vietnam War was not a declared war... that is the point that you missed. Some guy can't declare war on a nation. It requires state approval. Your use of terminolgy is so ****ed up.

:doh Do'h!
You are warping the truth.
If killing a native wasn't murder, you can not say it was. That is how the law works.

If what he did was allowed, it was not murder.

Click to expand...

He went to a foreign land and as such he was subject to their laws and procedures. Do you know that they did not have a law about murder? Most societies and groups of people do...

What you are doing is taking the absurd position that if in the future exploding a nuclear warhead is declared illegal, then Truman's actions are then illegal. Which is hog wash, as they weren't illegal, just as Columbus's actions were not illegal.
It is that simple.

Click to expand...

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE LAWS FOR ****ING ****S SAKE!!!

Jesus ****ing H. Christ! :lol:

I am fine with abolishing Columbus Day, but not for the politically correct reasons. I just don't think it's necessary to begin with.

Excon said:

Not from that day and age.
You are again judging him by today's standards and not his own day's standards.

Click to expand...

By taking the position that because a thing was done then it was [more] acceptable, you'd have to extend that logic to any atrocities committed today. The official count is that there are currently 30 million slaves worldwide today. From the viewpoint of those studying history four hundred years from now one might arrive at the conclusion that the 21st century was just a different time and that slavery was fine.

Cardinal said:

By taking the position that because a thing was done then it was [more] acceptable, you'd have to extend that logic to any atrocities committed today. The official count is that there are currently 30 million slaves worldwide today. From the viewpoint of those studying history four hundred years from now one might arrive at the conclusion that the 21st century was just a different time and that slavery was fine.

Click to expand...

Except slavery is universally decried today and actively combated by virtually every government and international law enforcement organization. A more apt analogy might be how people four hundred years from now look upon our explanations for 'collateral damage' in warfare as acceptable and something we generally shrug at. Likewise some of the things Columbus did (the bloody raids against the Taino's) were more or less tolerated even in his time, others were considered terrible even for the 16th Century and he was punished as a result. It is the latter that makes him particularly unpleasant.

Columbus day should be re-named national racist, gold greed, exploiting scumbag day and keep the three day weekend. We all need a Monday off around this time of the year.
Why not celebrate it for what really happened instead of deluding ourselves into believing that something wonderful occurred.

Sherman123 said:

Except slavery is universally decried today and actively combated by virtually every government and international law enforcement organization. A more apt analogy might be how people four hundred years from now look upon our explanations for 'collateral damage' in warfare as acceptable and something we generally shrug at. Likewise some of the things Columbus did (the bloody raids against the Taino's) were more or less tolerated even in his time, others were considered terrible even for the 16th Century and he was punished as a result. It is the latter that makes him particularly unpleasant.

Click to expand...

It's difficult to say to what extent slavery was decried back then as there wasn't a democratic medium such as newspapers, let alone the internet. For all we know the majority of the peasantry and middle class abhorred slavery but, hey, monarchy, so screw their unwashed, stupid opinions. In any case, knowing what we know now and how we feel about it, using somebody like Columbus as a role model today is repugnant. He's completely incompatible with our morals.

Buck Ewer said:

Columbus day should be re-named national racist, gold greed, exploiting scumbag day and keep the three day weekend. We all need a Monday off around this time of the year.
Why not celebrate it for what really happened instead of deluding ourselves into believing that something wonderful occurred.

Click to expand...

how about hysterical hyperbolic hissy fit day? :mrgreen:

England has Guy Fawkes day and he certainly was no hero to them

Buck Ewer said:

Columbus day should be re-named national racist, gold greed, exploiting scumbag day

Click to expand...

Sorry, I'd never be able to retain that.

Sherman123 said:

Except slavery is universally decried today and actively combated by virtually every government and international law enforcement organization. A more apt analogy might be how people four hundred years from now look upon our explanations for 'collateral damage' in warfare as acceptable and something we generally shrug at. Likewise some of the things Columbus did (the bloody raids against the Taino's) were more or less tolerated even in his time, others were considered terrible even for the 16th Century and he was punished as a result. It is the latter that makes him particularly unpleasant.

Click to expand...

He tortured and maimed people for his own pleasure though, according to the OP. I don't think things like that have ever really been tolerated in civilized society.

Bodhisattva said:

You got me... you are a really smart guy.

Click to expand...

Yes I know. My IQ routinely tests between 153 and 167.
Anything else you would like to say Alec, or will you finally stop with getting personal?
My money is on you not stopping.

Bodhisattva said:

It was pretty clear. You parroted my words. I said you did. You justified why you did it even saying you were parroting. Now you have some tough guy chip on your shoulder and are calling it, "throwing it in your face ROAR!!!" And there you go again parroting what I said. Are you able to actually think for yourself and come up with something original? Try it. Makes life more interesting.

Click to expand...

For heavens sah-keh.
I said I parroted them back to you as they apply to you far more than they apply to me.
And yes that is throwing them back in your face.
It points out how juvenile you are being, and leaves no mistake how your own words are meant to be taken.
And make no mistake, I am going to continue to do it.
If you don't like it, your best bet is act like an adult and not throw them out there to begin with.

Bodhisattva said:

I am confused

Click to expand...

We know you are, but you shouldn't be confused on that issue at all. Killing is not murder.

Bodhisattva said:

I have been arguing that it is murder all along. Just not by the modern definition of the word.

Click to expand...

Said the guy who said he wasn't arguing that it was.
Figures. I knew you didn't know what you were arguing.

Bodhisattva said:

The modern definition is irrelevant to the fact that killing like that has ALWAYS been murder just as an apple has ALWAYS been an apple. Our terminology is irrelevant. Look, you don't get it.

Click to expand...

Wrong.
You don't get it.
Killing like that has not always been murder.

This looks like it would be a great signature. :doh

Bodhisattva said:

You said that he declared war on them. That requires a Declaration of War. That requires state approval. Where is the Declaration? They are written documents. Where is the Queens consent? This would be documented. You fail so big it is amazing.

Click to expand...

First of all, this is your failure.
I stated that "He declared war", which is clearly supported by the information I provided.
That information states that the "King Ferdinand ... gave him anything he needed to break and conquer the natives."
Wtf do you think that means? Huh? Conquer. Is this another word you need explained to you?

When the report stated that "his demands were met with surprising defiance which allowed him to then declare war" what the heck do you think "allowed him to declare war means?

You are the one assuming and alleging that he needed the Queens approval. That is on you to support. So please provide proof of it.
I supported what I said. It is now up to you to support what you say.
But I know you wont.
Because you failed to support any of your claims that you have been asked to thus far.

Bodhisattva said:

The Vietnam War was not a declared war... that is the point that you missed. Some guy can't declare war on a nation. It requires state approval. Your use of terminolgy is so ****ed up.

Click to expand...

Your understanding is what is ****ed up.
As with the Presidents during the Vietnam Conflict, he had the authority to act in such a way.
It wasn't illegal.
Duh!


Nor do our laws of today apply to yesterday. Or did you not know that?

And if anything, the proper comparison would have been between the Generals tasked with carrying out the actual conflict, as they were doing what was allowed.

Bodhisattva said:

He went to a foreign land and as such he was subject to their laws and procedures.

Click to expand...

More confusion on your part. As a conquer, he was not.

Bodhisattva said:

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE LAWS FOR ****ING ****S SAKE!!!

Click to expand...

Jesus ****ing H. Christ! iLOL

Yes you are.
Murder is an illegal act.
You can't call a legal killing murder.
And looky there. Here you are contradicting yourself again.


You have no clue as what you have been arguing.




I think I understand what the problem is.
If you concede that simply killing is not murder, then your position that killing the unborn is murder falls.
I would suggest we drop the discussion if this is the case, because I am not wrong, and you could never show that you aren't.

apdst said:

Why? Because The Indians discovered Hispanola?

Click to expand...

What are you trying to say--that Native Americans were not already here?

Excon said:

Yes I know. My IQ routinely tests between 153 and 167.
Anything else you would like to say Alec, or will you finally stop with getting personal?
My money is on you not stopping.


For heavens sah-keh.
I said I parroted them back to you as they apply to you far more than they apply to me.
And yes that is throwing them back in your face.
It points out how juvenile you are being, and leaves no mistake how your own words are meant to be taken.
And make no mistake, I am going to continue to do it.
If you don't like it, your best bet is act like an adult and not throw them out there to begin with.


We know you are, but you shouldn't be confused on that issue at all. Killing is not murder.


Said the guy who said he wasn't arguing that it was.
Figures. I knew you didn't know what you were arguing.

​

Wrong.
You don't get it.
Killing like that has not always been murder.

This looks like it would be a great signature. :doh

Bodhisattva ~ "I didn't argue that it was murder"
Bodhisattva ~ "I have been arguing that it is murder all along. "​

First of all, this is your failure.
I stated that "He declared war", which is clearly supported by the information I provided.
That information states that the "King Ferdinand ... gave him anything he needed to break and conquer the natives."
Wtf do you think that means? Huh? Conquer. Is this another word you need explained to you?

When the report stated that "his demands were met with surprising defiance which allowed him to then declare war" what the heck do you think "allowed him to declare war means?

You are the one assuming and alleging that he needed the Queens approval. That is on you to support. So please provide proof of it.
I supported what I said. It is now up to you to support what you say.
But I know you wont.
Because you failed to support any of your claims that you have been asked to thus far.


Your understanding is what is ****ed up.
As with the Presidents during the Vietnam Conflict, he had the authority to act in such a way.
It wasn't illegal.
Duh!


Nor do our laws of today apply to yesterday. Or did you not know that?

And if anything, the proper comparison would have been between the Generals tasked with carrying out the actual conflict, as they were doing what was allowed.


More confusion on your part. As a conquer, he was not.



Jesus ****ing H. Christ! iLOL

Yes you are.
Murder is an illegal act.
You can't call a legal killing murder.
And looky there. Here you are contradicting yourself again.

​

You have no clue as what you have been arguing.




I think I understand what the problem is.
If you concede that simply killing is not murder, then your position that killing the unborn is murder falls.
I would suggest we drop the discussion if this is the case, because I am not wrong, and you could never show that you aren't.

Click to expand...

Why are you going to such lengths with these long posts to defend this guy's actions. Who cares what the laws were. The point is he was a savage who enjoyed torturing and maiming people. Just because the law back then did not recognize natives or other people of color as being actual people in no way justifies those actions.