- Joined
- Jan 31, 2013
- Messages
- 30,810
- Reaction score
- 22,360
- Location
- Georgia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
A pitty.you could have written a bestseller.
LOL, You got it.
A pitty.you could have written a bestseller.
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.BS, he found the Americas completely by accident!
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.
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.
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 by the standards of his time.If we start demonizing people, removing holidays, renaming schools, and so on because of what we didn't like about that person then most of the people on our money would be gone, so would our holidays and.we would not learn about any of the contributions they made
You know... It's actually kind of funny.
Columbus was a monster by just about any metric you want to go off. In spite of that, he has been played up as some kind of hero.
Cortez, on the other hand, was actually a fairly reasonable guy by all accounts. Yet, the way he's usually portrayed these days, you'd be forgiven for mistaking him for Attila the Hun.
:lol:What the Hell gives?
I mean, they were both colonizers. Splitting hairs over which of them is worse when the outcome is similar seems kind of pointless
No, he should not. He should be judged by the standards, the norms and in the context of his times. In that context he was a brave man who led 3 ships west to discover America for the Europeans. Until his voyage, sailing off the end of the world was a fear. He went into the unknown. For that he should be given credit.Whether he was a good or bad man by today's standard is irrelevant.
What proof do you have that he wasn't gay? Let's see it.
Seriously...but since it was the norm that makes them OK people... :roll:invading armies used to rape and murder women in ancient days
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.
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 andThere 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.there is no evidence that Jefferson was a cruel or harsh slave master.
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.
Because he was a pretty frickin' evil guy and somehow the USA named a holiday after him.
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.
by the left is another example of an insurgency in this country that truly wants to see its downfallThis attempt to demonize historical figures
People should never be judged by a generations standards they did not live. It doesn't make sense. Columbus should be judged by the standards of the world he lived in.