|
|
Post by archie on Oct 19, 2024 13:44:29 GMT
Did anyone else here listen to Giggles (known as Harris) talk bad about the 1492 Columbus starting the settlement of the country, and how wrong it was to do that? And she thinks the open border is no problem for us now.
|
|
|
|
Post by greebnurt on Oct 19, 2024 14:16:58 GMT
The settlement of the country? What?
Remind me - when was Columbus in North America?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Oct 19, 2024 15:10:11 GMT
Did anyone else here listen to Giggles (known as Harris) talk bad about the 1492 Columbus starting the settlement of the country, and how wrong it was to do that? And she thinks the open border is no problem for us now. Christopher Columbus was a mass murderer ..
We have an exhaustive, and gruesome, first-hand account of the horrors Columbus and his followers brought to the Caribbean from Bartolome de las Casas, a Dominican priest who documented his experience in Cuba and elsewhere in his “History of the Indies.”
In Book Two de las Casas writes, “Endless testimonies … prove the mild and pacific temperament of the natives … But our work was to exasperate, ravage, kill, mangle and destroy; small wonder, then, if they tried to kill one of us now and then …The admiral (Columbus), it is true, was blind as those who came after him, and he was so anxious to please the King that he committed irreparable crimes against the Indians…”
Of the Arawaks enslaved to work in the mines we hear, “Thus husbands and wives were together only once every eight or nine months and when they meet they are so exhausted and depressed on both sides …they cease to procreate. As for the newly born, they died early because their mothers, overworked and famished, had no milk to nurse them, and for this reason, while I was in Cuba, 7,000 children died in three months.
“Some mothers even drowned their babies from sheer desperation. In this way, husbands died in the mines, wives died at work, and children died from lack of milk …and in a short time this land which was so great, so powerful and fertile, was depopulated. My eyes have seen these acts so foreign to human nature, and now I tremble as I write…”
|
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Oct 19, 2024 15:22:27 GMT
Did anyone else here listen to Giggles (known as Harris) talk bad about the 1492 Columbus starting the settlement of the country, and how wrong it was to do that? And she thinks the open border is no problem for us now. Ummm, Columbus never made it to US soil, smarty. This is basic US history, archie, and you present yourself as a complete ignoramus in not knowing what most fourth graders would. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 19, 2024 15:31:47 GMT
Why didn’t Columbus behave more nobly like me on my computer telling people how evil Christopher Columbus was?
|
|
sokpupet
Legend
Go Dark Brandon!
Posts: 6,239
|
Post by sokpupet on Oct 19, 2024 15:53:53 GMT
Why didn’t Columbus behave more nobly like me on my computer telling people how evil Christopher Columbus was? Do you wear your socks inside out? |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Oct 19, 2024 15:56:20 GMT
Why didn’t Columbus behave more nobly like me on my computer telling people how evil Christopher Columbus was? Wait! Can't the same reasoning apply to hitler as well? Are you a "crypto" nazi? |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Oct 19, 2024 15:59:22 GMT
Why didn’t Columbus behave more nobly like me on my computer telling people how evil Christopher Columbus was? Do you wear your socks inside out? Let's face it. Rabbit is a piece of crap. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 19, 2024 16:14:24 GMT
Why didn’t Columbus behave more nobly like me on my computer telling people how evil Christopher Columbus was? Wait! Can't the same reasoning apply to hitler as well? Are you a "crypto" nazi? The 1930s and 1940s are entirely different from the 1400s. What Columbus did was extraordinarily brave and world-changing, in many positive and negative ways, in an era of absolute barbarism and conquest. He wasn’t blessed with a sociology degree from Cornell. He didn’t know about the evils of colonialism. He didn’t even know to vote for women of color yet!! |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 19, 2024 16:15:41 GMT
Why didn’t Columbus behave more nobly like me on my computer telling people how evil Christopher Columbus was? Do you wear your socks inside out? I do not. But I do shake my fist at people from the 1400s and let everybody know that I am morally superior to them while typing on a message board. |
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Oct 19, 2024 16:41:01 GMT
Why didn’t Columbus behave more nobly like me on my computer telling people how evil Christopher Columbus was? History makes some people very uncomfortable .. sometimes to the point of expressing more contempt for the historian than those who made that history ..
Such is the nature of the perpetually malcontent ..
|
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Oct 19, 2024 16:46:58 GMT
Do you wear your socks inside out? I do not. But I do shake my fist at people from the 1400s and let everybody know that I am morally superior to them while typing on a message board. Pol Pot murdered millions.. .
(That was not just a historical fact.. I simply felt like being morally superior again.. Forgive me .. ) 
|
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 19, 2024 18:45:43 GMT
Why didn’t Columbus behave more nobly like me on my computer telling people how evil Christopher Columbus was? History makes some people very uncomfortable .. sometimes to the point of expressing more contempt for the historian than those who made that history ..
Such is the nature of the perpetually malcontent ..
Who is uncomfortable with celebrating a man who was part of a massive change in the world, who was a part of a drastically different era, and has been dead for 500 years? Not me. I’m totally comfortable with it. I think it’s silly to shake my fist at them in righteous anger. Who else do you disparage from back then? Can you provide examples? Or is always Columbus? |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 19, 2024 18:46:22 GMT
I do not. But I do shake my fist at people from the 1400s and let everybody know that I am morally superior to them while typing on a message board. Pol Pot murdered millions.. .
(That was not just a historical fact.. I simply felt like being morally superior again.. Forgive me .. )
When was that? What else did he do? Any earth-changing discoveries that impacted billions in a positive way? |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Oct 19, 2024 19:09:28 GMT
Wait! Can't the same reasoning apply to hitler as well? Are you a "crypto" nazi? The 1930s and 1940s are entirely different from the 1400s. What Columbus did was extraordinarily brave and world-changing, in many positive and negative ways, in an era of absolute barbarism and conquest. He wasn’t blessed with a sociology degree from Cornell. He didn’t know about the evils of colonialism. He didn’t even know to vote for women of color yet!! Columbus accepted and embraced the norms of his time, and within them, did something that had huge historic impact. This is true. But he is not known as someone whose morals caused any of those norms to change into the better world we know today. Rather, he fully endorsed them, used them for his own benefit, and did not care who he harmed to achieve them. This is also true. It is possible to have both views simultaneously, and most of us now do. For whatever reasons, there are still some hold-outs who refuse to acknowledge the whole story, just the parts of it they find most appealing. The truth typically has multiple sides, and accepting all of them, IS truth. Ignoring any part of the story is choosing ignorance. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 19, 2024 19:21:04 GMT
The 1930s and 1940s are entirely different from the 1400s. What Columbus did was extraordinarily brave and world-changing, in many positive and negative ways, in an era of absolute barbarism and conquest. He wasn’t blessed with a sociology degree from Cornell. He didn’t know about the evils of colonialism. He didn’t even know to vote for women of color yet!! Columbus accepted and embraced the norms of his time, and within them, did something that had huge historic impact. This is true. But he is not known as someone whose morals caused any of those norms to change into the better world we know today. Rather, he fully endorsed them, used them for his own benefit, and did not care who he harmed to achieve them. This is also true. It is possible to have both views simultaneously, and most of us now do. For whatever reasons, there are still some hold-outs who refuse to acknowledge the whole story, just the parts of it they find most appealing. The truth typically has multiple sides, and accepting all of them, IS truth. Ignoring any part of the story is choosing ignorance. Freon If you’d like proof of the other side of that, the legions of people who immediately virtue-preen about how horrible Columbus was and there’s nothing redeeming at all, let me know. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Oct 19, 2024 19:44:23 GMT
Columbus accepted and embraced the norms of his time, and within them, did something that had huge historic impact. This is true. But he is not known as someone whose morals caused any of those norms to change into the better world we know today. Rather, he fully endorsed them, used them for his own benefit, and did not care who he harmed to achieve them. This is also true. It is possible to have both views simultaneously, and most of us now do. For whatever reasons, there are still some hold-outs who refuse to acknowledge the whole story, just the parts of it they find most appealing. The truth typically has multiple sides, and accepting all of them, IS truth. Ignoring any part of the story is choosing ignorance. Freon If you’d like proof of the other side of that, the legions of people who immediately virtue-preen about how horrible Columbus was and there’s nothing redeeming at all, let me know. I condemn them as much as I do you. Again, that's the WHOLE truth. That both sides have those within them, who refuse to explore these subjects themselves, instead merely adopting the views of their preferred media. Except the far right is the most extreme case of this. Yes, the left has those who do as you've described. But you have to look for them. ALL of the far right, on the other hand, are like this. ALL of them except their narrow views, and those who do not, are kicked out of the flock. Loyalty to your narrow views is a defining aspect of being far right. Which is why your counterargument really isn't one. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 19, 2024 19:51:10 GMT
If you’d like proof of the other side of that, the legions of people who immediately virtue-preen about how horrible Columbus was and there’s nothing redeeming at all, let me know. I condemn them as much as I do you. Again, that's the WHOLE truth. That both sides have those within them, who refuse to explore these subjects themselves, instead merely adopting the views of their preferred media. Except the far right is the most extreme case of this. Yes, the left has those who do as you've described. But you have to look for them. ALL of the far right, on the other hand, are like this. ALL of them except their narrow views, and those who do not, are kicked out of the flock. Loyalty to your narrow views is a defining aspect of being far right. Which is why your counterargument really isn't one. Freon Are you saying that belief in the infallibility of Columbus is an issue of big importance in the right wing of America? That it is something that is a must-believe, else the person risks expulsion from the right? That’s just silly. Anyway, is there somebody else from the Middle Ages or before that gets as much negative press as Columbus? That brings out the Fiddlers of the world to bleat about what a monster they were? |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Oct 19, 2024 21:47:12 GMT
I condemn them as much as I do you. Again, that's the WHOLE truth. That both sides have those within them, who refuse to explore these subjects themselves, instead merely adopting the views of their preferred media. Except the far right is the most extreme case of this. Yes, the left has those who do as you've described. But you have to look for them. ALL of the far right, on the other hand, are like this. ALL of them except their narrow views, and those who do not, are kicked out of the flock. Loyalty to your narrow views is a defining aspect of being far right. Which is why your counterargument really isn't one. Freon Are you saying that belief in the infallibility of Columbus is an issue of big importance in the right wing of America? That it is something that is a must-believe, else the person risks expulsion from the right? That’s just silly. Anyway, is there somebody else from the Middle Ages or before that gets as much negative press as Columbus? That brings out the Fiddlers of the world to bleat about what a monster they were? I have no idea where you got that hypothesis from, so I see no point in even commenting on it. What I DO know, and what you know too, is that it IS important to a great many Americans. You clearly do not understand why, and you clearly do not agree, but that does not magically negate its importance to so many. To take the stance that because it has no importance to you, that it SHOULD NOT to others, is equivalent to sticking your head in the sand because reality is too difficult for you. Our view of Columbus was only telling part of the story, and now that we know the other part, suddenly he's not the superhero he was made out to be in the history classes of the previous century. I, for one, am open to considering new information, and like any intelligent person, am obligated to adjust my views if the pre-existing ones are inaccurate. So I appreciate what Columbus did, but he is not someone I admire, not someone I cherish, and certainly not someone who deserves an entire day every year in his honor. To do so, would be honoring the OPPOSITE of what I, and most Americans, value. Why would you honor someone who did what he did? Exploitation of entire peoples? Sounds incredibly similar to what the South did, and you laud their heroes as well. Coincidence? Hardly. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 19, 2024 22:28:02 GMT
Are you saying that belief in the infallibility of Columbus is an issue of big importance in the right wing of America? That it is something that is a must-believe, else the person risks expulsion from the right? That’s just silly. Anyway, is there somebody else from the Middle Ages or before that gets as much negative press as Columbus? That brings out the Fiddlers of the world to bleat about what a monster they were? I have no idea where you got that hypothesis from, so I see no point in even commenting on it. What I DO know, and what you know too, is that it IS important to a great many Americans. You clearly do not understand why, and you clearly do not agree, but that does not magically negate its importance to so many. To take the stance that because it has no importance to you, that it SHOULD NOT to others, is equivalent to sticking your head in the sand because reality is too difficult for you. Our view of Columbus was only telling part of the story, and now that we know the other part, suddenly he's not the superhero he was made out to be in the history classes of the previous century. I, for one, am open to considering new information, and like any intelligent person, am obligated to adjust my views if the pre-existing ones are inaccurate. So I appreciate what Columbus did, but he is not someone I admire, not someone I cherish, and certainly not someone who deserves an entire day every year in his honor. To do so, would be honoring the OPPOSITE of what I, and most Americans, value. Why would you honor someone who did what he did? He was extraordinary. And flawed, when measured against today’s soft standards, as all men from then are flawed. Honoring the courage to do as he did, which led directly to the United States of America, is normal and grateful in the classic sense. Focusing on the flaws, the flaws he shared with everybody of his times, is extremely modern and ridiculous. And juvenile. Making a point with only Columbus with no other context and no other Medieval person holding such criticism, is the opposite of understanding history. It’s embracing soft modern thinking. It is foregoing perspective to virtue-preen. |
|
