toldailytopic: Columbus: good guy or bad guy?

[Granite]

Where do you get your "facts"?

They're called books, ASC. You might wanna try reading a few.

You can't explain away Columbus's conquest of natives, or his abuses of them. They happened, and they were documented by the man himself. Do some reading of your own. This is pretty basic America 101 type material I'm talking about here. The man was no saint and committed atrocities. As I said, he needs to be seen as a product of his time, but that doesn't explain away everything he did.

 

[kmoney]

What question? It's a personal opinion. I don't typically sit down and make a listed criteria before I form one of those. But nearly all of my in-laws are NA, to one degree or another, and knowledgeable about NA history. And, as most have strong opinions about it and everything related, there's rarely a week that goes by that I'm not presented with a front row seat to a lively discussion along those lines. That'd be what I based my opinion on.

I could have just read a book, though. Still would have presented my opinion based on that.

And what in those discussions lead you to say that Native Americans are better off than they would be had they never met/been conquered by Europeans?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

They're called books, ASC. You might wanna try reading a few.

You can't explain away Columbus's conquest of natives, or his abuses of them. They happened, and they were documented by the man himself. Do some reading of your own. This is pretty basic America 101 type material I'm talking about here. The man was no saint and committed atrocities. As I said, he needs to be seen as a product of his time, but that doesn't explain away everything he did.

He brought Christianity to a pagan land; that in itself is most likely the reason liberals HATE him like they do.

The Indians weren't angels Granite.

"The Following is the unpublished manuscript, Indian Atrocities Along the Clinch, Powell and Holston Rivers of Southwest Virginia, 1773-1794, written by the late Emory L. Hamilton. The original manuscript consists of 255 pages and has 99 stories throughout, #59 missing from the original manuscript. For convenience, the individual stories have been seperated below."
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~varussel/indian/

Of course there was intertribal warfare as well.

"In his epic work France and England in North America, the great American historian Francis Parkman describes the early 17th-century recreational and culinary habits of the Iroquois Indians.

Parkman describes an attack by the Iroquois on an Algonquin hunting party, late in the autumn of 1641, and the Iroquois' treatment of their prisoners and victims:
They bound the prisoners hand and foot, rekindled the fire, slung the kettles, cut the bodies of the slain to pieces, and boiled and devoured them before the eyes of the wretched survivors. "In a word," says the narrator [that is, the Algonquin woman who escaped to tell the tale], "they ate men with as much appetite and more pleasure than hunters eat a boar or a stag ..."
The conquerors feasted in the lodge till nearly daybreak ... then began their march homeward with their prisoners. Among these were three women, of whom the narrator was one, who had each a child of a few weeks or months old. At the first halt, their captors took the infants from them, tied them to wooden spits, placed them to die slowly before a fire, and feasted on them before the eyes of the agonized mothers, whose shrieks, supplications, and frantic efforts to break the cords that bound them were met with mockery and laughter ..."
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n3p-7_Beary.html

Save your PC "bs-ola" for your liberal buddies who don't know any better.

 

[kmoney]

It's funny to see people try to justify the actions of Columbus by pointing out how violent some of the natives were. lain:

Look! Bad Indians! Better kill them and take their land. :devil:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

It's funny to see people try to justify the actions of Columbus by pointing out how violent some of the natives were. lain:

Look! Bad Indians! Better kill them and take their land. :devil:

Yet so-called "Christians" defend their PAGAN savagery.

 

[kmoney]

Yet so-called "Christians" defend their PAGAN savagery.

Who did that?

 

[some other dude]

It's funny to see people try to justify the actions of Columbus by pointing out how violent some of the natives were. lain:

Look! Bad Indians! Better kill them and take their land. :devil:

The problem with this type of question, kmo, is that it is a relativist question. Was Columbus good or bad? Compared to what? Compared to whom?

Compared to modern ethics?
Compared to biblical principles?
Compared to the culture from which he came?
Compared to the culture which he encountered?

It's a poorly worded question.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Who did that?

Forgive me if I misintrepeted this:

Originally Posted by kmoney
"It's funny to see people try to justify the actions of Columbus by pointing out how violent some of the natives were.

Look! Bad Indians! Better kill them and take their land."

Ok, let's hear about the atrocities Christopher Columbus committed. As shown, some Indian tribes were known for their cannibalism, amongst other savagery.

And by the way, as shown in an early post, it wasn't "their land".

 

[kmoney]

The problem with this type of question, kmo, is that it is a relativist question. Was Columbus good or bad? Compared to what? Compared to whom?

Knight left the question broad. Answer it according to the criteria you want. :idunno: What do you think is important?

Many have said that Columbus was simply a product and a man of his time. I agree with that. But that doesn't mean he's justified in what he did. It just means that had he not come along, someone else would have done it.

Compared to modern ethics?

He was bad.

Compared to biblical principles?

He was bad.

Compared to the culture from which he came?

Probably he was good.

Compared to the culture which he encountered?

I'm not sure I can say.

It's a poorly worded question.

It's a broadly worded question.


If I have time I will try to come up with some quotes from the chapter Howard Zinn has on Columbus.

 

[kmoney]

Forgive me if I misintrepeted this:

Originally Posted by kmoney
"It's funny to see people try to justify the actions of Columbus by pointing out how violent some of the natives were.

Look! Bad Indians! Better kill them and take their land."

If you interpreted that as me saying everything the Indians did was OK, then yes you misinterpreted it. You are forgiven though.

Ok, let's hear about the atrocities Christopher Columbus committed.

They have already been mentioned.

As shown, some Indian tribes were known for their cannibalism, amongst other savagery.

And that is irrelevant to the question of this thread.

And by the way, as shown in an early post, it wasn't "their land".

What do you think is required for land to be someone's?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

If you interpreted that as me saying everything the Indians did was OK, then yes you misinterpreted it. You are forgiven though.

I'll sleep better tonight knowing that a liberal who sides with atheists has "forgiven me".

They have already been mentioned.

I must have missed the details. Show me again please.

And that is irrelevant to the question of this thread.

Bringing Christianity to a pagan land where savagery often ruled isn't irrelevant. There were battles and people died, probably some that were innocent. Does that mean that Christianity shouldn't have come to America?

What do you think is required for land to be someone's?

More than this: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2812540&postcount=38

 

[jwp98]

The winning culture (as today) was held to a higher standard, and the losing culture was perceived as having something to teach. The fallacy is that wealth and power should somehow engender better behavior, and that ignorance and poverty are virtues. Concepts not excluded, but certainly not the rule.

 

[kmoney]

I'll sleep better tonight knowing that a liberal who sides with atheists has "forgiven me".

Glad to help. Let me know if there is anything else I can do. :up:

I must have missed the details. Show me again please.

Start with murder.

Bringing Christianity to a pagan land where savagery often ruled isn't irrelevant. There were battles and people died, probably some that were innocent. Does that mean that Christianity shouldn't have come to America?

I'm not against Christianity coming to America. I'm against some of the other stuff that came. Apparently you are OK with evangelism by sword.

More than this: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2812540&postcount=38

That's not really an answer. What do you think is required for someone to say land is theirs?

 

[Granite]

He brought Christianity to a pagan land; that in itself is most likely the reason liberals HATE him like they do.

I don't "hate" the guy, and I'm wasn't talking about "Indians," you half-wit. I'm talking about the natives Columbus himself dealt with in the Caribbean. He personally raped and tortured a few and oversaw the enslavement of an entire people. The man could be monstrous. To ignore that is to disinform and distort history but then again, you're an inveterate liar.

 

[Granite]

Bottomline:

Yes, if Columbus hadn't paved the way, some other enterprising greedy imperialistic schmuck would have. Yes, he was a man of his time. Yes, he could be a hideous excuse of a human being. And yes, later, through the fruits and wonder of European imperialism (aka White Man Disease), as a nation we nearly exterminated an entire people because we could, and because we thought we were superior. In that respect Columbus's behavior was simply a precursor.

Like it or not...it happened.

 

[MaryContrary]

And what in those discussions lead you to say that Native Americans are better off than they would be had they never met/been conquered by Europeans?

I said "probably". And, in fact, I'd have more certainty if we could get that 35% off the reservation.

First, the USA would not exist. And modern NA wouldn't generally be citizens of the USA. So there's that.

But mainly, from what I've gathered, quite a few of the NA nations were developing into political entities we'd recognize as "nations" in the traditional sense. Although a lot of the progress came after contact with Europeans, it was already well underway. That alone would have led to much more bloodshed and devastation in the short haul than the European incursion. War was pretty much a constant in most areas and cyclical everywhere else but it hadn't become industrialized just yet. Given a few more decades I believe it would have. What makes the European incursion so destructive is that it took place over such a long period of time. It's a big country, after all. Took a while to push all the way from one shore to the other.

I think my "probably" is most conditional on what cultures would have been successful, and to what degree, in their expansions, clashes with the more savage surrounding peoples and with one another. I happen to think many NA cultures had significant strength and nobility, even great wisdom, and I'm prone to think those would have been more successful.

But still and all, if we could get that 35% off the damned reservation, get them educated and employed, I'd go with a much more solid "better off now".

Now, guessing at comments that might follow, references to atrocities and genocides and whatnot won't shift my opinion. Native Americans were doing much the same themselves before the Europeans got here. Not to the same degree in most cases but much more steadily and consistently. The European colonists and the independent Americans did not, after all, conduct some constant push westward, murdering and destroying all along the way. Those things happened in fits and starts over a long time. The NA did the same to one another, in a more controlled manner and in smaller numbers, but consistently and steadily.

 

[sky.]

Jewish - American Hall of Fame

Christopher Columbus (1451-1506)

There has been much speculation over the centuries as to whether Christopher Columbus may have been Jewish or of Jewish descent. The Encyclopaedia Britannica indicates that he may have come from a Spanish-Jewish family settled in Genoa, Italy.But there is no question that it was his Spanish-Jewish friends who were instrumental in arranging for his meeting with the Spanish Monarchs in 1486 and who turned his dream into reality.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luis de Santangel (?-1498)
Contrary to popular opinion, it was not Queen Isabella’s jewelry, but Spanish Jewry that made Columbus’ historical trip of discovery possible. Actually it was Luis de Santangel, whose grandfather had converted from Judaism to Christianity under pressure of Spanish persecutions, who lent nearly 5 million maravedis to pay for the voyage. In addition, Santangel’s influence with King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella was decisive in gaining their acceptance of Columbus’ proposals. In recognition of his assistance, Santangel was the first to hear of the historic discoveries directly in a personal letter from Columbus. Showing his allegiance to his former co-religionists, Luis de Santangel made substantial contributions toward the hiring of ships that enabled them to leave when they were expelled en mass from Spain.


Louis de Torres

Luis de Torres (died 1493), perhaps born as יוסף בן הלוי העברי, Yosef Ben Ha Levy Haivri, ("Joseph the Son of Levy the Hebrew") was Christopher Columbus's interpreter on his first voyage and the first person of Jewish origin to settle in America.

 

[kmoney]

First, the USA would not exist. And modern NA wouldn't generally be citizens of the USA. So there's that.

Why do you assume that being citizens of the USA is better?

But mainly, from what I've gathered, quite a few of the NA nations were developing into political entities we'd recognize as "nations" in the traditional sense. Although a lot of the progress came after contact with Europeans, it was already well underway. That alone would have led to much more bloodshed and devastation in the short haul than the European incursion. War was pretty much a constant in most areas and cyclical everywhere else but it hadn't become industrialized just yet. Given a few more decades I believe it would have. What makes the European incursion so destructive is that it took place over such a long period of time. It's a big country, after all. Took a while to push all the way from one shore to the other.

I'm not seeing exactly how they are better for having met the Europeans from this.

I think my "probably" is most conditional on what cultures would have been successful, and to what degree, in their expansions, clashes with the more savage surrounding peoples and with one another. I happen to think many NA cultures had significant strength and nobility, even great wisdom, and I'm prone to think those would have been more successful.

Fair enough.

But still and all, if we could get that 35% off the damned reservation, get them educated and employed, I'd go with a much more solid "better off now".

It's hard to say because we don't know what would have happened had the Europeans never came. I would hesitate to make valuations.

Now, guessing at comments that might follow, references to atrocities and genocides and whatnot won't shift my opinion. Native Americans were doing much the same themselves before the Europeans got here. Not to the same degree in most cases but much more steadily and consistently. The European colonists and the independent Americans did not, after all, conduct some constant push westward, murdering and destroying all along the way. Those things happened in fits and starts over a long time. The NA did the same to one another, in a more controlled manner and in smaller numbers, but consistently and steadily.

As I said before, I don't see how pointing out violence in the natives has any relevance to the justification or condemnation of what the Europeans did.