What's new
By:
Filters

Christopher Columbus: good or bad?

SanDiegoCJ said:
And they established no lasting settlements, so it was meaningless. :stirthepot:
Click to expand...

The native Americans were on the east coast for 10,000 years and only left behind some pointy rocks and empty liquor bottles. :flipoff2:
 
bigun said:
Nope he was looking for a way to India because the muslems had blocked the land route. That is why he called the people on the islands indians.
Click to expand...

Yes I am aware. But the reason for needing to get to India was for the silver Arbitrage.
 
Why all the dispute over the term "discover"? When I go digging through my bucket of leftover bolts and "discover" something I didn't know I even had, it isn't like no human ever laid eyes on it before. In fact, I was the very person who tossed it in the bucket to begin with, but I later "discovered it" again.

Some of the dispute over terminology as of late, mostly by certain lefty actors, is beyond stupid.
 
clodhopper said:
Why all the dispute over the term "discover"? When I go digging through my bucket of leftover bolts and "discover" something I didn't know I even had, it isn't like no human ever laid eyes on it before. In fact, I was the very person who tossed it in the bucket to begin with, but I later "discovered it" again.

Some of the dispute over terminology as of late, mostly by certain lefty actors, is beyond stupid.
Click to expand...

The definition I use for discover is to be the first to find something. In your case, you didn't discover anything in your bucket. You found it. The dispute over terminology is because people (I see it on the left, but it probably happens on the right too) change the words to mean something it was never meant to mean. Like tranny men are actually girls.

.
 
Thumping said:
Just the tip of the iceberg. Within the next 20 years America's history will be completely rewritten by the enlightened ones.
Click to expand...

I love that people pull the revisoinist history card when Columbus comes up. The only reason people in America give a shit about him is due to the Italian-Americans in the late 1800s and early 1900s trying to avoid getting treated as second class citizens in the US by promoting Columbus as a major part of American history.

The best part is Norweigan-Americans at the time were doing the same thing for Leif Erikson and were competing to see who could get their boy the most recognition in Washington. The Knights of Columbus had more pull and got a federal holiday declared first.

All the great stuff you read about Columbus in school- he discovered the world was round, he found "America", etc. is a direct result of the Knights of Columbus trying to spin history in their favor. It's the ultimate revisionist history. But hey, liberals disagree with it, so it must be good, right?
 
SanDiegoCJ said:
You can't judge a person from the late 1400's by the ethics of today's world. That'd be like expecting someone toady to act like someone would in the year 2500. Impossible task.
Click to expand...

This, when looking at any history, you have to judge based on what was and wasn't acceptable at that time, not whats acceptable currently.
 
Wheelerfreak said:
This^^. How the fuck do you discover a place that has millions of people living in it?
Click to expand...

Do you have the census records? :flipoff2:

"DIscovered", "Found", he ran up on this bitch, reported back and the natives couldn't hold it. C'est la Vie. Christopher Columbus, the original block buster. :homer:
 
Here’s a thought. It happened over 500 years ago, who the fuck knows what’s right and what’s wrong, because at this point, it might as well be hearsay. Look how quickly a rumor’s story can change with people in just a matter of days.
 
Pony_Driver said:
Do you have the census records? :flipoff2:

"DIscovered", "Found", he ran up on this bitch, reported back and the natives couldn't hold it. C'est la Vie. Christopher Columbus, the original block buster. :homer:
Click to expand...

You can look for it on any number of legit research sites, estimates for NA range from 6-100 million prior to Columbus "discovery"


The chinks also "discovered" NA's West coast, Vikings, Polynesians, various far Eastern Siberians also ran up on this bitch. He just had better publicists.
 
Harry Johnson said:
I love that people pull the revisoinist history card when Columbus comes up. The only reason people in America give a shit about him is due to the Italian-Americans in the late 1800s and early 1900s trying to avoid getting treated as second class citizens in the US by promoting Columbus as a major part of American history.

The best part is Norweigan-Americans at the time were doing the same thing for Leif Erikson and were competing to see who could get their boy the most recognition in Washington. The Knights of Columbus had more pull and got a federal holiday declared first.

All the great stuff you read about Columbus in school- he discovered the world was round, he found "America", etc. is a direct result of the Knights of Columbus trying to spin history in their favor. It's the ultimate revisionist history. But hey, liberals disagree with it, so it must be good, right?
Click to expand...

That's not what I said. So, speaking of spinning shit :flipoff2:
 
jeepyj said:
The definition I use for discover is to be the first to find something. In your case, you didn't discover anything in your bucket. You found it. The dispute over terminology is because people (I see it on the left, but it probably happens on the right too) change the words to mean something it was never meant to mean. Like tranny men are actually girls.

.
Click to expand...

You are doing the same thing as the revisionists. You have assumed a specific definition for a word (discounting other uses) and happy to tell everyone else they are wrong. However, per the definition of the word, I used it correctly in my bolt bucket example. In fact, Columbus did indeed discover America (well the Caribbean islands anyway) because the he was unaware of its existence.

Sure, there was natives there already, but the population from which Columbus came from in Europe had no knowledge of the existence, he stumbled upon it and therefore he discovered it. Dictionary.com gives the example of word use: "firemen discovered a body in the debris" Per your definition, this would be incorrect because the crispy person was aware they were in the things that would be debris at the time they expired, so the firemen didn't discover anything.
 
He probably wasn't any worse than anyone else at the time. However he was a complete piece of shit as far as I am concerned.
 
xXClamhammer69Xx said:
Kind of like how we know the founding fathers' intent when writing the constitution: they wrote it down. Columbus wrote stuff down as well.
Click to expand...

Good point. Sometimes I wonder if whatever was write down, may have been changed at some point to better suit a particular narrative.They’ve done it with high school history books.
 
4x4orbust said:
My wife and I got into it a little this morning. Started with a news clip of a destroyed Christopher Columbus statue. When I was in school, we were never taught about the raping and murder that he committed, or that he was a symbol of racism. I knew that the ships that landed were filled with plagues and sicknesses that the natives had never been exposed to and that caused some issues.

My wife (11 years younger than me) was taught that he was a horrible person, as well as his crews, and does not deserve to be looked at as a positive symbol of anything. In fact, he was a demon and should be treated as such.

Am I really that out of touch with history? Or has history been changed to reflect new(ish) findings?
Click to expand...

I think rape and pillaging was normal back then.
Everyone was doing it, everywhere. People would have laughed at ideas like "slaves should be freed" or such amazingly funny things like: "It's not ok to take a woman if she doesn't want it."


Women had zero rights and so on and so forth.


If one takes the norms of back in the day into account, he was just a brave soul that did what nobody else did, go so far to find a new country.

But typical idiots, the compare todays rights and freedoms and ways of thinking to how he acted back then. It that light he is a "demon".


Whoever wrote that curriculum your wife enjoyed is a low IQ full on fake wannabe liberal,p eating dumbass. But hey...
 
4x4orbust said:
My wife and I got into it a little this morning. Started with a news clip of a destroyed Christopher Columbus statue. When I was in school, we were never taught about the raping and murder that he committed, or that he was a symbol of racism. I knew that the ships that landed were filled with plagues and sicknesses that the natives had never been exposed to and that caused some issues.

My wife (11 years younger than me) was taught that he was a horrible person, as well as his crews, and does not deserve to be looked at as a positive symbol of anything. In fact, he was a demon and should be treated as such.

Am I really that out of touch with history? Or has history been changed to reflect new(ish) findings?
Click to expand...

Yes, the way Columbus has been taught has changed, but what he did/was did not objectively change.

You were taught as long as everyone else that Columbus was a 'Conquistador'. Columbus himself wasn't taught as a Conquistador, he was just glommed into that group because he was part of the Age of Discovery.

The only OBJECTIVE history about Columbus that has changed is the impact of disease. You said:

I knew that the ships that landed were filled with plagues and sicknesses that the natives had never been exposed to and that caused some issues.
Click to expand...

That's what I was taught. Objectively, we know now, with very good evidence, that most of the inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere were ravaged by disease. That was a fairly shadowy concept in the 1970s, not quite accepted as historical fact. For example, the mound-building inhabitants near the Mississippi.

What we know now is that the Amerinds were done in primarily by disease, and that the subsequent 'Conquering' of the Western Hemisphere was basically Europeans encountering the pieces of what once was.

North American Amerinds encountered this when Europeans came:
  1. Diseases came. No Europeans, just plagues. Pretty much everyone died. Entire tribes. The tribes that survived were a minority of what once was. These plagues continued to ravage Amerinds until the 20th Century and provide a backdrop of the entire era.
  2. Horses showed. Not Europeans, but their horses. That COMPLETELY CHANGED the makeup of the Plains and surrounding areas west of the Appalachians. Nothing the Europeans encountered between the Rockies and the Appalachians was 'Native'. It was all changed by the Horse
  3. Europeans showed up. They had industrialized agriculture, resistance to disease, social and material technology like organized professional soldiers and firearms.
Columbus is a symbol of hatred and racism now because he was a Spanish Conquistador, and Mestizo and Amerind-Spanish mixes are populating the United States. Italians look at Columbus as a symbol of ethnic pride (he was an Italian that worked for the Spanish government).

He is also a traditional symbol of the American Foundational Mythology because he was bold, daring, assertive, and accomplished things. This is changing.

All of History is the same, but the Shouters and Rioters are taking over both in real and symbolic terms, so nothing can be discussed anymore.
 
87manche said:
meh.
I don't care.
do I think he should have statues and federal holidays? not really, but I think we could get rid of all the silly holidays and months. none of that shit matters.
Click to expand...

The 'silly' holidays and months won't go away. They're just going to change.

The effort isn't to abolish Columbus Day, it's to change it to Native and Indigenous People's Day.

It will happen.
 
woods said:
Didn't...man I'm going to butcher this name, Americo Vipucci play a role too?

I was under the impression Leif Erikson was the first to discover?
Click to expand...

Amerigo Vespucci sailed all around already discovered lands and basically just continued the coastline maps, so completely that the Europeans began calling the N. and S. American continents 'America'. He provided the evidence that Brazil was part of an entire Continent, so this information about the new continents bears his name.

Thumping said:
Just the tip of the iceberg. Within the next 20 years America's history will be completely rewritten by the enlightened ones.
Click to expand...

This is true. Instead of a Golden Age of true History, we're just going backwards to a more twisted and ethnically-derived view of history. This is because white Europeans are more equitable in their self-assessment and criticism, while the new ethos is purely ethnic and racist.
 
The natives problems was a piss poor immigration policy.
 
ev13wt said:
I think rape and pillaging was normal back then.
Everyone was doing it, everywhere. People would have laughed at ideas like "slaves should be freed" or such amazingly funny things like: "It's not ok to take a woman if she doesn't want it."


Women had zero rights and so on and so forth.


If one takes the norms of back in the day into account, he was just a brave soul that did what nobody else did, go so far to find a new country.

But typical idiots, the compare todays rights and freedoms and ways of thinking to how he acted back then. It that light he is a "demon".


Whoever wrote that curriculum your wife enjoyed is a low IQ full on fake wannabe liberal,p eating dumbass. But hey...
Click to expand...

The only difference between Europeans and Amerinds:
  1. Europeans had a more advanced form of 'humanity' based on the Christian Ethos. So while Europeans engaged in frightful atrocities by today's standards, they were already well-advanced over every other region of Earth, including the West.
  2. Europeans had social and material technology: Universities, organized armed forces, financial markets, craft guilds, libraries, and on the material side: guns and gunpowder, block and tackle, maps, forged steel and metalworking, textiles, etc.
This resulted in:
  1. Europeans kept record of their atrocities, even though those atrocities were of less severity
  2. The atrocities happened on a larger scale because Europeans were exploring and migrating everywhere
  3. The perception that Europeans were the worst people on the planet rather than objectively the most Humanitarian.
So what has been lost in the mix:
  1. While enslaving and fighting Amerinds, Europeans were forming the ideas that became the Enlightenment which produced the ethos of not slaughtering everyone in your path. First they tried to convert them to Christianity, then they separated them and left them alone with few resources, then they generated sympathy for non-Europeans, and now non-Europeans are held up as higher and more noble than Europeans: The Noble Savage historical fallacy
  2. Non-Europeans have always and are now rejecting Enlightenment ideals, and see the world on a purely racial basis. So while Amerinds were savage and brutal, and Europeans developed Humanitarian Ideals, this is irrelevant because Europeans are white and non-Europeans are not-white.
And that's where we're at right now.
 
The Oak Island Canadians are trying their best to mess up CC' claim to fame.
 
We should demand Reparations from Spain and Italy! Especially Spain since they plundered the New Lands for 100's of years for the gold. I want mine back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh