Replies

LOL, yes, that is a typo.

Columbus may not have been the first to discover America, but his discovery IS the one that counts.

Look, at that time period, the native inhabitants of the Americas were not seen as being totally human. Of course that is wrong, and is absolutely intolerable today. That is how things were. Things have since changed for the better. Nitpicking through history is not going to change anything.

The killing of a few hundred, even a few thousand people is not genocide. It is murder, but not genocide.

Definition:

gen·o·cide n.

The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

By definition, what Columbus and his men did does not qualify as genocide, but more along the lines of mass murder, two very different, but very bad things.

Who is to say that the natives did not themselves instigate hostilities? Were YOU there? No? Did Columbus do these things himself, or were his men the perpetrators? Were they done on his actual orders, or simply done on a group level outside of the chain of command. His journal is a collection of thoughts, and cannot be taken as literally taking place, because it can't be proven. There were many people who had an axe to grind with Columbus at that time, and certainly there are people alive today who have a problem with him. No one can verify the numbers that the Spaniards killed or enslaved, it happened in the 15th and 16th centuries. Those number are not accurate, period.

If we are going to judge people on their faults, there would be no one person in history portrayed in a positive light today, except Christ himself. Does it really matter what he did or did not do? No, what matters is what is perceived. People don't care about the literal truth, they like their heres. Paul Revere did not get far on his midnight ride, someone else did. Does that matter either?

The United States Army killed far more indians under orders from their generals and the presidents than Columbus and his men did, and I don't hear you ragging on them.

I am not being disingenuous at all. Columbus did NOT discover America, and he did have people killed. Just not to the level you are taking it, in addition to none of the speculation that you offered being verifiable. All that matters is perception. We will celebrate him any way. Too bad for those who don't like it. Far too often, the people who are against Columbus are liberal academics, so it is strange to find a dissenter on a conservative site.

Just not to the level you are taking it, in addition to none of the speculation that you offered being verifiable.

Why is not the historical, eye witness accounts written by persons who were 'on the scene" not just as 'verifiable' as the cleaned up version written by Columbus...who was, ultimately, hauled back to Spain in chains?

I am not "offering speculation": - I am merely copy/pasting direct from the text of De Las Casa's and other historical accounts.

some links:

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/philosophers/las_casas.html

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1975/6/1975_6_4.shtml

The killing of a few hundred, even a few thousand people is not genocide. It is murder, but not genocide.

In two years, through murder, mutilation, or suicide, half of the 250,000 Indians on Haiti were dead. ...............By the year 1515, there were perhaps fifty thousand Indians left. By 1550, there were five hundred. A report of the year 1650 shows none of the original Arawaks or their descendants left on the island.

This is not genocide?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/Columbus_PeoplesHx.html

The killing and enslaving of the Indians was done against the explicit orders of the king and queen - who believed Columbus's whitewashed accounts. When they found out different, they were not amused.'