I aplogize if the image was inflammatory to you. I meant it to be more thought provoking.
The very first item in the article linked above is from a crew member about how he was awarded a human being who was enslaved by Columbus, are you implying that this crew member did not like Columbus and exaggerated their reporting of events which happened to them to make Columbus look bad? That seems like a pretty extreme stretch to me.
I am implying that the account you are referring to is second hand account (a supposed friend), and a translation who’s accuracy isn’t likely perfect, and it was probably not even written by the friend himself but someone copying it later on. And I see nothing written by Columbus himself that he would do such things.
I am not saying He was perfect. He like all of us did both good and bad things.
His goal was subjection as in conquest. This wasn’t motivated by race.
He actually cut off spanish noses and hands for raping and being violent to native women. I encourage you to watch the video I posted.
Napolean killed hundreds of thousands in Europe as he was attempting conquest. No one calls that genocide.
He wasn’t a good guy but if it wasn’t him it was someone else. I think it’s good to learn about him.
I’m not claiming to be a saint, but I think it’s unfair to compare what happened under this person’s watch and what they were directly responsible for to the harm I’ve inflicted on others in this world. I would never rape or murder anyone, and I doubt being born hundreds of years earlier would change that perspective. I obviously cannot say for certain, but the fact that we have countless historical figures which we revere for their compassion and morality indicates to me that the typical argument of “it was a different time” really only excuses so much behavior.
Napolean killed hundreds of thousands in Europe as he was attempting conquest. No one calls that genocide.
Googling the term “Napolean genocide” returns 1.9m results. There’s more than a few people calling it genocide.
He wasn’t a good guy but if it wasn’t him it was someone else.
And I see no reason why we can’t chastise anyone who commits atrocities - it’s not about whether it would have been someone else, it’s about appropriately framing what happened. Historically speaking, colonialism painted this figure in a way that very much downplayed the harm he caused. The reason people get upset about him and why the holiday was renamed is precisely to help counter this hundreds of years old inaccurate narrative.
I think it’s good to learn about him.
I completely agree. We should learn everything about him and not try to downplay the accounts that we do have of his behavior and his accords. If we’re willing to accept ‘second hand accounts’ about what he accomplished, we should also be willing to accept second hand accounts about the harm he caused as well.
I’m not claiming to be a saint, but I think it’s unfair to compare what happened under this person’s watch and what they were directly responsible for to the harm I’ve inflicted on others in this world. I would never rape or murder anyone, and I doubt being born hundreds of years earlier would change that perspective.
He himself did not rape anyone. Murder also has a specific definition. Under his rule people were put to death (both the spanish and the natives) for breaking laws the rulers enacted. So you could make the argument it wasn’t murder. We don’t call people who die under the death penalty murder. (some might but it’s generally understood to be something different) It’s also not fair to them that you think you could have done better having not lived in such a time. You don’t know that you could have. You don’t have as much responsibility as he does. Multiple times he chastised his men for being violent. We can see from the historical record he had the capacity for both good and evil.
I feel like I want to bring up a few more historical figures here to bring perspective.
George Washington the founding leader of the united states had slaves. Multiple roads, states and more are named after him. He did some great and amazing things. He also had slaves, literal slaves. He could have freed them at anytime.
Lets not forget he had slaves, but also not forget all the good things he did and even he started to recognize slavery was evil.
And I see no reason why we can’t chastise anyone who commits atrocities - it’s not about whether it would have been someone else, it’s about appropriately framing what happened. Historically speaking, colonialism painted this figure in a way that very much downplayed the harm he caused.
Agreed but the reverse has been true. As the video I posted pointed out, many people are outright lying and misrepresenting what he said and did. We need push back on the otherside to make sure we are getting the whole accurate picture.
The reason people get upset about him and why the holiday was renamed is precisely to help counter this hundreds of years old inaccurate narrative.
The holiday is still Columbus day in most places. Some places instead celebrate indigenous but it has not been officially country wide renamed.
If we’re willing to accept ‘second hand accounts’ about what he accomplished, we should also be willing to accept second hand accounts about the harm he caused as well.
Accept nothing, ask for proof of everything. You can never assume there is no agenda or bias against the article, person, or entity.
Every line of history is up for debate always and forever. We thought he was the first European until Leaf Erickson’s camp was discovered.
We should be discussing the actual In language writings, who wrote them, what their various translations mean instead of opinion articles and youtube videos. Even if they are both good places to start.
I aplogize if the image was inflammatory to you. I meant it to be more thought provoking.
I am implying that the account you are referring to is second hand account (a supposed friend), and a translation who’s accuracy isn’t likely perfect, and it was probably not even written by the friend himself but someone copying it later on. And I see nothing written by Columbus himself that he would do such things.
I am not saying He was perfect. He like all of us did both good and bad things.
His goal was subjection as in conquest. This wasn’t motivated by race.
He actually cut off spanish noses and hands for raping and being violent to native women. I encourage you to watch the video I posted.
Napolean killed hundreds of thousands in Europe as he was attempting conquest. No one calls that genocide.
He wasn’t a good guy but if it wasn’t him it was someone else. I think it’s good to learn about him.
I’m not claiming to be a saint, but I think it’s unfair to compare what happened under this person’s watch and what they were directly responsible for to the harm I’ve inflicted on others in this world. I would never rape or murder anyone, and I doubt being born hundreds of years earlier would change that perspective. I obviously cannot say for certain, but the fact that we have countless historical figures which we revere for their compassion and morality indicates to me that the typical argument of “it was a different time” really only excuses so much behavior.
Googling the term “Napolean genocide” returns 1.9m results. There’s more than a few people calling it genocide.
And I see no reason why we can’t chastise anyone who commits atrocities - it’s not about whether it would have been someone else, it’s about appropriately framing what happened. Historically speaking, colonialism painted this figure in a way that very much downplayed the harm he caused. The reason people get upset about him and why the holiday was renamed is precisely to help counter this hundreds of years old inaccurate narrative.
I completely agree. We should learn everything about him and not try to downplay the accounts that we do have of his behavior and his accords. If we’re willing to accept ‘second hand accounts’ about what he accomplished, we should also be willing to accept second hand accounts about the harm he caused as well.
He himself did not rape anyone. Murder also has a specific definition. Under his rule people were put to death (both the spanish and the natives) for breaking laws the rulers enacted. So you could make the argument it wasn’t murder. We don’t call people who die under the death penalty murder. (some might but it’s generally understood to be something different) It’s also not fair to them that you think you could have done better having not lived in such a time. You don’t know that you could have. You don’t have as much responsibility as he does. Multiple times he chastised his men for being violent. We can see from the historical record he had the capacity for both good and evil.
I feel like I want to bring up a few more historical figures here to bring perspective.
George Washington the founding leader of the united states had slaves. Multiple roads, states and more are named after him. He did some great and amazing things. He also had slaves, literal slaves. He could have freed them at anytime.
Lets not forget he had slaves, but also not forget all the good things he did and even he started to recognize slavery was evil.
Agreed but the reverse has been true. As the video I posted pointed out, many people are outright lying and misrepresenting what he said and did. We need push back on the otherside to make sure we are getting the whole accurate picture.
The holiday is still Columbus day in most places. Some places instead celebrate indigenous but it has not been officially country wide renamed.
Accept nothing, ask for proof of everything. You can never assume there is no agenda or bias against the article, person, or entity.
Every line of history is up for debate always and forever. We thought he was the first European until Leaf Erickson’s camp was discovered.
We should be discussing the actual In language writings, who wrote them, what their various translations mean instead of opinion articles and youtube videos. Even if they are both good places to start.
Cheers