PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security Who knew Christopher Columbus was an asshole?


Count Zarth
01-27-2010, 05:28 AM
I'm going to curse his name on Columbus day from now on. What an awful holiday. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jan/11/mawkish-maybe-avatar-profound-important The butchery began with Columbus. He slaughtered the native people of Hispaniola (now Haiti and the Dominican Republic) by unimaginably brutal means. His soldiers tore babies from their mothers and dashed their heads against rocks. They fed their dogs on living children. On one occasion they hung 13 Indians in honour of Christ and the 12 disciples, on a gibbet just low enough for their toes to touch the ground, then disembowelled them and burnt them alive.

Columbus ordered all the native people to deliver a certain amount of gold every three months; anyone who failed had his hands cut off. By 1535 the native population of Hispaniola had fallen from eight million to zero: partly as a result of disease, partly due to murder, overwork and starvation.

Count Zarth
01-27-2010, 05:31 AM
God this is disgusting. The Church should really come out and posthumously excommunicate this guy or something. In California during the 18th century the Spanish systematised this extermination. A Franciscan missionary called Junípero Serra set up a series of "missions": in reality concentration camps using slave labour. The native people were herded in under force of arms and made to work in the fields on one fifth of the calories fed to African American slaves in the 19th century. They died from overwork, starvation and disease at astonishing rates, and were continually replaced, wiping out the indigenous populations. Junípero Serra, the Eichmann of California, was beatified by the Vatican in 1988. He now requires one more miracle to be pronounced a saint.

BigRedChief
01-27-2010, 06:28 AM
Pretty normal behaviour for the time. They were not viewed as humans but as some kind of warped genetic mutation of a human being.

Just because they didn't look, act or believe the same things as us meant they were not "normal". We are still learning that lesson.

patteeu
01-27-2010, 08:05 AM
I don't think you can assume that this is the unbiased truth about these men. The author is a wildly leftwing radical. Some have claimed that the term "moonbat" was first applied to Monbiot as a play on his name, although I've seen that disputed as well. In any event, he is a moonbat of the first order and you can expect any kernel of truth to be twisted and spun up to maximum velocity in order to demonize western culture and traditions.

fan4ever
01-27-2010, 08:21 AM
Imagine what a horrible monster he'd be if he'd have ripped those babies from the mothers wombs and then crashed their heads on the rocks...

Oh, my bad. Butchering people is alive and well.

oldandslow
01-27-2010, 08:28 AM
Oh, what the hell, I will argue a bit of it...

Here is an example of Columbus's wondrous spirit of compassion...From the Priest's journal...

Las Casas: "One time, I saw four or five important native nobles roasted and broiled upon makeshift grills. They cried out pitifully. This thing troubled our Captain (Columbus) that he could not sleep. He commanded that they be strangled."

I could literally fill a book with quotes out of Columbus' journal (and Las Casas) detailing slavery, murder, rape, etc...

This has never been acceptable behavior, btw, no matter the culture.

thecoffeeguy
01-27-2010, 08:33 AM
Its odd. Not many people know how brutal Columbus was.

Here is a good book for reading:

http://www.amazon.com/American-Holocaust-Conquest-New-World/dp/0195085574/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264606366&sr=1-1

Talks about a lot of that stuff and what happened to the Native American Indians. Pretty brutal reading at times.

BigRedChief
01-27-2010, 08:37 AM
I don't think you can assume that this is the unbiased truth about these men. The author is a wildly leftwing radical. Some have claimed that the term "moonbat" was first applied to Monbiot as a play on his name, although I've seen that disputed as well. In any event, he is a moonbat of the first order and you can expect any kernel of truth to be twisted and spun up to maximum velocity in order to demonize western culture and traditions.Come on, it's pretty well documented from many sources Columbus saw the natives as savages and not "real" humans so he killed them at will. But, it wasn't jus tColumbus, it was all the early explorers that treated natives this way.

blaise
01-27-2010, 08:41 AM
I actually thought it was pretty well known that he did a bunch of terrible stuff.

patteeu
01-27-2010, 08:43 AM
Oh, what the hell, I will argue a bit of it...

Here is an example of Columbus's wondrous spirit of compassion...From the Priest's journal...

Las Casas: "One time, I saw four or five important native nobles roasted and broiled upon makeshift grills. They cried out pitifully. This thing troubled our Captain (Columbus) that he could not sleep. He commanded that they be strangled."

I could literally fill a book with quotes out of Columbus' journal (and Las Casas) detailing slavery, murder, rape, etc...

This has never been acceptable behavior, btw, no matter the culture.

You've never heard of people being burned at the stake?

I'm not saying it was justified, but it wasn't as foreign to some cultures as you seem to suggest. BTW, do we know what the reason for this execution was?

I'm sure that Columbus and other Europeans took part in some pretty heinous deeds during the conquest of the New World. Heinous deeds were common in conquests throughout history and there's no reason to believe that Europeans were any more civilized in their expansion than other people had been.

And what was going on in the world at around the same time Columbus was mistreating some native Americans? Well, some native Americans were mistreating other native Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Aztec_culture):

For the re-consecration of Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan in 1487, the Aztecs reported that they sacrificed about 80,400 prisoners over the course of four days, though there were probably far fewer sacrifices. According to Ross Hassig, author of Aztec Warfare, "between 10,000 and 80,400 persons" were sacrificed in the ceremony.[32] The higher estimate would average 14 sacrifices per minute during the four-day consecration.

History is chock full of brutality. As I'm sure you'd acknowledge, white Europeans didn't have a corner on the market.

KC native
01-27-2010, 08:44 AM
I actually thought it was pretty well known that he did a bunch of terrible stuff.

So did I. :shrug:

patteeu
01-27-2010, 08:48 AM
Come on, it's pretty well documented from many sources Columbus saw the natives as savages and not "real" humans so he killed them at will. But, it wasn't jus tColumbus, it was all the early explorers that treated natives this way.

Duh. I didn't say anything about Columbus being a perfect gentleman. All I did was point out that George Monbiot isn't someone who can be trusted for presenting a balanced view of the unvarnished truth.

And what has been going on for the past couple of decades is an effort to make people like you believe that brutality was an attribute of European explorers to some greater extent than to other people, which isn't at all true as I've pointed out in my previous post.

oldandslow
01-27-2010, 08:49 AM
You've never heard of people being burned at the stake?

I'm not saying it was justified, but it wasn't as foreign to some cultures as you seem to suggest. BTW, do we know what the reason for this execution was?

I'm sure that Columbus and other Europeans took part in some pretty heinous deeds during the conquest of the New World. Heinous deeds were common in conquests throughout history and there's no reason to believe that Europeans were any more civilized in their expansion than other people had been.

And what was going on in the world at around the same time Columbus was mistreating some native Americans? Well, some native Americans were mistreating other native Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Aztec_culture):



History is chock full of brutality. As I'm sure you'd acknowledge, white Europeans didn't have a corner on the market.


Agreed.

However, I would also argue the Aztecs did not commit genocide against any people.

Further, there were few wars of absolute conquest for most tribes. Skirmishes and raiding and illustrating courage were far more important than obtaining territory.

The goal of the Europeans was, for the most part, to kill all natives in the americas. They accomplished 90% of the task.

oldandslow
01-27-2010, 08:52 AM
Duh. I didn't say anything about Columbus being a perfect gentleman. All I did was point out that George Monbiot isn't someone who can be trusted for presenting a balanced view of the unvarnished truth.

And what has been going on for the past couple of decades is an effort to make people like you believe that brutality was an attribute of European explorers to some greater extent than to other people, which isn't at all true as I've pointed out in my previous post.

I am sorry, but you are just wrong here. My people nor my wife's people have a history of absolute genocide in their background. And while raids could be brutal and torture did happen, not a single ancester of mine traveled to Great Britain and burned your nobles to death.

vailpass
01-27-2010, 08:55 AM
If you want real mayonaise you have to break a few eggs.

fan4ever
01-27-2010, 09:01 AM
Duh. I didn't say anything about Columbus being a perfect gentleman. All I did was point out that George Monbiot isn't someone who can be trusted for presenting a balanced view of the unvarnished truth.

And what has been going on for the past couple of decades is an effort to make people like you believe that brutality was an attribute of European explorers to some greater extent than to other people, which isn't at all true as I've pointed out in my previous post.

I'm not an expert on Native Americans, but I've done some reading to help in my sculpting career, and they were often brutal to each other; many times within the same tribes; camps warring with each other. Here in AZ and the Southwest the Apache were pretty much war lords who went around raiding other tribes, killing the men and either keeping the women and children for slavery or selling them into it. To think savagery originated with the Europeans or "white man" is just more white liberal guilt coming to the surface. This doesn't excuse the brutality, but I don't see anyone posting what horrible things Geronimo did...of course any current literature on him will portray him as a folk hero.

patteeu
01-27-2010, 09:06 AM
I am sorry, but you are just wrong here. My people nor my wife's people have a history of absolute genocide in their background. And while raids could be brutal and torture did happen, not a single ancester of mine traveled to Great Britain and burned your nobles to death.

As far as I know, I'm not related to Columbus either.

I'm only wrong to the extent that it may have appeared as though I was suggesting that every person and every group of people committed brutal acts to exactly the same degree. What I meant to say was that Europeans were not extraordinarily brutal compared to many conquering people of a wide variety of racial and geographic backgrounds throughout history.

What's done is long since done and even though it wasn't always pretty, today's people of European decent have nothing for which to apologize, IMO.

oldandslow
01-27-2010, 09:10 AM
I'm not an expert on Native Americans, but I've done some reading to help in my sculpting career, and they were often brutal to each other; many times within the same tribes; camps warring with each other. Here in AZ and the Southwest the Apache were pretty much war lords who went around raiding other tribes, killing the men and either keeping the women and children for slavery or selling them into it. To think savagery originated with the Europeans or "white man" is just more white liberal guilt coming to the surface. This doesn't excuse the brutality, but I don't see anyone posting what horrible things Geronimo did...of course any current literature on him will portray him as a folk hero.


The difference is intent. Killing in raids is different than wiping out a people. Just as what Hitler did is different than what Napolean did.

fan4ever
01-27-2010, 09:14 AM
The difference is intent. Killing in raids is different than wiping out a people. Just as what Hitler did is different than what Napolean did.

I guess that's what separates liberals and conservatives (I know, you don't consider yourself a liberal; progressive isn't it?). You live by intent, we go by results. I see little distinction when counting the bodies, but that's just me.

oldandslow
01-27-2010, 09:14 AM
As far as I know, I'm not related to Columbus either.

I'm only wrong to the extent that it may have appeared as though I was suggesting that every person and every group of people committed brutal acts to exactly the same degree. What I meant to say was that Europeans were not extraordinarily brutal compared to many conquering people of a wide variety of racial and geographic backgrounds throughout history.

What's done is long since done and even though it wasn't always pretty, today's people of European decent have nothing for which to apologize, IMO.

Which is why I was hesitant to begin this argument.

We can see in this thread that discussion of genocide vs american indians is simply wiped away as left wing moonbattery or eggs to make mayonaise.

oldandslow
01-27-2010, 09:15 AM
I guess that's what separates liberals and conservatives (I know, you don't consider yourself a liberal; progressive isn't it?). You live by intent, we go by results. I see little distinction when counting the bodies, but that's just me.

You don't see a difference in the gas chambers and what happened on the battle field? Seriously?

Brock
01-27-2010, 09:19 AM
On behalf of white people, sorry bout that.

vailpass
01-27-2010, 09:20 AM
On behalf of white people, sorry bout that.

:D

fan4ever
01-27-2010, 09:24 AM
You don't see a difference in the gas chambers and what happened on the battle field? Seriously?


Apache raids weren't battles; they were often slaughters, attacking tribes who farmed and such. That's why the Salado built Montezuma's Castle just outside of Sedona here; to protect against raids.

I also think it's a bit of a stretch to say Columbus was trying to eliminate a race; he was just doing what conquerors at the time did; plunder and kill. I don't like it, but it's history.

I understand your distinction; it just doesn't have the casm of difference with me as it does to you.

BigRedChief
01-27-2010, 09:26 AM
On behalf of white people, sorry bout that.ROFL

patteeu
01-27-2010, 09:32 AM
Which is why I was hesitant to begin this argument.

We can see in this thread that discussion of genocide vs american indians is simply wiped away as left wing moonbattery or eggs to make mayonaise.

There may have been some who wanted to commit genocide, but what I object to is the generalization that suggests that it was an entire population that wanted this. Despite the brutal things Columbus did, I'm not at all sure that his goal was genocide. If so, he was sure lucky that disease came along for the ride because he was killing at much too slow of a rate to ever have had success through manual extermination. The fact is that I think using the word genocide for this is a pretty big exaggeration. This wasn't a case of herding native Americans into gas chambers like the Nazis did with the Jews. I suspect that most of the native Americans who died, died of disease and as a byproduct of being forced to move off of fruitful land and into more barren land.

I realize that there were some who actively spread disease, but my understanding is that wasn't a widespread, systemic practice. I also realize that there were probably many who adopted the "kill 'em all" attitude after war between the white man and indians broke out, but that's a natural occurence during war and it doesn't speak to the motive for the war in the first place. If the white man had his sights set on genocide, there wouldn't be so many examples of white man living at peace with indian for periods during our history.

Genocide on the minds of a few. This land isn't big enough for both of us on the minds of many after conflict broke out. I'm willing to accept that the white man had a might-makes-right attitude that led them to take land from the indian, but I'm not willing to accept that white man's goal, generally speaking, was genocide.

Radar Chief
01-27-2010, 09:53 AM
So did I. :shrug:

Ditto. :shrug:

Pitt Gorilla
01-27-2010, 11:01 AM
I guess that's what separates liberals and conservatives (I know, you don't consider yourself a liberal; progressive isn't it?). You live by intent, we go by results. I see little distinction when counting the bodies, but that's just me.The distinction between involuntary manslaughter and murder one is a liberal thing?

thecoffeeguy
01-27-2010, 12:56 PM
On behalf of white people, sorry bout that.

But Columbus was Italian.

KC native
01-27-2010, 01:07 PM
But Columbus was Italian.

Financed by Spaniards.

Saul Good
01-27-2010, 05:37 PM
The distinction between involuntary manslaughter and murder one is a liberal thing?

Raids were involuntary?

Deberg_1990
01-27-2010, 06:59 PM
I actually thought it was pretty well known that he did a bunch of terrible stuff.

Same here.

Theres been a revisionist movement going on for about the past 16 years or so about this guy.

Why do we have a holiday in his name? Did he truly discover anything??

Frazod
01-27-2010, 07:20 PM
Same here.

Theres been a revisionist movement going on for about the past 16 years or so about this guy.

Why do we have a holiday in his name? Did he truly discover anything??

Technically he led the first Europeans to reach the Caribbean and South America, but he never realized it. He died thinking the areas he reached were near/in India. That's why Native Americans are called Indians - because Columbus was a dumbass.

DJ's left nut
01-27-2010, 08:17 PM
Pretty much anyone that has looked into the history of the 'settlement' of latin America can tell you that Columbus, and pretty much everyone else that came to central America, viewed these people as sub-human and treated them as such.

So to answer your questions - LOTS of people knew Christopher Columbus was an asshole.