What The Heck Happened To Columbus??

[gipper]

Leftnutter you should refrain who posting comments on history, because you apparently know little about it.

Slavery existed in much of Latin American AFTER the War of Northern Aggression. Slavery existed in many other parts of the world AFTER the War of Northern Aggression.

In fact my poor uninformed friend, slavery exists today.

Your hatred of the Democrat South could be construed as bigoted.

Hence I used the term "civilized world"

Show me who in Europe still had slavery in 1860

Well again my poor uninformed leftist, you don't know WTF you are posting.

To think the civilized world in 1865 comprised only Europe and N. America is not only dumb, but most insulting to the many civilized nations outside those areas.

Name the countries you consider "civilized" in 1865 as well as their form of government

Are you going to claim Haiti was civilized?

Ever heard of China, India, Argentina, Brazil, Korea, Japan, Egypt, etc......................................................

In 1865... What was their level of civilization? What industry did they have? universities? Hospitals?

If you think those things only existed in the West, you need to think again...if that is possible.

It is ironic that the radical left wants to terminate Western civilization (funny....so do your friends the Islamists...the enemy of my enemy is my friend), yet you are claiming only the West is civilized.

 

[rightwinger]

Hence I used the term "civilized world"

Show me who in Europe still had slavery in 1860

Well again my poor uninformed leftist, you don't know WTF you are posting.

To think the civilized world in 1865 comprised only Europe and N. America is not only dumb, but most insulting to the many civilized nations outside those areas.

Name the countries you consider "civilized" in 1865 as well as their form of government

Are you going to claim Haiti was civilized?

Ever heard of China, India, Argentina, Brazil, Korea, Japan, Egypt, etc......................................................

In 1865... What was their level of civilization? What industry did they have? universities? Hospitals?

If you think those things only existed in the West, you need to think again...if that is possible.

It is ironic that the radical left wants to terminate Western civilization (funny....so do your friends the Islamists...the enemy of my enemy is my friend), yet you are claiming only the West is civilized.

You failed to answer the question

Are you claiming the South had the same level of "civilization" as 1865 China, India and Brazil?

 

[gipper]

Well again my poor uninformed leftist, you don't know WTF you are posting.

To think the civilized world in 1865 comprised only Europe and N. America is not only dumb, but most insulting to the many civilized nations outside those areas.

Name the countries you consider "civilized" in 1865 as well as their form of government

Are you going to claim Haiti was civilized?

Ever heard of China, India, Argentina, Brazil, Korea, Japan, Egypt, etc......................................................

In 1865... What was their level of civilization? What industry did they have? universities? Hospitals?

If you think those things only existed in the West, you need to think again...if that is possible.

It is ironic that the radical left wants to terminate Western civilization (funny....so do your friends the Islamists...the enemy of my enemy is my friend), yet you are claiming only the West is civilized.

You failed to answer the question

Are you claiming the South had the same level of "civilization" as 1865 China, India and Brazil?

Did you know slavery still existed in those three countries after 1865?

 

[Picaro]

Columbus was a myth

He was neither as wonderful as he was portrayed for 500 years or as bad as he is portrayed today

He was a product of his times. 500 years ago, slavery was accepted. It was routinely acknowledged that white men were superior to the godless "savages". That he acted that way is not surprising. No other explorer would have acted differently than Columbus

But mostly, Columbus was in it for the money. He was looking to maximize the wealth he gained from his new discovery and was willing to do what it took to get it.

Yet you demonize the South over slavery and applaud Lincoln for being all about the money

Well, it's tough for many ideologues when historical records refuse to support some meme or other for use in the modern era, like bashing southerners. Obviously the revisionists need to peddle 'slavery' and present the war as some kind of moral crusade, despite all the evidence to the contrary, which includes the fact that 'free labor', and especially 'free blacks' in the north and midwest endured conditions that were in many case worse than what slaves had to endure in the South, making the distinction between 'free labor' and slavery in the South a distinction without a difference, not to mention the fact that Yankees expended a lot of effort in making sure those slaves they allegedly 'freed' in their imaginary outburst of 'moral outrage' remained in the South and didn't exercise their 'freedom' by migrating to those wonderful enlightened Yankee states.

Real history just doesn't support modern ideologies, or any ideology for that matter in these assorted dumbass appeals to the past, which is why most just make up their own history instead, whether they be faux 'progressives', neo-Nazis, neo- liberals, libertoons, conspiritiards, Commies, Rotarians, whatever.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And to that bogus point about the intimate relationship between the Native Americans and the environment........no human beings have been as destructive of their fauna and flora as the 'noble savages' were.

Yup, their factories and chemicals really fucked up the environment.

Slash and burn agriculture and over hunting.

. . . in now way shape or form was as destructive as you opine.

 

[Correll]

And to that bogus point about the intimate relationship between the Native Americans and the environment........no human beings have been as destructive of their fauna and flora as the 'noble savages' were.

Yup, their factories and chemicals really fucked up the environment.

Slash and burn agriculture and over hunting.

. . . in now way shape or form was as destructive as you opine.

No, they were not as harmless as you opine, with your strawmen of "factories and chemicals".

 

[PoliticalChic]

And to that bogus point about the intimate relationship between the Native Americans and the environment........no human beings have been as destructive of their fauna and flora as the 'noble savages' were.

Yup, their factories and chemicals really fucked up the environment.

Slash and burn agriculture and over hunting.

. . . in now way shape or form was as destructive as you opine.

No, they were not as harmless as you opine, with your strawmen of "factories and chemicals".

You are correct, of course.

This is what the morons who see Disney's Hiawatha a Gospel truth don't know:

1. Let's start with the fastest way to destroy natural surroundings...forest fires:how many times have we heard that such a destructive attitude towards the environment is the product of Western man’s alienation from nature?

American Indians were forest-burners par excellence:it was not the forests which impressed the early settlers but the absence of them.

a. Thomas Morton, a Puritan, wrote in 1637:
"...the Savages are accustomed to set fire of the Country in all places where they come, and to burne it twize a year, vixe at the Spring, and the fall of the leafe. The reason that mooves them to doe so, is because it would other wise be a coppice wood, and the people would not be able in any wise to passe through the Country out of a beaten path."
Morton, T., "New English Canaan: or, New Canaan, 1637," rpt. pp.52-4, quoted in Chase, "Playing God in Yellowstone: The Destruction of America's First National Park," p. 94.


b.They hated the forests...they burned them down so they could see the animals they hunted.
" Once the forests have been burnt, however, and the land transformed to grasslands and savannah, these desirable species become available. The species which the Indians most wanted to hunt, like bison, moose, elk and deer, are found most easily in areas of recently burnt forest, which is why they burnt the forests over and over again."
Chase, Op. Cit.

OK....so....Hiawatha exists only in a fevered imagination.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And to that bogus point about the intimate relationship between the Native Americans and the environment........no human beings have been as destructive of their fauna and flora as the 'noble savages' were.

Yup, their factories and chemicals really fucked up the environment.

Slash and burn agriculture and over hunting.

. . . in now way shape or form was as destructive as you opine.

No, they were not as harmless as you opine, with your strawmen of "factories and chemicals".

"Harmless" is your word not mine. You made an opinion with no evidence, so it deserves the same treatment: opinion. You cannot possibly prove your silliness.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And PC fails note the antidote to the comments above: the great Atlantic forest extended westward for a thousand miles. Obviously the NAs did not burn enough of it.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Liberalism happened to Chris.

Actually, the truth did.

Americans are prone to revisionist history that we are this righteous, infallible people who do no wrong and everyone wants to be just like us. We tend to hide a lot of our ugly history we don't want to talk about. Columbus, while a great explorer and certainly a man who left his mark on the world, was really not the kind of man you'd want as a role model. He was far from saintly.

 

[Correll]

And to that bogus point about the intimate relationship between the Native Americans and the environment........no human beings have been as destructive of their fauna and flora as the 'noble savages' were.

Yup, their factories and chemicals really fucked up the environment.

Slash and burn agriculture and over hunting.

. . . in now way shape or form was as destructive as you opine.

No, they were not as harmless as you opine, with your strawmen of "factories and chemicals".

"Harmless" is your word not mine. You made an opinion with no evidence, so it deserves the same treatment: opinion. You cannot possibly prove your silliness.

Your choice of strawmen made your meaning clear.

As Indians had ZERO, "factories and chemicals" you were implying they were harmless.

If you wanted to be honest, you would have opened with "slash and burn is not as bad as you think".

 

[gipper]

And to that bogus point about the intimate relationship between the Native Americans and the environment........no human beings have been as destructive of their fauna and flora as the 'noble savages' were.

Yup, their factories and chemicals really fucked up the environment.

Slash and burn agriculture and over hunting.

. . . in now way shape or form was as destructive as you opine.

No, they were not as harmless as you opine, with your strawmen of "factories and chemicals".

"Harmless" is your word not mine. You made an opinion with no evidence, so it deserves the same treatmerant: opinion. You cannot possibly prove your silliness.

Your choice of strawmen made your meaning clear.

As Indians had ZERO, "factories and chemicals" you were implying they were harmless.

If you wanted to be honest, you would have opened with "slash and burn is not as bad as you think".

Fakey is your typical run of the mill lib. He has been trained since birth to hate the West, our nation's founding principles, and all things Christian.

You have to forgive him as I have. Ignorance is just something some people can't beat.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And to that bogus point about the intimate relationship between the Native Americans and the environment........no human beings have been as destructive of their fauna and flora as the 'noble savages' were.

Yup, their factories and chemicals really fucked up the environment.

Slash and burn agriculture and over hunting.

. . . in now way shape or form was as destructive as you opine.

No, they were not as harmless as you opine, with your strawmen of "factories and chemicals".

There is no evidence by either you or PC that the Native Americas were the worst eco-destroyers of all. Slash and burn agriculture was the agriculture of the expanding white and slave south for almost three hundred years, and no one has condemned that as being the equivalent or worse than factories, chemicals, and pollution.

You guys are knowingly being silly because you can be silly

 

[JakeStarkey]

And to that bogus point about the intimate relationship between the Native Americans and the environment........no human beings have been as destructive of their fauna and flora as the 'noble savages' were.

Yup, their factories and chemicals really fucked up the environment.

Slash and burn agriculture and over hunting.

. . . in now way shape or form was as destructive as you opine.

No, they were not as harmless as you opine, with your strawmen of "factories and chemicals".

"Harmless" is your word not mine. You made an opinion with no evidence, so it deserves the same treatment: opinion. You cannot possibly prove your silliness.

Your choice of strawmen made your meaning clear.

As Indians had ZERO, "factories and chemicals" you were implying they were harmless.

If you wanted to be honest, you would have opened with "slash and burn is not as bad as you think".

"Harmless" is Correll's word, and one that cannot be inferred from my statement at all.

Part of his silly revisionism.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fakey is your typical run of the mill lib. He has been trained since birth to hate the West, our nation's founding principles, and all things Christian.

You have to forgive him as I have. Ignorance is just something some people can't beat.

Gipper knows that his libertarianism is a silly philosophy with nothing of relevance for Modern America. His attempt at revisionism is as silly as that of Correll and PC.