Black Professor mocks Columbus Day with list of ‘15 most overrated White people’

[ScienceRocks]

Elvis isn't overrated. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBmAPYkPeYU]Suspicious Mind - Elvis Presley - YouTube[/ame] I'll admit that a few 50's and 60's black bands were pretty good. Todays=suck.

 

[MisterBeale]

Dude... no. Just no. I'm not disputing the African exploration of the new world, but that shit about the Olmec's is total bullshit.

Yes, the Olmecs are descended from Africans like all of human civilization, but not in the time frame you're talking about.

The Olmecs come from a people that spread throughout North and South America from the Russian land bridge(Bering Strait), giving us the natives that we know today. That was tens of thousands of years ago.

The architecture evident in South and Central America and that of Egyptian, is completely separate, and wasn't spawned from a sharing of cultures, or any cultural linkage at all. Any similarities are completely coincidental. The Negritic African peoples that came to the Americas predate ancient Africa by a great deal of time. Their arrival predates all known civilizations by a great deal of time.

Those original people became the Eskimos and all the North American tribes, and the Olmecs and the Mayans and Aztecs and Inca. Those heads have nothing to do with Africa in the past thousand plus years. Tons of natives in South America... ancient tribes, are as black as any African, just like the Aborigines of Australia, but not because they came over within the past 5000 years.

This is what I am talking about, establishment, foundation history and anthropology. Denial of empirical evidence. Both DNA evidence, and archaeological. It's so obtuse.

Just because the elites control all the founding of the institutions of higher learning, the foundations that control the paradigms that control how the populace thinks about truth, does not mean that is what happened or that is what the truth is. If you want to get philosophical and say, we determine our own truth, than you are getting creepy and Orwellian on me. I won't discuss that with you. I believe in an objective truth, not a subjective one.

An African civilization in the Americas
http://www.ourweekly.com/features/african-civilization-americas

Olmec display up at LACMA

Black history does not start with slavery, but it begins with the conception of mankind and transcends all of the world’s history. Although popular teachings reject the great accomplishments of African and African American people, researchers and historians have confirmed Black people are the foundation of civilizations throughout the world, including the Americas.

The Olmecs, an ancient civilization, known for its colossal African featured, head monuments, established dwellings in Mesoamerica, specifically Mexico centuries before White settlers knew the world was round. Carbon dating places the African explorers in the area from around 1400 B.C. to 200 B.C.. The Olmecs are one of the first societies in the region and is claimed to have influenced the Aztecs and other American civilizations.

Their exact origins are unknown, but according to their artwork, they resembled people of African descent. Some theories say they came from Carthage off the coast of Africa.

Ivan Van Sertima, author of “They Came Before Columbus” writes that these gigantic monuments look like ancient African warriors. He also writes that without a doubt, these people were of African descent, but also possessed the characteristics of other populations.

“The Olmecs were a people of three faces, that is, a people formed from three main sources or influences. One of these faces was Mongoloid. Elements of this Mongoloid strain may have come into America from Asia even after the famous glacial migrations across the Bering Straits, but they would have blended indistinguishably with the Ice Age Americans. The second face or influence was Negroid. The third suggests a trace of Mediterranean Caucasoids - some with Semitic noses (probably Phoenician) - but this will be shown to be related historically to the second. These faces became one face, to which the broad name ‘Olmec’ was given.”

The Olmecs are known to have dwelled between the Gulf of Mexico (north) to the slopes of the mountains (south), the Papaloapan River (west) and the basin of the Blasillo-Tonalá (east).

According to Ignacio Bernal, author of “The Olmec World,” the Olmec zone covered about 7,000 square miles.

Matthew Stirling Ph.D., an archaeologist, led an expedition from the Smithsonian Institution and National Geographic Society 1939 in the jungles of Vera Curz to uncover the first Olmec head.

If you do the research, you will find out that DNA evidence in meso-American Indians also bears out linkages in mitochondrial DNA from this same time period. But go on believing those same "Siberian" land bridge myths you learned on TV and in high school that defend Caucasoid-European cultural world dominance. As some one who studied Anthropology at University and makes a hobby of it, I can tell you, what you were taught in high school, and what they tell you on TV is not the whole story. It is a political story to give nations and people a sense of entitlement. The ancient world was not so "black and white."

 

[Unkotare]

The Conspiracy Forum is thataway. Get goin' fruitcake.

Who said anything about a "conspiracy?"

You tell me why "Columbus" and "Columbia" is so ingrained into the culture and character of the American experience? Do you honestly ever think the myth of Columbus will ever go away even though it is an insult to the Native Peoples of the Americas? Hell, to all minorities?

Let's face it, the District of Columbia, the very name, should be changed, should it not? We should not honor this man with such great honors, and yet we do.

Why, when it is out there, right in the open, do you want to label something a "conspiracy." I have just shown you what the meaning is, that is all. I have just shown you why the educational elites continue to teach this "Columbus" day myth in elementary school. Yet you attack me with a personal attack. . . why?

I can give you parallels to their European counterparts and show that this was intentional if you like?

Really, there's a whole forum just for fruitcakes like you. Go check it out, you'll feel comfortable there.

 

[MisterBeale]

Really, there's a whole forum just for fruitcakes like you. Go check it out, you'll feel comfortable there.

IOW, when facts and education are offered, and real discussion is at hand, you got nothing, but insults. Nice.



This is sort of the way the United States House Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations was treated. Once the findings were reported, well, everyone needed to just crucify the messengers, not treat the report with the seriousness of attention to which it deserved.

Dodd report

The final report was submitted by Norman Dodd, and because of its provocative nature, the committee became subject to attack. He began by listing criticisms of the Cox Committee, and then moved on to content.

In the Dodd report to the Reece Committee on Foundations, he gave a definition of the word "subversive", saying that the term referred to "Any action having as its purpose the alteration of either the principle or the form of the United States Government by other than constitutional means." He then proceeded to show that the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and Carnegie Endowment were using funds excessively on projects at Columbia, Harvard, Chicago University and the University of California, in order to enable oligarchical collectivism.

The end of the report, following the Transcript of Dodd's address, contains the following message:
“ The effect of the Dodd Report was electric.

Moves were launched within a matter of hours to block an effective probe. On Capitol Hill, the Committee found itself confronted with obstacles at every turn. The Nation itself was deluged with stories which openly or by inference suggested that the investigation was futile, if not worse. The national board of Americans for Democratic Action (the A .D .A .) formally urged the House to disband the Committee, stating it was conducting "a frontal attack on learning itself."

Many citizens, on the other hand, believe that such a committee should be made a permanent Standing Committee of the House -"to gather and weigh the facts."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_to_Investigate_Tax-Exempt_Foundations_and_Comparable_Organizations

And we wonder why our system is as corrupt as it is today. Closed minded individuals such as yourself that would like to table legitimate discussion out of public view. Either because they are corrupt and know what is going on, or they are ignorant and refuse to believe what is going on having no wish to be educated. I do not know which.

 

[Unkotare]

This is exactly why there is a 'special' place for fruitcakes like you. At least go take a look, you'll probably love it.

 

[ThirdTerm]

A prominent Ivy-League professor denounced Columbus Day and mocked those who celebrate it by releasing a list of individuals he deems are the “15 most overrated white people” on Monday.

Columbus Day is widely misunderstood as a celebration of the arrival of the first British settlers to the US but Columbus was an Italian explorer who had nothing to do with the founding of the US or the expansion of the British Empire to Americas. President Benjamin Harrison made Columbus Day a national holiday in 1892 so that Italian-Americans could celebrate of their heritage when Catholic immigrants were facing discrimination from Protestant activists and Harrison also attempted to pass legislation to protect black Americans' civil rights, which was part of the GOP's platform at the time.

 

[MisterBeale]

This is exactly why there is a 'special' place for fruitcakes like you. At least go take a look, you'll probably love it.

What is? What is "THIS" You haven't answered any of my questions or told me exactly why you believe I am a "fruitcake."

You mean Wikipedia?

You haven't given me anything?

The reason the biggest mainstream forums have "conspiracy" sub-forums, is for discussion of issues to be tabled and buried.

I have no use for forums like "Godlike Productions" "David Icke forums" "Project Camelot" "ATS" ect. These sites are either disinformation sites or lack credibility. No one goes here for information. People at these sites lack rigorous intellectual standards. Well, none more so than at this site I am finding out. But, they tend to be unhinged and willing to believe just about anything.

Then there are the polar opposite sites to this one, the sites that the establishment make certain get a lot more exposure than this site in search engines, simply because the members posting have more education, and the posters tend to politically, financially, and scientifically conform with establishment thought more, forums like "Sciforums" and "JREF" Both tend to be despicable, controlled thought places. Liberal Internationalist Globalist thought prevails in most cases. Freedom of speech is discouraged. The US constitution, and the values enshrined in the Bill of Rights are the enemy. Although these sites claims to revere the scientific method, they do so only so far as it is convenient for their political agenda.

Here, the case seems to be a little between and betwixt the two. There seems to be authors from sites like those I mentioned above, trying to influence this site, but the spirit of freedom is alive and well. Yet, the MSM and mass compulsory education has a strong hold over peoples minds. Truth is hard to get out. If you can, at any time point to a good reason, or point to a "conspiracy" that I am rambling on about, sure, I'll take it to that part of these forums. Seriously though, the ruling elites have a goal, and have always had a goal in this country. The same as it has been everywhere, all the time. Ever read Plato's Republic? If you don't know about it, read Rockefeller's autobiography. There is no "conspiracy," they just have agendas that the press doesn't publish. I don't know if you can call that a conspiracy, just not a widely known agenda to the public. If you are a media elite, you know the agenda, hell, you agree with the agenda, that is why you don't let the public in on it.

I've looked in the conspiracy sub-forum. Most people there seem like they would be more happy at site like those ones I mentioned above; "Godlike Productions" "David Icke forums" "Project Camelot" "ATS" . . . . personally, in a forum like this one, I don't think there is a need for a "conspiracy sub-forum. We don't need to talk about "conspiracies." Should we bring up documented evidence when we come across it in discussions, sure. But why make a separate sub-fora for it? I just think that is silly. Some of the people in that sub-forum are as partisan as the regular forum. You tell them that their conspiracy sites are run by the government to sew discord and ferret out possible malcontents, or direct suspicion away from the real guilty parties, and they become hostile without leaving an open mind. They are as bad as Democrats or Republicans on this board. How many Democrats have you met that agree with every issue that democratic party stands for? And the same deal for the Republicans. . . Does that even make sense?

So THINK, and look at my Avatar. . . do you really think I would like a conspiracy sub-forum when I want people of all political leanings on all issues to free their thinking? How free do you think the minds are there? I am willing to bet they are just a programed as they are on the rest of the board.

 

[Unkotare]

Get goin' fruitcake. You'll be happier over there.

 

[NoNukes]

The arrival of europeans was the best thing that ever happened to the indians. They didn't even have a written language until white men came. They are a backward people and would still be living in caves but for whites.

You are a stupid, pathetic racist.

The board notes that all you have is namecalling. My claim stands uncontested. Like blacks, indians need the white man to provide them life in an advanced world.

Interesting to see that you speak for the whole board, where I speak for the American Indian.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Columbus may very well be the most overrated person in the history of the world. Not only was he not the first guy to discover the Americas, he wasn't even the first white guy to discover the Americas! It takes quite a twist of affirmative action to consider Columbus to have made a significant contribution towards anything except the subjugation of large groups of people.

The arrival of europeans was the best thing that ever happened to the indians.

According to who? The natives? I guess we can't ask the Taino if they are better off, because they do not even exist anymore. So you speak on their behalf then, is that how that works?

They didn't even have a written language until white men came. They are a backward people and would still be living in caves but for whites.

The Taino didn't live in caves your ignorant bigot.

You are one ignorant racist ****. The Aztecs, the Inca, the Maya certainly didn't live in caves. Did you know their contributions to things like agriculture or medicine? No, because you're the one who's ******* useless.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wow. What a complex Ad hominem attack. Howard Zinn is a well regarded and well respected scholar.

ROFL

Zinn was a two bit hack who only made a splash due to the fact that he was a Marxist using shock techniques. Zinn stumbled along at a time at which simply espousing admiration for Mao and Stalin was sufficient to gain tenure at many major universities.

He uses primary sources of evidences to back up his claims.

False, Zinn fabricated the events in his books;

{Zinn writes well and is quite inspiring, but his book is bad history. In fact, I would not even call it history. A People's History of the United States is a political tract that uses the past to promote a presentist agenda. It is basically, to paraphrase the words of Bernard Bailyn, political indoctrination by historical example. Now I have no problem if Zinn wants to use the past to advance his leftist agenda. In fact, there is a lot I can agree with in Zinn's criticisms of his country. But please don't call this history and pass it off to students as a model of how to write history. Zinn's book violates virtually every rule of good historical thinking}

American Creation: Howard Zinn: Liar

Zinn was a Marxist, not a historian, not a scholar, just a Marxist. He had one goal, to further Marxism. He wrote blatant propaganda, with no regard for historical fact.

What you have is the opinion of a professor of English?
Social Sciences and Political Science is not even her field, why should anyone even care what she thinks? I have however, skimmed over that report she has produced, and it seems that she has some valid points. Nice job. We should all be very alert and on guard in our nation against social engineering, I give you props where props are due.

Zinn was nothing more than a communist agitator. Even his fellow leftists acknowledge that he wrote propaganda, not history. Zinn had no use for facts, his agenda was to promote Marxism.

{His failure is grounded in a premise better suited to a conspiracy-monger's Web site than to a work of scholarship. According to Zinn,"99 percent" of Americans share a" commonality" that is profoundly at odds with the interests of their rulers. And knowledge of that awesome fact is"exactly what the governments of the United States, and the wealthy elite allied to them--from the Founding Fathers to now--have tried their best to prevent."}

History News Network

Zinn had no particular love for history, he distorted history without regard, for the purpose of furthering Marxism.

Zinn and his works are complete frauds. Further, American academia KNOWS it's fraud, and embraces both Zinn and his fiction precisely because they are a fraud.

The problem is, when you disagree with an argument, you need to counter with evidence, not an attack against the source of an argument. That is called a fallacy. It is a very weak point. I am very aware of it, so I likewise sourced the evidence with a primary source.

What you term ad hom is in fact no such thing. I made no argument against the man, rather against the validity of your source. Zinn is not credible. What you offer is propaganda from a known fraud.

How astute of you to post what you thought was an excuse for Columbus' behavior, very good. He was just a product of his time. We could say the same thing about the Confederacy.

Again, this was neither an excuse nor my words. I offered you the writing of a left leaning professor who takes pause at the redrafting of history.

Zinn is the model that most of the left has adopted, decide the conclusion you wish, and fabricate a "history" to match the desired outcome.

So it is with Columbus. The left vilifies Whites with a bigotry the KKK could only dream of. The left hates everything to do with Western Civilization, thus crafts a tale in which the civilized are villains abusing noble savages who are the epitome of all that is good and pure.

The pure black and white tales of the left, where the white man is simply evil by nature, killing and raping all of the peaceful people who love and give to all....

Does this mean we should have days commemorating the establishment of the confederacy, and have southern states fly the confederate flag? What about singing the praises of the institution of slavery and plantation life? After all, they were just people who were products of their time? Of course not, this is called "apologetics." When people do this with Hitler, or any number of despicable events that happened in the past they are ostracized from polite society.

I see absolutely no difference between people reversing history to portray Hitler as a noble victim of evil Jews, and the reversal of facts used by the left to paint a portrait of everyone from Columbus to Washington as bloodthirsty fiends murdering poor innocents.

We seek to understand events of the past this way,

No we don't. What people like Zinn, Churchill, Dee Brown, et al, do is fabricate events from a past that never existed to promote political goals in the present.

Such is the nature of propaganda.

but we do not excuse or venerate historical figures of the past any longer for their behavior.

No, you vilify them with utter disregard for historical fact.

Many of Columbus' contemporaries knew, instinctively, that what he was doing as they saw his orders being carried out, were immoral.

Columbus had many flaws, as all men do. What the left fabricates for him is not what was.

Columbus was a product of his time. You view slavery from the lens of modern times, as do I. Yet, I grasp that while I abhor it, Columbus did nothing different than any other man of his time would do. I condemn the institution, you condemn the man. Shall we again discuss the ad hominem fallacy?

Just as Jefferson knew, as he grew rich off of every new slave birth, that it was immoral. That is why after his correspondence on the matter with George Washington, Washington reorganized is financial affairs in such a way as to free his slaves and employ them at a meager wage.

Jefferson indeed understood the immorality of slavery, but the claim he "grew rich off of every new slave birth," is the sort of demagoguery I so abhor from the left. Jefferson kept slave families together and paid his slaves. (Which despite Zinn type revisionism, was common.)

What is our primary source? How do we know of Columbus' vile behavior? Columbus' own journal entries. Any scholar, any American reading these entries, should then have enough intelligence to conclude that he should not be celebrated in the manner in which we do.

We spoke earlier of the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion." That anyone giving creed to such pap would call themselves a "scholar" is astounding.

{This text is widely available on the Internet, but there is no statement of its printed origins. If you know, please send references to be included here. }

Internet History Sourcebooks Project

But there is much more going on to his celebration which the average American knows. Most, are truly ignorant of what it really means. It has to do with the Jesuits. It is a symbol of elite control.

Ohh, conspiracy theories, kewl..

 

[Uncensored2008]

Interesting to see that you speak for the whole board, where I speak for the American Indian.

And you have that authority, because you once held an Indian head nickle! The love child of Ward Churchill and Elizabeth Warren...

 

[Cowman]

If you do the research, you will find out that DNA evidence in meso-American Indians also bears out linkages in mitochondrial DNA from this same time period. But go on believing those same "Siberian" land bridge myths you learned on TV and in high school that defend Caucasoid-European cultural world dominance. As some one who studied Anthropology at University and makes a hobby of it, I can tell you, what you were taught in high school, and what they tell you on TV is not the whole story. It is a political story to give nations and people a sense of entitlement. The ancient world was not so "black and white."

What the **** are you talking about, with this caucasoid-european cultural world dominance bullshit?

The first humans in North America came from ******* central Asia. They didn't come from Europe. And they didn't come directly from Africa either.

I feel for your students, because you're obviously very poorly educated on the subject, and your weight of authority is meaningless bullshit. I'm ******* fascinated with Central and South American ancient cultures and history, and studying the genetic histories of the indigenous peoples of the Americas will tell you that you're full of shit. The predominant haplogroup comes from Siberia.

 

[MisterBeale]

The predominant haplogroup comes from Siberia.

Agreed. However, it is a consistent and lingering myth that this is the only group from which the natives people and cultures of the New World were derived.

 

[Cowman]

The predominant haplogroup comes from Siberia.

Agreed. However, it is a consistent and lingering myth that this is the only group from which the natives people and cultures of the New World were derived.

You're ******* wrong. We know that it wasn't ONE group of people that came over. There's no ******* rampant myth(among the educated) like that. All of the haplogroups of the natives in America did come through from the Bering region though.

 

[MisterBeale]

I don't usually do tit-for-tat prattle with people who are very partisan and not up to my intellectual standards, but since you clearly haven't gotten the message the first time, I guess you need a little clarification. I'll respond, point by point, if you don't get it after that, I guess you are just trying to be quarrelsome or are an agent of disinfo. On the off chance you want to open your mind and leave your partisan pre-conditioning at the door, here we go. Perhaps we both seek the same thing, a patriotic solution to the nations ills. I shall try not to use offensive or attack language on you or your sources though, I find this to be counterproductive.

Zinn was a two bit hack who only made a splash due to the fact that he was a Marxist using shock techniques. Zinn stumbled along at a time at which simply espousing admiration for Mao and Stalin was sufficient to gain tenure at many major universities.

Again, Ad hominem attack. Yes, I will agree, his avant-garde guard revisionist history is controversial, but so what? Do you have a point? Everyone is allowed their own point of view, do they not? I agree, that does tend to color his interpretation of the facts. Frankly, I don't give a shit. I was only using him as a source for Bartolomé de las Casas' interpretation of the events of Spanish colonization. So in that regard, I don't give a rats ass. You label him a "Marxist" as if that somehow sullies his qualifications or reliability. I have news for you, our current president was a Marxist for most of his University career, does that make his intellectual thoughts on the countries historical interpretation, or how the Constitution's interpretation any less meaningful. Some might say yes, some would argue with you there. . .

False, Zinn fabricated the events in his books;

{Zinn writes well and is quite inspiring, but his book is bad history. In fact, I would not even call it history. A People's History of the United States is a political tract that uses the past to promote a presentist agenda. It is basically, to paraphrase the words of Bernard Bailyn, political indoctrination by historical example. Now I have no problem if Zinn wants to use the past to advance his leftist agenda. In fact, there is a lot I can agree with in Zinn's criticisms of his country. But please don't call this history and pass it off to students as a model of how to write history. Zinn's book violates virtually every rule of good historical thinking}

American Creation: Howard Zinn: Liar

Seriously? You want to compare historians and their political objectives now? One interprets facts for the sake of one clandestine group, the other omits facts for the sake of another clandestine group, and some how you believe you have the monopoly on truth?

“Another connection lies between the philosophic ideologies and symbols of the American Revolution and those of Freemasonry. For example, as Bailyn pointed out, ‘the word constitution and the concept behind it was of central importance to the colonists’ political thought; their entire understanding of the crisis in Anglo-American relations rested upon it.’ [See Bernard Bailyn, Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, 1992.] What Bailyn did not discuss is how Masonic the focus on a constitution is. The Masonic constitution had been written by Reverend James Anderson under the guidance and direction of the newly formulated Grand Lodge of England in 1723, and updated and expanded in 1738. Consisting of more than merely the rules of the Fraternity it also compiled one of the first historical portrayals of the Craft. After the formation of the Grand Lodge of England in 1717, the role of constitutionality and distribution of legitimate Charters began to dominate the politics of Masonry. Brothers would naturally see a constitution as a necessary aspect of the revolutionary aims of the colonies.” The Relationship Between Revolutionary Freemasonry and South Africa, Parts I, II & III, by SP Isaiah Kirk 32º AASR Valley of Albany NY, 2009.

http://gnosticliberationfront.com/occult_origins__of_the_american_revolutioni.htm

Zinn was a Marxist, not a historian, not a scholar, just a Marxist. He had one goal, to further Marxism. He wrote blatant propaganda, with no regard for historical fact.

"Zinn fabricated the events in his books?" That's a supposition. You'll have to document that with some proof, otherwise, you're just writing libel of the top of your head against the published works of a highly accredited professional historical researcher, who's interpretation of history you don't like.

Zinn was nothing more than a communist agitator. Even his fellow leftists acknowledge that he wrote propaganda, not history. Zinn had no use for facts, his agenda was to promote Marxism.

One need not deny that he might be a "Marxist, or a socialist. However one can be both, can they not? This does not detract from the credibility of one's research or facts. There is an old adage when it come to the writing of history.
“History is written by the victors.”
~ Winston Churchill
In America, clearly the corporate bosses have been the winners, haven't they? Do you even have any idea how tax-free foundations have an affect on and manipulate the educational process? I believe it is a good idea to get as many interpretations as possible of history to be well informed. Some of the comments on those links you posted were very intelligent, you should try reading them. . .

{His failure is grounded in a premise better suited to a conspiracy-monger's Web site than to a work of scholarship. According to Zinn,"99 percent" of Americans share a" commonality" that is profoundly at odds with the interests of their rulers. And knowledge of that awesome fact is "exactly what the governments of the United States, and the wealthy elite allied to them--from the Founding Fathers to now--have tried their best to prevent."}

History News Network

This is the sort of tripe typical of foundation media. I read this article. While I agree with so much of it, it was clearly intended to steer the reader away from even reading the book, it wasn't an unbiased review. To really get an unbiased review, rather than a review of the "elites" that run the country, go to Amazon, and read the positive reviews, and the negative reviews. It is ironic, because the people that shaped opinion and mold the minds of society, are precisely the people that Zinn writes about in his book. What sort of review would you expect them to give him?

Zinn had no particular love for history, he distorted history without regard, for the purpose of furthering Marxism.

Zinn and his works are complete frauds. Further, American academia KNOWS it's fraud, and embraces both Zinn and his fiction precisely because they are a fraud.

What you term ad hom is in fact no such thing. I made no argument against the man, rather against the validity of your source. Zinn is not credible. What you offer is propaganda from a known fraud.

Stop already. You are claiming that the man is a fraud. He is not a fraud. He has a certain political bias as all historians do. Unless you can cite a specific example, an error in his work that is untrustworthy, the whole of your post is becoming a tiresome attempt to discredit the man, instead of his work. That is basically all I am saying. I see your point though. Two people can look at the same glass of water. One person can see it as half full, the other as half empty. Facts are open to interpretation. Holy Mercury you belabor a point endlessly. He's is a Marxist, he's a fraud, he's a Marxist, he's a fraud. I agreed, he has socialist leanings, so what? No, he is not a fraud, prove how he is a fraud! Get on with it already, post something substantial other than this hit piece tit for tat of quoting my post.

Again, this was neither an excuse nor my words. I offered you the writing of a left leaning professor who takes pause at the redrafting of history.

Zinn is the model that most of the left has adopted, decide the conclusion you wish, and fabricate a "history" to match the desired outcome.

So it is with Columbus. The left vilifies Whites with a bigotry the KKK could only dream of. The left hates everything to do with Western Civilization, thus crafts a tale in which the civilized are villains abusing noble savages who are the epitome of all that is good and pure.

The pure black and white tales of the left, where the white man is simply evil by nature, killing and raping all of the peaceful people who love and give to all....

So what then? I guess these posts and this discussion is in vain. Perhaps we should just end it all right here and now. Do you not believe that Columbus butchered the native inhabitants looking for gold? Do you not believe that he rounded up and captured the natives for slaves? Do you not believe that he claimed the land for Spain? And if you believe all of these events transpired, should the nation not then stop celebrating all things associated with the man's name? What are we disagreeing about? Seems a pointless exercise, we are agreed then?

I see absolutely no difference between people reversing history to portray Hitler as a noble victim of evil Jews, and the reversal of facts used by the left to paint a portrait of everyone from Columbus to Washington as bloodthirsty fiends murdering poor innocents.

It's not "reversal" of history Uncensored, it's called revisiting history. And we still retain the old versions of history, as evidenced because we are having this discussion, you cling to the old mythologies. The reason we revisit history, is because, as Churchill observed, history is a political tool, written by the winners, so it is necessarily, not unbiased. History is used as a political tool to justify control and abuse. When the masses understand why things have transpired as they have, we are better able to avoid the mistakes of the past. For instance, educated people now know that nearly every war the United States has ever entered upon has been provoked by those that are controlling the Government. Why do you think so many people in the country do not believe (fall for, the Warren commission report, or the 911 commission report?) They know these events were necessary/staged/coincidental, whatever, before war could ensue. They were the ones that studied history. When a nation-state wins a war, it has usually been the one that has provoked, or been manipulated into starting a war. Only in the instances of world wars, where the initiators are utterly destroyed, are the cases where this is not true. For example, if there is a third world war, you can expect the United States to suffer the same fate as Nazi Germany, Wehrmacht Germany, or Imperial Japan.

No we don't. What people like Zinn, Churchill, Dee Brown, et al, do is fabricate events from a past that never existed to promote political goals in the present.

Such is the nature of propaganda.

Unsubstantiated. It is comments like this that make me believe you are an uneducated troll. Put up or shut up. They would not have their positions or reputations if this were true. Post a fabrication please. Otherwise, you are a liar, and I am right.

No, you vilify them with utter disregard for historical fact.

How do you see that? Just because we don't want to celebrate a butcher and a slaver you see that as vilification? What is the historical fact? That Columbus was greedy and vain, looking for glory and riches, so he bravely sought, looking for a new route to China or India? Whoope dee ******* do.

Columbus had many flaws, as all men do. What the left fabricates for him is not what was.

Columbus was a product of his time. You view slavery from the lens of modern times, as do I. Yet, I grasp that while I abhor it, Columbus did nothing different than any other man of his time would do. I condemn the institution, you condemn the man. Shall we again discuss the ad hominem fallacy?

An ad hominem fallacy is like saying that Howard Zinn is not a credible source because he is Jewish, or because he is a Marxist. It is not a fallacy to say that we are condemning Columbus based on his support of slavery. I'm not using Columbus as a source for my dialog here. Screw ball. When we are looking at Columbus ethics and behavior through the lens of history, you are correct, we need to compare him to what others of his sort were doing, not what we would do today. This does not mean we need to venerate him. More on this in a bit.

Jefferson indeed understood the immorality of slavery, but the claim he "grew rich off of every new slave birth," is the sort of demagoguery I so abhor from the left. Jefferson kept slave families together and paid his slaves. (Which despite Zinn type revisionism, was common.)

By the time of Jefferson's industry, the Slave trade, i.e. international shipping of slaves from Africa, had been made illegal. I was not remarking on Jefferson's ethics or morality in keeping families together, you are right, he neither bought, nor sold slaves. But he did deduce that the greatest fortune to his estate was the birth of his new slave children. And I don't know WHERE you read your history. Oh wait. . . do you read?? This last months issue of the Smithsonian had a terrific article on Jefferson. It is clear you really don't know what you are talking about. . .

He only ever paid one slave, and that was the foreman. And if you had read my previous posts, you would know he did this not out of charity. This was to ensure smooth running of the system.
Pick up an issue, learn something. But see, hear again, the elites are writing history. So we must beware, they are give us a paradigm they want us to believe in, a sort of shared purpose, a cult hero icon. So how much truth are we getting? I believe it is mostly true. The CEO on the board of directors? Joe Biden. Now me, I am distrustful of Liberals. Hell, I'm distrustful of Conservatives. I'm like General George Washington, distrustful of partisans of all stripes. Call me paranoid, but like his friend Lafayette said, they are using partisans to tear all nations apart.
"It is my opinion that if the liberties of this country, the United States of America are destroyed, it will be by the subtlety of the Roman Catholic Jesuit priests, for they are the most crafty, dangerous enemies to civil and religious liberty. They have instigated MOST of the wars of Europe."
Marquis de LaFayette(1757-1834; French statesman and general who served under the command of General George Washington during the American Revolutionary War)

{This text is widely available on the Internet, but there is no statement of its printed origins. If you know, please send references to be included here. }

Internet History Sourcebooks Project

Wait. . . . What?

If you are going to use a Jesuit University to try to smear the legitmacy of this well regarded source, at least do it with a well reguarded Jesuit University, maybe someone would take you seriously.

Maybe next time try the University of Notre Dame, or How about Loyola University Chicago? But hell, I haven't even ever heard of this place, you? You're killing me, really. This is a really old book, it has been published and republished. If I were you, I'd be embarrassed to post that link, really.

As to the primary sources. . . If you want to know, instead of staying ignorant, it is from Historia de Las Indies by a Dominican Priest, BARTOLOME DE LAS CASAS (1484-1566), a contemporary of Columbus who was on the last couple voyages of his. I am given to believe that the original journals of Columbus' are probably in the Vatican Library/Archive. Do you know anything about that Archive? Yeah, good luck with that. What we do have is a pretty reliably copy in his book, though it can be said, he had a political agenda as well, but he was a first hand observer. Plus, there were others there, and the results are beyond dispute.
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/philosophers/las_casas.html

http://wordandworld.luthersem.edu/content/pdfs/22-3_Conversion_Conversation/22-3_Dahlen.pdf

BTW, I agree with much of your post. I think you have me misunderstood. I think we should read and view all historians objectively. Thank you very much for the article you have posted. Likewise, it caused me to do a thorough vetting of the primary source material that Zinn used for his expose' on Columbus. While Bartolome de las Casas was a contemporary of Columbus, and there is every reason to believe that his accounts were accurate, I had no idea that his narratives might indeed be the seed of Liberation theology.

I found this to be intriguing. Everything I have read had informed me that the Jesuits had invented Liberation Theology. Although Liberation Theology is identified with the protestant movement, it is in fact an outgrowth of the philosophy of the Society of Jesus, which was forced to abdicate it by the Vatican. This is not to say it doesn't still use it for it's advantage. I follow this development closely, as we all should be well aware what religion the current POTUS follows.

The in fighting between the Jesuits, the Benedictines, the Dominicans, and the Franciscans is always a thing of fascination. Were it not for the dangerous meddling of the Jesuits.
http://www.mexconnect.com/articles/258-bartolome-de-las-casas-father-of-liberation-theology

This guy standing next to the pope is possibly more powerful than the pope, it's Father Adolfo Nicolás, the Jesuit Superior General, sometimes referred to as the Black Pope, while the other is the white pope. The Jesuits are run like a clandestine intelligence organization.

 

[Unkotare]

I don't usually do tit-for-tat prattle with people who are very partisan and not up to my intellectual standards.

Your "intellectual standards"? LOL

 

[NoNukes]

Interesting to see that you speak for the whole board, where I speak for the American Indian.

And you have that authority, because you once held an Indian head nickle! The love child of Ward Churchill and Elizabeth Warren...

My mother was an Indian

 

[MisterBeale]

I don't usually do tit-for-tat prattle with people who are very partisan and not up to my intellectual standards.

Your "intellectual standards"? LOL

You know, after a cursory investigation, I see you have been suspended indefinitely, or banned in at least one other forum, and who knows how many others? Where I sit, comments from the likes of you don't really have much weight with me. I don't see where you get off calling people, "fruitcake" and mocking people, when you yourself can't manage to stay a member in good standing of any forum that has strict rules of decorum, but instead need to come to a forum that has no rules what so ever. Mind divulging the details of your Historum - History Forums indefinite suspension? What is it with this sort of useless nonconstructive abuse?

That is fine, I understood I was going to have to deal with the likes of people like you when I signed on for this experience. I realized on this forum, if you chose to post here, one needed to tolerate trolls, I choose this forum due to its Alexa ranking and it's exposure on Google. Likewise, it seems to have the least amount of establishment control over it. Viva la freedom of speech!

Believe it or not, we should not be enemies, we have much in common, I would much rather be friends than enemies, we have a common foe that seeks to divide us. Your constant sniping is not appreciated, nor is it productive. Write something useful, or go away.

 

[FJO]

This so-called professor is a frequent guest of Bill O'Reilley. Heaven knows why.

He would be far more credible as an owner of a fruit stand, selling nothing but sour grapes.