Christopher Columbus' So-Called American 'Discovery' Leaves Little To Celebrate

[rightwinger]

He’s credited with discovering America, which isn’t true. But what he did do was commit genocide against entire native populations. Here’s why we really shouldn’t be celebrating Christopher Columbus.

VIDEO: Christopher Columbus' So-Called American 'Discovery' Leaves Little To Celebrate

Native American Genocide

Another sad day for Native Americans.

Exploitation, not genocide. Stop using that word.

It was global exploitation by the European powers

If anyone thinks what Columbus did was bad.....look what Europeans did to Africa

What Western Europeans did*************

True....Eastern Europeans were still wiping their asses with their fingers

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

He’s credited with discovering America, which isn’t true. But what he did do was commit genocide against entire native populations. Here’s why we really shouldn’t be celebrating Christopher Columbus.

VIDEO: Christopher Columbus' So-Called American 'Discovery' Leaves Little To Celebrate

Native American Genocide

Another sad day for Native Americans.

Exploitation, not genocide. Stop using that word.

It was global exploitation by the European powers

If anyone thinks what Columbus did was bad.....look what Europeans did to Africa

What Western Europeans did*************

True....Eastern Europeans were still wiping their asses with their fingers

In 1500 Poland was the head honcho in Europe.

 

[rightwinger]

He’s credited with discovering America, which isn’t true. But what he did do was commit genocide against entire native populations. Here’s why we really shouldn’t be celebrating Christopher Columbus.

VIDEO: Christopher Columbus' So-Called American 'Discovery' Leaves Little To Celebrate

Native American Genocide

Another sad day for Native Americans.

Exploitation, not genocide. Stop using that word.

It was global exploitation by the European powers

If anyone thinks what Columbus did was bad.....look what Europeans did to Africa

What Western Europeans did*************

True....Eastern Europeans were still wiping their asses with their fingers

In 1500 Poland was the head honcho in Europe.

Merely pointing out that compared to their neighbors in the west, Eastern Europeans were kind of backwards

While Western Europe was going through their Renaissance, Eastern Europe was harvesting potatoes

 

[NightFox]

If you had picked up a credible history book or ever taken a history class you'd know the Spanish Crown made its intentions clear with respect to the native populations of the new world, subjugation, economic exploitation and conversion to Catholicism and that's a bit difficult to do if you deliberately and systematically turn them into corpses.

ROFLMAO! At least I know the difference between genocide and conquest; perhaps you should be looking toward advancing your own erudition before you start bringing butter knives to gunfights.

"Here endth the lesson." -- Jim Malone, The Untouchables

..and if you knew anything about history, you would know that the Spanish crown convicted Columbus for crimes, not only against colonists, but also against natives, including the enslavement of those who had converted to Christianity, which is why he was banned from returning to the colony he founded, and why he later died in disgrace.

LOL and this helps the case for the Spanish Crown committing genocide how?

Actually, you are right. The Spanish did not wipe out the native populations completely.

That's not why the actions of the Spanish Crown and their agents in the New World don't qualify as genocide, genocide requires INTENT to SYSTEMATICALLY destroy a group of people based on race, ethnicity, political ideology or religious conviction, The Spanish Crown nor their agents never acted on any such intentions because their intentions for the native populations were subjugation, economic exploitation and conversion to Catholicism. The Crown and its agents were indeed guilty of atrocities (if viewed from the perspective of MODERN ethics and morality) but to accuse them of genocide is a gross misuse of the term that cheapens its meaning and is akin to conflating rape with murder.

by correctly saying that nobody even remembers the American genocide of the Indians, or the Armenian genocide of WW1.

"Nobody even remembers" because they're fictitious, of course that fact doesn't stop the ignorant from slinging around the term genocide to describe everything from conquest and pacification to abortion on demand.

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1" -- Godwins Law

You say they converted them to Catholicism, but then say genocide includes intent to kill those based on religion.

Well, the fact that they forced Catholicism upon them supports just that.

*YAWN* they didn't intend or even contemplate attempting to "force Catholicism upon them" by systematically turning them into corpses....

Congratulations your attempt at simulating an argument has devolved from merely ignorant to completely ludicrous.

Besides, It doesn't really matter if people are wiped out due to greed, or religion, or ethnicity.

It does if you're attempting to incorrectly characterize it as genocide while simultaneously practicing gross presentism in the process.

Of course that assumes one actually has an interest in understanding the truth of the matter rather than just trying ones hand at being an ill-informed blowhard on an Internet Message Board in the hopes that your audience is as completely ignorant as you are and thus won't notice.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Lol, so Spain had no intention of wiping out Natives, but did just that none the less.

If you had picked up a credible history book or ever taken a history class you'd know the Spanish Crown made its intentions clear with respect to the native populations of the new world, subjugation, economic exploitation and conversion to Catholicism and that's a bit difficult to do if you deliberately and systematically turn them into corpses.

Wow, you're definitely not very bright.

ROFLMAO! At least I know the difference between genocide and conquest; perhaps you should be looking toward advancing your own erudition before you start bringing butter knives to gunfights.

"Here endth the lesson." -- Jim Malone, The Untouchables

..and if you knew anything about history, you would know that the Spanish crown convicted Columbus for crimes, not only against colonists, but also against natives, including the enslavement of those who had converted to Christianity, which is why he was banned from returning to the colony he founded, and why he later died in disgrace.

LOL and this helps the case for the Spanish Crown committing genocide how?

Actually, you are right. The Spanish did not wipe out the native populations completely. They joined with the natives, and created Latinos, which is a race that did not exist before. The British and the Americans, on the other hand, did not. They simply slaughtered the native Americans. AS a matter of fact, Hitler cited two precedents to his "Final Solution", by correctly saying that nobody even remembers the American genocide of the Indians, or the Armenian genocide of WW1.

hate to break it to ya, indians in the us hired pilgrims ti kill rivals.....

Which they did quite effectively. In fact, the first "Thanksgiving" was a celebration of such a massacre.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Lol, so Spain had no intention of wiping out Natives, but did just that none the less.

If you had picked up a credible history book or ever taken a history class you'd know the Spanish Crown made its intentions clear with respect to the native populations of the new world, subjugation, economic exploitation and conversion to Catholicism and that's a bit difficult to do if you deliberately and systematically turn them into corpses.

Wow, you're definitely not very bright.

ROFLMAO! At least I know the difference between genocide and conquest; perhaps you should be looking toward advancing your own erudition before you start bringing butter knives to gunfights.

"Here endth the lesson." -- Jim Malone, The Untouchables

..and if you knew anything about history, you would know that the Spanish crown convicted Columbus for crimes, not only against colonists, but also against natives, including the enslavement of those who had converted to Christianity, which is why he was banned from returning to the colony he founded, and why he later died in disgrace.

LOL and this helps the case for the Spanish Crown committing genocide how?

Actually, you are right. The Spanish did not wipe out the native populations completely.

That's not why the actions of the Spanish Crown and their agents in the New World don't qualify as genocide, genocide requires INTENT to SYSTEMATICALLY destroy a group of people based on race, ethnicity, political ideology or religious conviction, The Spanish Crown nor their agents never acted on any such intentions because their intentions for the native populations were subjugation, economic exploitation and conversion to Catholicism. The Crown and its agents were indeed guilty of atrocities (if viewed from the perspective of MODERN ethics and morality) but to accuse them of genocide is a gross misuse of the term that cheapens its meaning and is akin to conflating rape with murder.

by correctly saying that nobody even remembers the American genocide of the Indians, or the Armenian genocide of WW1.

"Nobody even remembers" because they're fictitious, of course that fact doesn't stop the ignorant from slinging around the term genocide to describe everything from conquest and pacification to abortion on demand.

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1" -- Godwins Law

The army discussed giving blankets that were collected from soldiers who had died of smallpox to Indians. Nobody can prove that they did it, but it is a fact that they seriously considered it. If you want to split hairs about whether or not the systematic slaughter of indians was genocide, or not, be my guest. When Andrew Jackson banished all tribes east of the Mississippi river, he did not even differentiate between those that were literate, and farmed their own land, from those that hunted on reservations. The death rate on the Trail of Tears was horrific.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The American Indians were ******* savages.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The American Indians were ******* savages.

...and that says it all. I live in Pima County, AZ, from which Ira Hayes left to volunteer for the Marines in WW2. I am sure that Marines, in general, regardless of race, or color, were also considered "savages" by some.

 

[NightFox]

The army discussed giving blankets that were collected from soldiers who had died of smallpox to Indians. Nobody can prove that they did it, but it is a fact that they seriously considered it.

Yeah and? biological warfare of this nature goes back at least as far as Genghis Khan and even if it did happen it doesn't support a case for an accusation of genocide, one might label it an "atrocity" or an "act of barbarism" but that's as far as it goes without some evidence that it was carried out as a deliberate policy designed to exterminate the Native Americans.

If you want to split hairs about whether or not the systematic slaughter of indians was genocide, or not, be my guest.

Since when is adhering to the actual meaning of words instead of just making up definitions as we go along "splitting hairs"? By continuing to blatantly misuse the term you diminish the importance and impact of the cases of ACTUAL genocide that have taken place.

When Andrew Jackson banished all tribes east of the Mississippi river, he did not even differentiate between those that were literate, and farmed their own land, from those that hunted on reservations. The death rate on the Trail of Tears was horrific.

What does that have to do with genocide? We could spend all year discussing how conquered populations have been ill-treated by their conquerors going back to the beginning of recorded human history. The native Americans represent a group of conquered civilizations, their civilizations were too weak to defend themselves from the Europeans and thus they join a very long list of others that met the same fate and I don't see anybody weeping for say the Etruscans or the Hittites, what makes Native Americans so special?

 

[rightwinger]

The American Indians were ******* savages.

...and that says it all. I live in Pima County, AZ, from which Ira Hayes left to volunteer for the Marines in WW2. I am sure that Marines, in general, regardless of race, or color, were also considered "savages" by some.

Other than pose holding the flag on Iwo Jima. What did Hayes ever do?

 

[rightwinger]

The American Indians were ******* savages.

Actually, they were "primitive" - and loved their way of life.

Unfortunately their way of life conflicted with the Europeans

 

[Lakhota]

The American Indians were ******* savages.

Actually, they were "primitive" - and loved their way of life.

Here's an example of "savages":

The troopers cut off the vulvas of Indian women, stretched them over their saddle horns, then decorated their hatbands with them; some used the skin of brave’s scrotums and the breasts of Indian women as tobacco pouches, then showed off these trophies, together with the noses and ears of some of the Indians they had massacred, at the Denver Opera House.

Native American Genocide

 

[GHook93]

He’s credited with discovering America, which isn’t true. But what he did do was commit genocide against entire native populations. Here’s why we really shouldn’t be celebrating Christopher Columbus.

VIDEO: Christopher Columbus' So-Called American 'Discovery' Leaves Little To Celebrate

Native American Genocide

Another sad day for Native Americans.

The American Indian genocide was a lie and it surly wasn’t done by Columbus. Rather the Indians dies from the vicious plagues ravaging the planet


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

He’s credited with discovering America, which isn’t true. But what he did do was commit genocide against entire native populations. Here’s why we really shouldn’t be celebrating Christopher Columbus.

VIDEO: Christopher Columbus' So-Called American 'Discovery' Leaves Little To Celebrate

Native American Genocide

Another sad day for Native Americans.

The American Indian genocide was a lie and it surly wasn’t done by Columbus. Rather the Indians dies from the vicious plagues ravaging the planet


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Last I checked, Columbus never set foot on North America.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The army discussed giving blankets that were collected from soldiers who had died of smallpox to Indians. Nobody can prove that they did it, but it is a fact that they seriously considered it.

Yeah and? biological warfare of this nature goes back at least as far as Genghis Khan and even if it did happen it doesn't support a case for an accusation of genocide, one might label it an "atrocity" or an "act of barbarism" but that's as far as it goes without some evidence that it was carried out as a deliberate policy designed to exterminate the Native Americans.

If you want to split hairs about whether or not the systematic slaughter of indians was genocide, or not, be my guest.

Since when is adhering to the actual meaning of words instead of just making up definitions as we go along "splitting hairs"? By continuing to blatantly misuse the term you diminish the importance and impact of the cases of ACTUAL genocide that have taken place.

When Andrew Jackson banished all tribes east of the Mississippi river, he did not even differentiate between those that were literate, and farmed their own land, from those that hunted on reservations. The death rate on the Trail of Tears was horrific.

What does that have to do with genocide? We could spend all year discussing how conquered populations have been ill-treated by their conquerors going back to the beginning of recorded human history. The native Americans represent a group of conquered civilizations, their civilizations were too weak to defend themselves from the Europeans and thus they join a very long list of others that met the same fate and I don't see anybody weeping for say the Etruscans or the Hittites, what makes Native Americans so special?

Apparently, You don't know the difference between warfare between soldiers, and extermination of men, women, and children.

Sand Creek massacre - Wikipedia

Wounded Knee Massacre - Wikipedia

 

[Vandalshandle]

The American Indians were ******* savages.

...and that says it all. I live in Pima County, AZ, from which Ira Hayes left to volunteer for the Marines in WW2. I am sure that Marines, in general, regardless of race, or color, were also considered "savages" by some.

Other than pose holding the flag on Iwo Jima. What did Hayes ever do?

He volunteered to fight for his country, in spite of the fact that almost all of his tribe's water rights had been stolen from them.

 

[buckeye45_73]

If you had picked up a credible history book or ever taken a history class you'd know the Spanish Crown made its intentions clear with respect to the native populations of the new world, subjugation, economic exploitation and conversion to Catholicism and that's a bit difficult to do if you deliberately and systematically turn them into corpses.

ROFLMAO! At least I know the difference between genocide and conquest; perhaps you should be looking toward advancing your own erudition before you start bringing butter knives to gunfights.

"Here endth the lesson." -- Jim Malone, The Untouchables

..and if you knew anything about history, you would know that the Spanish crown convicted Columbus for crimes, not only against colonists, but also against natives, including the enslavement of those who had converted to Christianity, which is why he was banned from returning to the colony he founded, and why he later died in disgrace.

LOL and this helps the case for the Spanish Crown committing genocide how?

Actually, you are right. The Spanish did not wipe out the native populations completely. They joined with the natives, and created Latinos, which is a race that did not exist before. The British and the Americans, on the other hand, did not. They simply slaughtered the native Americans. AS a matter of fact, Hitler cited two precedents to his "Final Solution", by correctly saying that nobody even remembers the American genocide of the Indians, or the Armenian genocide of WW1.

hate to break it to ya, indians in the us hired pilgrims ti kill rivals.....

Which they did quite effectively. In fact, the first "Thanksgiving" was a celebration of such a massacre.

good so we can drop the act that ****** was bad and indians were pristine virtuous people living in harmony until ****** showed up.

 

[buckeye45_73]

The American Indians were ******* savages.

...and that says it all. I live in Pima County, AZ, from which Ira Hayes left to volunteer for the Marines in WW2. I am sure that Marines, in general, regardless of race, or color, were also considered "savages" by some.

Other than pose holding the flag on Iwo Jima. What did Hayes ever do?

He volunteered to fight for his country, in spite of the fact that almost all of his tribe's water rights had been stolen from them.

i respect that, i love ot when people think everyone should have been in the same place as 5000 bc....people migrate, conflicts arise, some win some lose

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Exploitation, not genocide. Stop using that word.

It was global exploitation by the European powers

If anyone thinks what Columbus did was bad.....look what Europeans did to Africa

What Western Europeans did*************

True....Eastern Europeans were still wiping their asses with their fingers

In 1500 Poland was the head honcho in Europe.

Merely pointing out that compared to their neighbors in the west, Eastern Europeans were kind of backwards

While Western Europe was going through their Renaissance, Eastern Europe was harvesting potatoes

Haha, good joke, Poland's Renaissance was among the most important in Europe.

- Albert Brudzewski's proper rotation of the Moon.

- Copernicus heliocentric model, and quantity theory of money.

- Michal Sedziwoj's discovery of Oxygen.

- Jozef Struthius modern pulse taking methods.

- Jan Heweliusz; first lunar map.

- Jozef Brozek's explanation of bee combs.

- Kazimierz Siemienowicz delta wing, and multi-stage rockets.

- Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski writer known as the father of Polish Democracy.

- Jan Kochanowski considered as one of the greatest poets of the Renaissance.

- Mikołaj Rej an important Polish renaissance writer.

- Klemens Janicki considered as one of the best Latin poets despite being Polish.

- Wawrzyniec Grzymała Goślicki philosopher who influenced the British Tudor parliament.

- Sodalitas Litterarum Vistulana the first writer's academy.

- Wacław of Szamotuły one of the best renaissance classical composers.

- Maciej Miechowita first accurate ethnographic, and geographic description of Eastern Europe.

- The Liberum veto voting method.

- Adam Adamandy Kochański mathematician.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

..and if you knew anything about history, you would know that the Spanish crown convicted Columbus for crimes, not only against colonists, but also against natives, including the enslavement of those who had converted to Christianity, which is why he was banned from returning to the colony he founded, and why he later died in disgrace.

LOL and this helps the case for the Spanish Crown committing genocide how?

Actually, you are right. The Spanish did not wipe out the native populations completely.

That's not why the actions of the Spanish Crown and their agents in the New World don't qualify as genocide, genocide requires INTENT to SYSTEMATICALLY destroy a group of people based on race, ethnicity, political ideology or religious conviction, The Spanish Crown nor their agents never acted on any such intentions because their intentions for the native populations were subjugation, economic exploitation and conversion to Catholicism. The Crown and its agents were indeed guilty of atrocities (if viewed from the perspective of MODERN ethics and morality) but to accuse them of genocide is a gross misuse of the term that cheapens its meaning and is akin to conflating rape with murder.

by correctly saying that nobody even remembers the American genocide of the Indians, or the Armenian genocide of WW1.

"Nobody even remembers" because they're fictitious, of course that fact doesn't stop the ignorant from slinging around the term genocide to describe everything from conquest and pacification to abortion on demand.

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1" -- Godwins Law

You say they converted them to Catholicism, but then say genocide includes intent to kill those based on religion.

Well, the fact that they forced Catholicism upon them supports just that.

*YAWN* they didn't intend or even contemplate attempting to "force Catholicism upon them" by systematically turning them into corpses....

Congratulations your attempt at simulating an argument has devolved from merely ignorant to completely ludicrous.

Besides, It doesn't really matter if people are wiped out due to greed, or religion, or ethnicity.

It does if you're attempting to incorrectly characterize it as genocide while simultaneously practicing gross presentism in the process.

Of course that assumes one actually has an interest in understanding the truth of the matter rather than just trying ones hand at being an ill-informed blowhard on an Internet Message Board in the hopes that your audience is as completely ignorant as you are and thus won't notice.

If they killed non-Catholics until they were converted to a collective Catholicism, how could it not be considered genocide by your own words.