Should we Erase Columbus or others from the History Books?

[The Sage of Main Street]

Elizabeth Warren wants to abolish Columbus Day.
She is pandering to the racist anti-Anglo Troglocrats who want open borders.

What is the process of abolishing it in her tribe ?
Does she run it by the chief and medicine man, for approval ?

Squaw Deal

Lizzie can get her girltoy, A O-Cí, Se Puede, to do a salsa dance and Columbus Day will go POOF!

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Elizabeth Warren wants to abolish Columbus Day.
She is pandering to the racist anti-Anglo Troglocrats who want open borders.

What is the process of abolishing it in her tribe ?
Does she run it by the chief and medicine man, for approval ?

Warren's tribe only has one person, her

 

[justoffal]

Elizabeth Warren wants to abolish Columbus Day.
She is pandering to the racist anti-Anglo Troglocrats who want open borders.

What is the process of abolishing it in her tribe ?
Does she run it by the chief and medicine man, for approval ?

Warren's tribe only has one person, her

Yes it is known as the tentwentyfourfians.

Jo

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

They had a well known reputation:

Parts of the tactics and warfare of the Vikings were driven by their cultural belief, themselves rooted in Norse culture and religion, and vividly recalled in the later Icelandic sagas. In the early Viking Age, during the late 8th century and most of the 9th, Vikings consisted of smaller tribal bands with a lack of any clear central authority, governance being rooted in tribal assemblies. Rooted in honour – a vital concept in Nordic pagantradition – violence was used as a measure to moderate disputes with other tribal groups. This emphasis on violence as a decisive tool regarding disputes was not limited to a man, but extended to his kin.[5] Violence was seen as a measure to defend honor. Honor was extremely important to Norsemen, and the sense of shaming one's honor extended beyond physical and material injuries. Honor could be shamed from mere insults, where Norsemen were expected to react with violence often resulting in death. With this prevalence of violence came the expectation of fearlessness.

None of this contradicts or changes what my citation said. Look at the trading routes of the Vikings and the many cultures they came into contact with.
Could a "hack first" and ask questions later people have established all those ties and business partners if they were
relentlessly and primarily savage people?

I don't discount their violent reputation which they earned when they raided the British Isles, for instance.
But they were not only that and to survive and colonize in the New World, they had to have been more. There is no evidence they were at war with any indigenous peoples.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Elizabeth Warren wants to abolish Columbus Day.
She is pandering to the racist anti-Anglo Troglocrats who want open borders.

What is the process of abolishing it in her tribe ?
Does she run it by the chief and medicine man, for approval ?

Squaw Deal

Lizzie can get her girltoy, A O-Cí, Se Puede, to do a salsa dance and Columbus Day will go POOF!

Then send out smoke signals to let the other members of the tribe know about the change ?

 

[justoffal]

They had a well known reputation:

Parts of the tactics and warfare of the Vikings were driven by their cultural belief, themselves rooted in Norse culture and religion, and vividly recalled in the later Icelandic sagas. In the early Viking Age, during the late 8th century and most of the 9th, Vikings consisted of smaller tribal bands with a lack of any clear central authority, governance being rooted in tribal assemblies. Rooted in honour – a vital concept in Nordic pagantradition – violence was used as a measure to moderate disputes with other tribal groups. This emphasis on violence as a decisive tool regarding disputes was not limited to a man, but extended to his kin.[5] Violence was seen as a measure to defend honor. Honor was extremely important to Norsemen, and the sense of shaming one's honor extended beyond physical and material injuries. Honor could be shamed from mere insults, where Norsemen were expected to react with violence often resulting in death. With this prevalence of violence came the expectation of fearlessness.

None of this contradicts or changes what my citation said. Look at the trading routes of the Vikings and the many cultures they came into contact with.
Could a "hack first" and ask questions later people have established all those ties and business partners if they were
relentlessly and primarily savage people?

I don't discount their violent reputation which they earned when they raided the British Isles, for instance.
But they were not only that and to survive and colonize in the New World, they had to have been more. There is no evidence they were at war with any indigenous peoples.

Why would they be at war? They raided for self supplementation. They did not knock when they raided and the targets were usually not soldiers. It may have caused war...but it wasn't an act of war it was an act of tradition. If Erickson encountered indigenous North Americans do you really think they would survive the encounter and simply surrender women and goods?
I'm not saying your info is wrong....I'm saying it is reasonable to assume that Erickson would have been a similar task master based on recorded history...though perhaps somewhat more civil than Columbus apparently.

Jo

 

[EvilCat Breath]

There never was a discovery of a new world. It was always like this.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

They had a well known reputation:

Parts of the tactics and warfare of the Vikings were driven by their cultural belief, themselves rooted in Norse culture and religion, and vividly recalled in the later Icelandic sagas. In the early Viking Age, during the late 8th century and most of the 9th, Vikings consisted of smaller tribal bands with a lack of any clear central authority, governance being rooted in tribal assemblies. Rooted in honour – a vital concept in Nordic pagantradition – violence was used as a measure to moderate disputes with other tribal groups. This emphasis on violence as a decisive tool regarding disputes was not limited to a man, but extended to his kin.[5] Violence was seen as a measure to defend honor. Honor was extremely important to Norsemen, and the sense of shaming one's honor extended beyond physical and material injuries. Honor could be shamed from mere insults, where Norsemen were expected to react with violence often resulting in death. With this prevalence of violence came the expectation of fearlessness.

None of this contradicts or changes what my citation said. Look at the trading routes of the Vikings and the many cultures they came into contact with.
Could a "hack first" and ask questions later people have established all those ties and business partners if they were
relentlessly and primarily savage people?

I don't discount their violent reputation which they earned when they raided the British Isles, for instance.
But they were not only that and to survive and colonize in the New World, they had to have been more. There is no evidence they were at war with any indigenous peoples.

Why would they be at war? They raided for self supplementation. They did not knock when they raided and the targets were usually not soldiers. It may have caused war...but it wasn't an act of war it was an act of tradition. If Erickson encountered indigenous North Americans do you really think they would survive the encounter and simply surrender women and goods?
I'm not saying your info is wrong....I'm saying it is reasonable to assume that Erickson would have been a similar task master based on recorded history...though perhaps somewhat more civil than Columbus apparently.

Jo

The evidence is that the Vikings settled in the lands that they "visited". That includes the UK,Ireland and France.
They adapted to the local culture,learned the language and adopted the local religion. Ive got Viking blood in me and so has my Father in Law.
Normandy in France is the land of the "Northmen". They became French. There is no evidence to support a theory that they would have practiced genocidal policies.

 

[petro]

Does that mean the folks of Central and South America should quit speaking Spanish as their "native" tounge ?
They are speaking a language of conquerors, in protest they should revert back to their native languages .
Oh, wait.
Most of the leaders to our south appear to be a tad pale and have European roots.
Spanish it is.
Thank Columbus.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Why would they be at war? They raided for self supplementation. They did not knock when they raided and the targets were usually not soldiers. It may have caused war...but it wasn't an act of war it was an act of tradition. If Erickson encountered indigenous North Americans do you really think they would survive the encounter and simply surrender women and goods?
I'm not saying your info is wrong....I'm saying it is reasonable to assume that Erickson would have been a similar task master based on recorded history...though perhaps somewhat more civil than Columbus apparently.

Okay. You have a problem with the word "war" but you yourself said they were known for their "chopping".

I'm saying if Erickson encountered indigenous people in North America, and why wouldn't he, it's reasonable to assume
he bartered for goods and on a continent where it was just his own vikings vs. the rest of everyone else and he would be smart enough not to antagonize the locals.

 

[justoffal]

Why would they be at war? They raided for self supplementation. They did not knock when they raided and the targets were usually not soldiers. It may have caused war...but it wasn't an act of war it was an act of tradition. If Erickson encountered indigenous North Americans do you really think they would survive the encounter and simply surrender women and goods?
I'm not saying your info is wrong....I'm saying it is reasonable to assume that Erickson would have been a similar task master based on recorded history...though perhaps somewhat more civil than Columbus apparently.

Okay. You have a problem with the word "war" but you yourself said they were known for their "chopping".

I'm saying if Erickson encountered indigenous people in North America, and why wouldn't he, it's reasonable to assume
he bartered for goods and on a continent where it was just his own vikings vs. the rest of everyone else and he would be smart enough not to antagonize the locals.

Your optimism is admirable...gullible perhaps but admirable non the less.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

They had a well known reputation:

Parts of the tactics and warfare of the Vikings were driven by their cultural belief, themselves rooted in Norse culture and religion, and vividly recalled in the later Icelandic sagas. In the early Viking Age, during the late 8th century and most of the 9th, Vikings consisted of smaller tribal bands with a lack of any clear central authority, governance being rooted in tribal assemblies. Rooted in honour – a vital concept in Nordic pagantradition – violence was used as a measure to moderate disputes with other tribal groups. This emphasis on violence as a decisive tool regarding disputes was not limited to a man, but extended to his kin.[5] Violence was seen as a measure to defend honor. Honor was extremely important to Norsemen, and the sense of shaming one's honor extended beyond physical and material injuries. Honor could be shamed from mere insults, where Norsemen were expected to react with violence often resulting in death. With this prevalence of violence came the expectation of fearlessness.

None of this contradicts or changes what my citation said. Look at the trading routes of the Vikings and the many cultures they came into contact with.
Could a "hack first" and ask questions later people have established all those ties and business partners if they were
relentlessly and primarily savage people?

I don't discount their violent reputation which they earned when they raided the British Isles, for instance.
But they were not only that and to survive and colonize in the New World, they had to have been more. There is no evidence they were at war with any indigenous peoples.

Why would they be at war? They raided for self supplementation. They did not knock when they raided and the targets were usually not soldiers. It may have caused war...but it wasn't an act of war it was an act of tradition. If Erickson encountered indigenous North Americans do you really think they would survive the encounter and simply surrender women and goods?
I'm not saying your info is wrong....I'm saying it is reasonable to assume that Erickson would have been a similar task master based on recorded history...though perhaps somewhat more civil than Columbus apparently.

Jo

The evidence is that the Vikings settled in the lands that they "visited". That includes the UK,Ireland and France.
They adapted to the local culture,learned the language and adopted the local religion. Ive got Viking blood in me and so has my Father in Law.
Normandy in France is the land of the "Northmen". They became French. There is no evidence to support a theory that they would have practiced genocidal policies.

Evidence? There are many accounts of Viking raids on coastal villages that recount decimation, murder, rape and theft. What I God's name are you talking about? I'm sure they had a civilized side also. Most Invaders do.

Jo

 

[22lcidw]

They had a well known reputation:

Parts of the tactics and warfare of the Vikings were driven by their cultural belief, themselves rooted in Norse culture and religion, and vividly recalled in the later Icelandic sagas. In the early Viking Age, during the late 8th century and most of the 9th, Vikings consisted of smaller tribal bands with a lack of any clear central authority, governance being rooted in tribal assemblies. Rooted in honour – a vital concept in Nordic pagantradition – violence was used as a measure to moderate disputes with other tribal groups. This emphasis on violence as a decisive tool regarding disputes was not limited to a man, but extended to his kin.[5] Violence was seen as a measure to defend honor. Honor was extremely important to Norsemen, and the sense of shaming one's honor extended beyond physical and material injuries. Honor could be shamed from mere insults, where Norsemen were expected to react with violence often resulting in death. With this prevalence of violence came the expectation of fearlessness.

None of this contradicts or changes what my citation said. Look at the trading routes of the Vikings and the many cultures they came into contact with.
Could a "hack first" and ask questions later people have established all those ties and business partners if they were
relentlessly and primarily savage people?

I don't discount their violent reputation which they earned when they raided the British Isles, for instance.
But they were not only that and to survive and colonize in the New World, they had to have been more. There is no evidence they were at war with any indigenous peoples.

Why would they be at war? They raided for self supplementation. They did not knock when they raided and the targets were usually not soldiers. It may have caused war...but it wasn't an act of war it was an act of tradition. If Erickson encountered indigenous North Americans do you really think they would survive the encounter and simply surrender women and goods?
I'm not saying your info is wrong....I'm saying it is reasonable to assume that Erickson would have been a similar task master based on recorded history...though perhaps somewhat more civil than Columbus apparently.

Jo

The evidence is that the Vikings settled in the lands that they "visited". That includes the UK,Ireland and France.
They adapted to the local culture,learned the language and adopted the local religion. Ive got Viking blood in me and so has my Father in Law.
Normandy in France is the land of the "Northmen". They became French. There is no evidence to support a theory that they would have practiced genocidal policies.

You are so nice now. Get the ph uk out of here and build an empire somewhere else. If you are a crippled piece of chitt collecting taxpayers money then appreciate what you have been given you venomous azz.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Nope, just list the evildoers' genocidal crimes first.

But we should celebrate Columbus more accurately...

View attachment 251420

View attachment 251421

In fact he did discover America much the same way I discovered your post.

Many others discovered it before him not just Ericson.

Others however either did not share their discovery or word simply never got around. As one historian put it Columbus was the first to discover the western hemisphere and then hold an effective press conference.

This was important as it set off european migration and colonization of the western hemisphere which is in fact a good thing.

 

[JimBowie1958]

None of this contradicts or changes what my citation said. Look at the trading routes of the Vikings and the many cultures they came into contact with.
Could a "hack first" and ask questions later people have established all those ties and business partners if they were
relentlessly and primarily savage people?

I don't discount their violent reputation which they earned when they raided the British Isles, for instance.
But they were not only that and to survive and colonize in the New World, they had to have been more. There is no evidence they were at war with any indigenous peoples.

Alfred the Great would have disagreed with you, joined by Irish monks.

The Vikings would try to bargain with you first, to their own advantage, then come back and kill you and take what they wanted anyway if you wouldnt agree to their offer.

One of the most vile and murderous cultures to ever hit the planet, the ancestors of British nobility.

 

[candycorn]

So Columbus, like most of the early world explorers was an exploitationist and at times inhumanely cruel. What are the real ethics we are reaching for here? We already knew most of this. Centuries later the celebration of Columbus Day has about as much to do with Christopher Columbus as a cigar store elephant statue has to do with a Wooley mammoth.

Fact is these things actually happened. Not giving them "press" so to speak isn't going to change that fact.

The idea of the Western Hemisphere being located by European culture...the predominant world culture of the time is a pretty big deal.

Really it's irrelevant who Columbus was
Cad, slaver, exploiter.... It's more important to know what role he played in the process of connecting the two hemispheres. As for Columbus Day why bother to change the name? How does that contribute to the factuality or non factuality of its history? Should all of Latin America now reject the Spanish language as racist and abusive?

I'm all for teaching kids the whole story
But I resist the Idea that removing Columbus's name from the day somehow improves us morally. It is quite impossible for us to reach back and correct the wrongs of History...even pretending that we can is foolish.

Jo

No.

I think History needs to be a compulsory subject for each year of school in fact.

 

[JimBowie1958]

There never was a discovery of a new world. It was always like this.

What was discovered was a series of celestial navigation bearings and observances.

Columbus was the first to use celestial navigation to cross the Atlantic and this enabled the rest of Europe to follow him.

The mans accomplishments obviously merit a celebratory remembrance and the Marxist shit4brains can kiss my ass.

 

[TomParks]

Another handful of years and Columbus Day will be completely gone, but that's ok.
What's important, is European came to this hemisphere and put in motion what would come to be the greatest technological progress in human history.

It doesn't matter whether Columbus was first, or not even close. We simply use him as a figurehead for the beginning of the most glorious time in human history.

I'm sure some agreement could be made the libs can erase Columbus Day, and we can erase MLK Day

 

[JimBowie1958]

I'm sure some agreement could be made the libs can erase Columbus Day, and we can erase MLK Day

How is that a trade?

These are the current federal holidays:

• New Year's Day (January 1).
• Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (Third Monday in January).
• Washington's Birthday (Third Monday in February).
• Memorial Day (Last Monday in May).
• Independence Day (July 4).
• Labor Day (First Monday in September).
• Columbus Day (Second Monday in October).
• Veterans Day (November 11).
• Thanksgiving Day (Fourth Thursday in November).
• Christmas Day (December 25).

It is a pretty crowded schedule of ten holidays. Were it up to me, I would do three things:
a) add a secondary title to MLK's birthday as 'Civil Rights Day' and
b) Secondary title to Columbus Day that being 'Science Day'
c) and move Veterans Day to election Day, with election Day being the secondary title/purpose.

 

[JoeB131]

Really it's irrelevant who Columbus was
Cad, slaver, exploiter.... It's more important to know what role he played in the process of connecting the two hemispheres. As for Columbus Day why bother to change the name? How does that contribute to the factuality or non factuality of its history? Should all of Latin America now reject the Spanish language as racist and abusive?

I'm all for teaching kids the whole story
But I resist the Idea that removing Columbus's name from the day somehow improves us morally. It is quite impossible for us to reach back and correct the wrongs of History...even pretending that we can is foolish.

It's fun to watch white people act like they are being put upon when they are asked to do something decent.

Okay, let's put this in a more modern perspective. The world just found out Michael Jackson was a pedophile. Actually, we all kind of knew it for decades, but we ignored it because people enjoyed his music so much. But now we can't really deny it anymore. It really doesn't change one note of one of his songs, but it puts them in a whole new context. So yes, radio station and streaming services are pulling his music.

"but, but, Thriller was the greatest album of all time".. Maybe, but doesn't take away from the horrible human cost, does it.

Now, what Columbus did resulting in tens of millions of deaths, the start of the trans-Atlantic slave trade (because those Native Americans were dying off faster than the Europeans could exploit them, so let's bring in some black folks.). Lots of horrible things happened, but if you are a European-American, you benefited greatly. My father had a much nicer life here in America than he would have had in that crappy little town in Germany where he came from.

At a certain point, we need to stop and realize that this all had a horrible human cost. And while we should concentrate on righting wrongs in the here and now, taking down the statues of Columbus or Robert E. Lee would also be a good place to make amends.