Should we Erase Columbus or others from the History Books?

[blackhawk]

Let’s just remove anyone and anything from history that doesn’t live up to the current morale standards of the moment.

 

[Polishprince]

Let’s just remove anyone and anything from history that doesn’t live up to the current morale standards of the moment.

I wouldn't say to remove them, but we should certainly eliminate the idea of celebrating them, or naming anything after them.

Consigning their written works as well as statues to the flames seems reasonable.

For example, changing the name of "August" would seem to be a no-brainer- Augustus was a 1st century slaveholder and should not be recognized as such.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The difference here is I have no problem acknowledging that side of the Vikings (as plunderers and looters) but you seem unwilling or unable to acknowledge the other side of Viking culture as merchants, traders, explorers and settlers
as I cited several pages ago.

No, I concede that the Vikings were merchants, explorers and settlers as well. This was their guise to know who to raid and plunder.

 

[OldLady]

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

Okay. I get that argument, but maybe we don't have to name the holiday after him? Find some other word for Europeans stumbling over our continent? I do NOT like "Indigenous Peoples Day" at ALL. Only Canadians and high falutin' professors call Native Americans "Indigenous People" and why in HELL would they choose to celebrate themselves on the day Columbus arrived and pretty much declared their death sentence?
Nuh uh.
I have all the respect in the world for Native Americans. Let them decide what day or week or month they wish to celebrate their heritage and let them call it what they like. "Indigenous People Day" instead of Columbus Day is total bullshit, no matter how you look at it.
That's my opinion, anyway.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

No, I concede that the Vikings were merchants, explorers and settlers as well. This was their guise to know who to raid and plunder.

We are a parting point as far as this issue.

The Vikings ultimately gave way to Christian missionaries and ended their plundering and raiding ways. Nobody forced them to. They decided it was a better way of life. Christianization of Scandinavia - Wikipedia
You've taken two or three centuries of pillaging and expansionism and made that all there was to the vikings. BBC - History - Overview: The Vikings, 800 to 1066

My Scandinavian forebearers had a fearsome reputation but there was more to them than just cracking skulls and carrying away women and loot.

 

[justoffal]

No, I concede that the Vikings were merchants, explorers and settlers as well. This was their guise to know who to raid and plunder.

We are a parting point as far as this issue.

The Vikings ultimately gave way to Christian missionaries and ended their plundering and raiding ways. Nobody forced them to. They decided it was a better way of life. Christianization of Scandinavia - Wikipedia
You've taken two or three centuries of pillaging and expansionism and made that all there was to the vikings. BBC - History - Overview: The Vikings, 800 to 1066

My Scandinavian forebearers had a fearsome reputation but there was more to them than just cracking skulls and carrying away women and loot.

I think the point here is this....the article mentioned that Lief Erickson was first in his discovery of the American continent and I'm pretty sure that's common knowledge....would the fate of the Caribbean Indians have been any different If it was Erickson who had discovered them? Probably no.....almost definitely no. Columbus, like most of the sea faring explorers was in it for gain and glory....not for hands across the ocean or philanthropy in general. The Vikings may have negotiated also....but they certainly took what they wanted by force if it was not offered to them.

Perhaps they were of a different mind set in general. Having little or nothing to offer the Norse who were certainly more advanced than the North Americans were at that time the one thing left would be slavery....that would be the most consistent value placed on that meeting IMO.....I am sure the North Americans would not have agreed to this without some kind of tussle....which would have ended with the Norse People chopping them to bits pretty much.

JO

 

[justoffal]

The difference here is I have no problem acknowledging that side of the Vikings (as plunderers and looters) but you seem unwilling or unable to acknowledge the other side of Viking culture as merchants, traders, explorers and settlers
as I cited several pages ago.

No, I concede that the Vikings were merchants, explorers and settlers as well. This was their guise to know who to raid and plunder.

Yep....case the place...size it up....decide whether or not they can offer any real resistance and then BLAM! Row in at 4 am and take what you want including goods, women and precious metals by force. The certainly were not fools....that much is certain.

JO

 

[Polishprince]

No, I concede that the Vikings were merchants, explorers and settlers as well. This was their guise to know who to raid and plunder.

We are a parting point as far as this issue.

The Vikings ultimately gave way to Christian missionaries and ended their plundering and raiding ways. Nobody forced them to. They decided it was a better way of life. Christianization of Scandinavia - Wikipedia
You've taken two or three centuries of pillaging and expansionism and made that all there was to the vikings. BBC - History - Overview: The Vikings, 800 to 1066

My Scandinavian forebearers had a fearsome reputation but there was more to them than just cracking skulls and carrying away women and loot.

I think the point here is this....the article mentioned that Lief Erickson was first in his discovery of the American continent and I'm pretty sure that's common knowledge....would the fate of the Indians have been any different?

If it was Erickson who had discovered them? Probably no.....almost definitely no. Columbus, like most of the sea faring explorers was in it for gain and glory....not for hands across the ocean or philanthropy in general. The Vikings may have negotiated also....but they certainly took what they wanted by force if it was not offered to them.

Perhaps they were of a different mind set in general. Having little or nothing to offer the Norse who were certainly more advanced than the North Americans were at that time the one thing left would be slavery....that would be the most consistent value placed on that meeting IMO.....I am sure the North Americans would not have agreed to this without some kind of tussle....which would have ended with the Norse People chopping them to bits pretty much.

JO

When Columbus was sent to discover America in 1492 at the behest of Spain, Spain was just finishing up on expelling the Moops, who had their nation in bondage for more than 3/4 of a millennium.

They needed to expand the wings, get new territories so they would never have to worry about being invaded by islamonazis again.

Columbus was a hired hand, he followed the instructions of Ferd and Isabella.

 

[Meathead]

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

Who's Columbus? Wasn't he a detective on TV or something?

 

[rightwinger]

Nope, just list the evildoers' genocidal crimes first.

But we should celebrate Columbus more accurately...

View attachment 251420

View attachment 251421

It’s kind of like saying ...I discovered a cure for cancer but then stuck it in a drawer

Others may have landed in the Western Hemisphere, but nothing came of it
Once Columbus landed in 1492, the age of exploration surged

Was Columbus a racist who exploited indigenous people in a search for wealth?
Probably, but he was no better or no worse than anyone else in his era

 

[rightwinger]

No, I concede that the Vikings were merchants, explorers and settlers as well. This was their guise to know who to raid and plunder.

We are a parting point as far as this issue.

The Vikings ultimately gave way to Christian missionaries and ended their plundering and raiding ways. Nobody forced them to. They decided it was a better way of life. Christianization of Scandinavia - Wikipedia
You've taken two or three centuries of pillaging and expansionism and made that all there was to the vikings. BBC - History - Overview: The Vikings, 800 to 1066

My Scandinavian forebearers had a fearsome reputation but there was more to them than just cracking skulls and carrying away women and loot.

I think the point here is this....the article mentioned that Lief Erickson was first in his discovery of the American continent and I'm pretty sure that's common knowledge....would the fate of the Indians have been any different?

If it was Erickson who had discovered them? Probably no.....almost definitely no. Columbus, like most of the sea faring explorers was in it for gain and glory....not for hands across the ocean or philanthropy in general. The Vikings may have negotiated also....but they certainly took what they wanted by force if it was not offered to them.

Perhaps they were of a different mind set in general. Having little or nothing to offer the Norse who were certainly more advanced than the North Americans were at that time the one thing left would be slavery....that would be the most consistent value placed on that meeting IMO.....I am sure the North Americans would not have agreed to this without some kind of tussle....which would have ended with the Norse People chopping them to bits pretty much.

JO

When Columbus was sent to discover America in 1492 at the behest of Spain, Spain was just finishing up on expelling the Moops, who had their nation in bondage for more than 3/4 of a millennium.

They needed to expand the wings, get new territories so they would never have to worry about being invaded by islamonazis again.

Columbus was a hired hand, he followed the instructions of Ferd and Isabella.

It’s Moors, you moron......MOORS!

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Nope, just list the evildoers' genocidal crimes first.

But we should celebrate Columbus more accurately...

View attachment 251420

View attachment 251421

It’s kind of like saying ...I discovered a cure for cancer but then stuck it in a drawer

Others may have landed in the Western Hemisphere, but nothing came of it
Once Columbus landed in 1492, the age of exploration surged

Was Columbus a racist who exploited indigenous people in a search for wealth?
Probably, but he was no better or no worse than anyone else in his era

Yes, and you might as well then erase every historical figure from the beginning of time since their beliefs and habits would be utterly appalling when viewed from todays standards.

Columbus is the accepted figure that we use to mark the beginning of when the technological world landed here.
Were natives slaughtered during this period of expansion ? Yes, but there was also plenty of greatness that occured that bettered humankind worldwide.

 

[JoeB131]

That's just silly. Music is music and bad people are bad people. Michael Jackson is dead ... His Music lives on and it does not Molest Children. Now you really are stepping over into the realms of the thought police and the mentally vacant guilt by association crowd. You save no one, fix nothing and gain no moral improvement by trying to punish either his Music or anyone who decides to listen to it. What you do accomplish however is a false s sense of worth that can't
be bartered for a single cup of coffee.

Actually, in 10 years, we'll be struggling to remember who he or R. Kelly were. Most Music doesn't live on.

I think erasing his music does create a moral improvement. It will discourage other artists from doing things that might jeapordize future revenues, so there's that.

 

[JoeB131]

No. Just plain no.

Burning history doesn't end well.

Nobody is saying to burn history. Just put it in it's proper context.

The problem is, most of what we teach about Columbus is a lie. He wasn't trying to prove the world was round. But that's what kids are taught in school.

The colonization of the America by Europe was a humanitarian disaster for the people of the Americas, as well as the millions of Africans who were brought over as slaves. time to own it.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, and you might as well then erase every historical figure from the beginning of time since their beliefs and habits would be utterly appalling when viewed from todays standards.

Columbus is the accepted figure that we use to mark the beginning of when the technological world landed here.
Were natives slaughtered during this period of expansion ? Yes, but there was also plenty of greatness that occured that bettered humankind worldwide.

Um, except for the US and Canada, most of the "New World" are poor countries. Human kind was not bettered because Europe exploited the Americas and then the rest of the world.

 

[JoeB131]

Let’s just remove anyone and anything from history that doesn’t live up to the current morale standards of the moment.

Except nobody is saying remove Columbus. Just put him in the proper perspective. He wasn't a great man or a good man. His navigational skills were impressive, but he opened up a very dark era in history.

 

[FJO]

No, I concede that the Vikings were merchants, explorers and settlers as well. This was their guise to know who to raid and plunder.

We are a parting point as far as this issue.

The Vikings ultimately gave way to Christian missionaries and ended their plundering and raiding ways. Nobody forced them to. They decided it was a better way of life. Christianization of Scandinavia - Wikipedia
You've taken two or three centuries of pillaging and expansionism and made that all there was to the vikings. BBC - History - Overview: The Vikings, 800 to 1066

My Scandinavian forebearers had a fearsome reputation but there was more to them than just cracking skulls and carrying away women and loot.

I think the point here is this....the article mentioned that Lief Erickson was first in his discovery of the American continent and I'm pretty sure that's common knowledge....would the fate of the Indians have been any different?

If it was Erickson who had discovered them? Probably no.....almost definitely no. Columbus, like most of the sea faring explorers was in it for gain and glory....not for hands across the ocean or philanthropy in general. The Vikings may have negotiated also....but they certainly took what they wanted by force if it was not offered to them.

Perhaps they were of a different mind set in general. Having little or nothing to offer the Norse who were certainly more advanced than the North Americans were at that time the one thing left would be slavery....that would be the most consistent value placed on that meeting IMO.....I am sure the North Americans would not have agreed to this without some kind of tussle....which would have ended with the Norse People chopping them to bits pretty much.

JO

When Columbus was sent to discover America in 1492 at the behest of Spain, Spain was just finishing up on expelling the Moops, who had their nation in bondage for more than 3/4 of a millennium.

They needed to expand the wings, get new territories so they would never have to worry about being invaded by islamonazis again.

Columbus was a hired hand, he followed the instructions of Ferd and Isabella.

It’s Moors, you moron......MOORS!

Careful, George will bust your bubble, Bubble Boy!

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, and you might as well then erase every historical figure from the beginning of time since their beliefs and habits would be utterly appalling when viewed from todays standards.

Columbus is the accepted figure that we use to mark the beginning of when the technological world landed here.
Were natives slaughtered during this period of expansion ? Yes, but there was also plenty of greatness that occured that bettered humankind worldwide.

Um, except for the US and Canada, most of the "New World" are poor countries. Human kind was not bettered because Europe exploited the Americas and then the rest of the world.

Cultural Darwinism is inevitable

It is part of being human where cultures conflict, one is assimilated or destroyed. Put economics into the equation and it becomes inevitable

 

[22lcidw]

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.

About Erickson...anyone familiar at all with Viking exploration knows that they chopped first and asked questions later. It's a pretty fair bet that Erickson killed any indigenous bodies he came in contact with.

Jo

Thats a very narrow view. The Vikings were a lot more than that.

in a reference to global warming, there are Viking farms under the Greenland ice sheet.

 

[22lcidw]

No. Just plain no.

Burning history doesn't end well.

Nobody is saying to burn history. Just put it in it's proper context.

The problem is, most of what we teach about Columbus is a lie. He wasn't trying to prove the world was round. But that's what kids are taught in school.

The colonization of the America by Europe was a humanitarian disaster for the people of the Americas, as well as the millions of Africans who were brought over as slaves. time to own it.

They conquered a continent. And gave you a good life.