The Road to Auschwitz Ran Through American Genocide

[Correll]

The Catholic Church? That seems like crazy talk.

try paying attention next time you are in church or reading the literature thereof

I've been in church, many times. Never heard anything to support your position.

you may not be paying attention. OR---there are churches and there are churches. You may not be catholic or attend a church much influenced
by the original first reich

I would have noticed that. And though I am not catholic, I have married into a catholic family. Been part of it for many years. Never heard the slightest hint of anti-semitism.

In your family? ok so? That's your family. I am referring to church teachings.

From when? The Dark Ages?

 

[Yarddog]

Prologue

October 14th is the National day of the bastard, moral monster, misanthrope, killer and slave trader...

In the center of New York stands a monument to Christopher Columbus. Cities, squares, streets, and the Federal District are named after this person. Columbus Day is an American national holiday.

At the same time, all the monuments to Columbus and Cortes are demolished in Mexico, renaming cities and streets. His name is cursed and oblivious ...

So, whom do we Americans honor?

Since the first contact of Columbus, a Franciscan monk, according to some sources, with the indigenous people of America in Columbus, a slave trader in the recent past, two desires fought in him:

on the one hand, he wanted to assimilate them, so that they were like he wanted the Indians to be like himself, and on the other, to convert them to Christianity. He wanted to convert the Indians to propagate the Gospel. This intention was the fundamental to Columbus’s initial project. He declared: “I have known that they were people disposed to submit themselves to and to convert to out Holly Faith much more readily by love than by force (!!!)”.

He wrote to the Queen of Spain that “These people have no religion, nor are they idolators, but very gentle and ignorant of evil and do not even know how to kill one another ...and we ” would hold them all in subjection and do with them that you could wish ... ”

He wanted to convert the Indians to propagate the Gospel. This intention was the fundamental to Columbus’s initial project. He declared: “I have known that they were people disposed to submit themselves to and to convert to out Holly Faith much more readily by love than by force”.

He also wrote to the queen of Spain that “These people have no religion, nor are they idolators, but very gentle and ignorant of evil and do not even know how to kill one another…” … fifty men Your Highnesses would hold them all in subjection and do with them that you could wish…”

But then something went wrong. It turned out that the Indians did not want to accept a culture alien to them, in particular, the Christian religion.

Here is what Bartholome, the brother of the slave trader Columbus, wrote about this:

“After having left the chapel, these men flung the images to the ground, covered them with a heap of earth (the first sign that they had religious ideas about how to fight evil - A.F.) and pissed upon it. "

Watching that Bartholome decided to punish Indians just in the Christian fashion:

“As lieutenant of the Viceroy and governor of the islands, he brought these wretched men to justice and, their crimes being duly attested to, he caused them to be burned alive in public” (Ramon Pane, in Columbus, 62, 26).

The Indians received the first visual lesson on how to kill. Moreover, not just kill, but with particular cruelty and sadism…


But then something went wrong.

“After having left the chapel, these men flung the images to the ground, covered them with a heap of earth and pissed upon it”.

Watching that Bartholome Columbus brother) decided to punish Indians just in the Christian fashion:

“As lieutenant of the Viceroy and governor of the islands, he brought these wretched men to justice and, their crimes being duly attested to, he caused them to be burned alive in public” (Ramon Pane, in Columbus, 62, 26).

So, Columbus gave the Indians, people, “... who did not know how to kill one another” the first visual lesson of Christian cruelty ...

I want to note that the Christian religion in history was everywhere imposed by violence. In Russia, in particular, the so-called Prince Vladimir (in fact, he was not a “prince”, but received a document on the right to reign from the Tatars to rule in Russia), allegedly the son of a Jewish woman, the housekeeper of his father Svyatoslav, drove the inhabitants of the city of Kiev into the Dnieper River with “fire and sword” and carried out baptization.

The struggle with the Christian religion in Russia lasted two hundred years. Her victims were hundreds of thousands of Slavs, adherents of their faith.

A little later, Columbus changed his views. He decided that his mission was to rob the Indians of gold and give them the Christian religion in return. Spaniards give religion and take gold as for exchange.

During the fourth voyage Columbus finally understood that Indians did not seem especially enthusiastic about the declaration of Spanish sovereignty over their lands and them (by this time they finally began to understand the essence of the rite of establishing the Spanish flag on their land).

When the Spaniards began to build houses and fortresses the land of their leader (Columbus exchanged lands of the Chief for a pair of gloves and a red hat), the Chief ordered to destroy and burn those houses and kill all Spaniards in return (by this time the Spaniards had taught the once innocent Indians a good lesson in cruelty.) Columbus ordered the Chief’s extended family and relative to be held hostage to send them to Spain.

Here is what the son of the former and future slave trader, Franciscan monk Christopher Columbus, Ferdinand wrote about this:

"The remaining prisoners were seized with despair, for they had not had not escaped with their comrades, and it was discovered the next morning that they had hanged themselves from the bridge-poles with some ropes they had managed to find there, bending their knees to do so, for otherwise there was not enough room for them to hang themselves properly ”

That was the time when the killer, Columbus, shifted from assimilationalizm, based on principal of equality, to an ideology of enslavement. To be consistent, the criminal established distinctions between “innocent, potentially Christian Indians and idolatrous Indians, practicing cannibalism (being immune to foreign languages, he misinterpreted the word“ canabi ”’s, Canary Islands’s name, often used by the Indians, and thought it meant “ cannibals ”and therefore , should be punished "thereby deserve to be punished, ... become slaves: there is no middle path".

Columbus was a good economist: Spanish ships carrying arms, soldiers, and livestock should not have been empty. This is what he wrote to the queen ":

“... From here one might send, in the name of the Holy Trinity, as many slaves as could be sold, as well as a quantity of Brazil (timber - A.F.). If the information I have is correct it appears that we could sell four thousand slaves, who might be worthy twenty millions and more ”(Letter to the Sovereigns, September 1498).

This doesn't have much to do with the Title. Columbus was not an American and he didn't send anyone to Auschtwitz

 

[Disir]

Hitler was jealous that the US was able to legitimize eugenics via law. Eugenics was a thing in the UK, Canada, the US, etc. and so on. Hitler wanted to join the club. Nobody gave a damn about Hitler. And then they saw just how far it could go and...........quietly cut their crap and walked away backwards.

To be clear, are you trying to put some form of moral responsibility for the Holocaust on lawmakers in the South, for passing laws to do shit like not share bathrooms with blacks?


Cause that seems unfair.

Uh.......no. You know......eugenics and compulsory sterilization laws. The first law was in 1907 in the state of Indiana.
EugenicsArchive

Eugenics: Compulsory Sterilization in 50 American States

Then {{meta.pageTitle}}

And that whole little kidnap Appalachian folks and sterilization thing. And Puerto Ricans. And Black women. And experiments were a thing too.

Edwin Black has an excellent book on it.

true that he was influenced by the EUGENICS thing-----but the USA did not invent
that one either-------in fact it goes all the way back to the ancient Greeks who
had no problem leaving "defective" infants exposed on a rock

At no point did I say it was invented by the US. Hitler wasn't influenced by it........he was it. That is how far it could go. Hitler was impressed that the US was able to codify it. On the one hand you have several countries that have these conferences, sharing whatever disturbing data they have and speeches, etc. Where's Germany? Not invited. It's a very uncomfortable chapter in world history and in the US.

Do you consider the fact that the founder of Planned Parenthood was an eugenist, to be an uncomfortable chapter in world history?

I do.

 

[22lcidw]

WOW...

You went all the way back to 1400's to blame AMERICANS for Hitlers KILLING OF JEWS......

Let me guess.. Your an atheist and antisemitic...

Hitler's killing of jews was an issue created by THE CATHOLIC CHURCH---not by
Columbus ----alone

The Catholic Church? That seems like crazy talk.

try paying attention next time you are in church or reading the literature thereof

I've been in church, many times. Never heard anything to support your position.

you may not be paying attention. OR---there are churches and there are churches. You may not be catholic or attend a church much influenced
by the original first reich

I am in my 60's. Went to 12 years of Catholic School and 12 years of the Church that went with it. I never heard one word of hate from a nun, a priest, or a lay teacher. There may be things I disagree with but you are way off base. Nuns would slug you or read you the riot act if you even begin to spout any words that were not nice or not follow doctrine. You generalize and get specific when it suits you. This is why we have problems in the nation.

 

[Correll]

To be clear, are you trying to put some form of moral responsibility for the Holocaust on lawmakers in the South, for passing laws to do shit like not share bathrooms with blacks?


Cause that seems unfair.

Uh.......no. You know......eugenics and compulsory sterilization laws. The first law was in 1907 in the state of Indiana.
EugenicsArchive

Eugenics: Compulsory Sterilization in 50 American States

Then {{meta.pageTitle}}

And that whole little kidnap Appalachian folks and sterilization thing. And Puerto Ricans. And Black women. And experiments were a thing too.

Edwin Black has an excellent book on it.

true that he was influenced by the EUGENICS thing-----but the USA did not invent
that one either-------in fact it goes all the way back to the ancient Greeks who
had no problem leaving "defective" infants exposed on a rock

At no point did I say it was invented by the US. Hitler wasn't influenced by it........he was it. That is how far it could go. Hitler was impressed that the US was able to codify it. On the one hand you have several countries that have these conferences, sharing whatever disturbing data they have and speeches, etc. Where's Germany? Not invited. It's a very uncomfortable chapter in world history and in the US.

Do you consider the fact that the founder of Planned Parenthood was an eugenist, to be an uncomfortable chapter in world history?

I do.

Strange.


An idea stands on it's merits, not on it's source or the messenger. Sanger did what she did BEFORE, the nazis were a thing. And even afterwards, their actions were THEIR actions, not sangers.

 

[sparky]

And so this thread begs the Q.....which of you here will be celebrating Columbus day in the context of the human race actually advancing morally?

~S~

 

[Disir]

Uh.......no. You know......eugenics and compulsory sterilization laws. The first law was in 1907 in the state of Indiana.
EugenicsArchive

Eugenics: Compulsory Sterilization in 50 American States

Then {{meta.pageTitle}}

And that whole little kidnap Appalachian folks and sterilization thing. And Puerto Ricans. And Black women. And experiments were a thing too.

Edwin Black has an excellent book on it.

true that he was influenced by the EUGENICS thing-----but the USA did not invent
that one either-------in fact it goes all the way back to the ancient Greeks who
had no problem leaving "defective" infants exposed on a rock

At no point did I say it was invented by the US. Hitler wasn't influenced by it........he was it. That is how far it could go. Hitler was impressed that the US was able to codify it. On the one hand you have several countries that have these conferences, sharing whatever disturbing data they have and speeches, etc. Where's Germany? Not invited. It's a very uncomfortable chapter in world history and in the US.

Do you consider the fact that the founder of Planned Parenthood was an eugenist, to be an uncomfortable chapter in world history?

I do.

Strange.


An idea stands on it's merits, not on it's source or the messenger. Sanger did what she did BEFORE, the nazis were a thing. And even afterwards, their actions were THEIR actions, not sangers.

I think that people forget that the eugenics movement was very large and world wide. She was a nurse. She went straight into the ghettos where people of all races lived. She looked at women and children that lived in disparate poverty and wanted women to be in control of their bodies. She wanted the children to grow up without competing for attention or starving. This is not a bad thing. She wasn't a racist. This was a complex problem that people are still trying to deal with today. It was a problem that people were trying to deal with before she was born.

I don't think she was the evil bad guy that people make her out to be. I also don't think that Sanger somehow managed to escape many of those ideas. She wasn't a one dimensional character.

And she is dead.

 

[Correll]

true that he was influenced by the EUGENICS thing-----but the USA did not invent
that one either-------in fact it goes all the way back to the ancient Greeks who
had no problem leaving "defective" infants exposed on a rock

At no point did I say it was invented by the US. Hitler wasn't influenced by it........he was it. That is how far it could go. Hitler was impressed that the US was able to codify it. On the one hand you have several countries that have these conferences, sharing whatever disturbing data they have and speeches, etc. Where's Germany? Not invited. It's a very uncomfortable chapter in world history and in the US.

Do you consider the fact that the founder of Planned Parenthood was an eugenist, to be an uncomfortable chapter in world history?

I do.

Strange.


An idea stands on it's merits, not on it's source or the messenger. Sanger did what she did BEFORE, the nazis were a thing. And even afterwards, their actions were THEIR actions, not sangers.

I think that people forget that the eugenics movement was very large and world wide. She was a nurse. She went straight into the ghettos where people of all races lived. She looked at women and children that lived in disparate poverty and wanted women to be in control of their bodies. She wanted the children to grow up without competing for attention or starving. This is not a bad thing. She wasn't a racist. This was a complex problem that people are still trying to deal with today. It was a problem that people were trying to deal with before she was born.

I don't think she was the evil bad guy that people make her out to be. I also don't think that Sanger somehow managed to escape many of those ideas. She wasn't a one dimensional character.

And she is dead.

I agree with all of that. And the fact that Adolf Hitler shared some of her ideas, is irrelevant to what you said.


(Except that she probably was a racist by modern standards. )

 

[Disir]

And so this thread begs the Q.....which of you here will be celebrating Columbus day in the context of the human race actually advancing morally?

~S~

As an Italian-American, I'm not celebrating anyone who maintained that he reached India until the day he died. Further, he never set foot in North America.

I'd really like to know how many people actually celebrated Columbus Day at home and how they did it before somebody stood up and said.......ya know, that guy was pretty shot out.

Hell, it was getting close to becoming something similar to a dead president mattress sale day.

 

[Disir]

At no point did I say it was invented by the US. Hitler wasn't influenced by it........he was it. That is how far it could go. Hitler was impressed that the US was able to codify it. On the one hand you have several countries that have these conferences, sharing whatever disturbing data they have and speeches, etc. Where's Germany? Not invited. It's a very uncomfortable chapter in world history and in the US.

Do you consider the fact that the founder of Planned Parenthood was an eugenist, to be an uncomfortable chapter in world history?

I do.

Strange.


An idea stands on it's merits, not on it's source or the messenger. Sanger did what she did BEFORE, the nazis were a thing. And even afterwards, their actions were THEIR actions, not sangers.

I think that people forget that the eugenics movement was very large and world wide. She was a nurse. She went straight into the ghettos where people of all races lived. She looked at women and children that lived in disparate poverty and wanted women to be in control of their bodies. She wanted the children to grow up without competing for attention or starving. This is not a bad thing. She wasn't a racist. This was a complex problem that people are still trying to deal with today. It was a problem that people were trying to deal with before she was born.

I don't think she was the evil bad guy that people make her out to be. I also don't think that Sanger somehow managed to escape many of those ideas. She wasn't a one dimensional character.

And she is dead.

I agree with all of that. And the fact that Adolf Hitler shared some of her ideas, is irrelevant to what you said.


(Except that she probably was a racist by modern standards. )

Well, she strongly objected to the concept of race or religion or even wealthy vs poor as the deciding factor in whom should procreate. That is the line. However, she said some stupid crap along the way and she supported sterilization of people that had a severe mental illness, like schizophrenia, or were mentally disabled or had severe disabilities. Eugenics was taught in universities in the US. Hitler went as far as it could be taken. There were a whole lot of people that started to slowly back away and run for cover after that. Not enough to make sure that it didn't happen again........

 

[irosie91]

Uh.......no. You know......eugenics and compulsory sterilization laws. The first law was in 1907 in the state of Indiana.
EugenicsArchive

Eugenics: Compulsory Sterilization in 50 American States

Then {{meta.pageTitle}}

And that whole little kidnap Appalachian folks and sterilization thing. And Puerto Ricans. And Black women. And experiments were a thing too.

Edwin Black has an excellent book on it.

true that he was influenced by the EUGENICS thing-----but the USA did not invent
that one either-------in fact it goes all the way back to the ancient Greeks who
had no problem leaving "defective" infants exposed on a rock

At no point did I say it was invented by the US. Hitler wasn't influenced by it........he was it. That is how far it could go. Hitler was impressed that the US was able to codify it. On the one hand you have several countries that have these conferences, sharing whatever disturbing data they have and speeches, etc. Where's Germany? Not invited. It's a very uncomfortable chapter in world history and in the US.

Do you consider the fact that the founder of Planned Parenthood was an eugenist, to be an uncomfortable chapter in world history?

I do.

Strange.


An idea stands on it's merits, not on it's source or the messenger. Sanger did what she did BEFORE, the nazis were a thing. And even afterwards, their actions were THEIR actions, not sangers.

so true-----the vilification of Sanger is obscene. She was an ordinary girl who
suffered badly as a child in a huge Irish family and sought a CURE. She was
not a supremacist. My grandmother had two back alley abortions circa 1930. ---
same problem as Sanger except her parents were jewish refugees

 

[Correll]

Do you consider the fact that the founder of Planned Parenthood was an eugenist, to be an uncomfortable chapter in world history?

I do.

Strange.


An idea stands on it's merits, not on it's source or the messenger. Sanger did what she did BEFORE, the nazis were a thing. And even afterwards, their actions were THEIR actions, not sangers.

I think that people forget that the eugenics movement was very large and world wide. She was a nurse. She went straight into the ghettos where people of all races lived. She looked at women and children that lived in disparate poverty and wanted women to be in control of their bodies. She wanted the children to grow up without competing for attention or starving. This is not a bad thing. She wasn't a racist. This was a complex problem that people are still trying to deal with today. It was a problem that people were trying to deal with before she was born.

I don't think she was the evil bad guy that people make her out to be. I also don't think that Sanger somehow managed to escape many of those ideas. She wasn't a one dimensional character.

And she is dead.

I agree with all of that. And the fact that Adolf Hitler shared some of her ideas, is irrelevant to what you said.


(Except that she probably was a racist by modern standards. )

Well, she strongly objected to the concept of race or religion or even wealthy vs poor as the deciding factor in whom should procreate. That is the line. However, she said some stupid crap along the way and she supported sterilization of people that had a severe mental illness, like schizophrenia, or were mentally disabled or had severe disabilities. Eugenics was taught in universities in the US. Hitler went as far as it could be taken. There were a whole lot of people that started to slowly back away and run for cover after that. Not enough to make sure that it didn't happen again........

If you knew that a child you were going to have, would have a severe disability, would you consider adopting as an alternative?

 

[Disir]

I do.

Strange.


An idea stands on it's merits, not on it's source or the messenger. Sanger did what she did BEFORE, the nazis were a thing. And even afterwards, their actions were THEIR actions, not sangers.

I think that people forget that the eugenics movement was very large and world wide. She was a nurse. She went straight into the ghettos where people of all races lived. She looked at women and children that lived in disparate poverty and wanted women to be in control of their bodies. She wanted the children to grow up without competing for attention or starving. This is not a bad thing. She wasn't a racist. This was a complex problem that people are still trying to deal with today. It was a problem that people were trying to deal with before she was born.

I don't think she was the evil bad guy that people make her out to be. I also don't think that Sanger somehow managed to escape many of those ideas. She wasn't a one dimensional character.

And she is dead.

I agree with all of that. And the fact that Adolf Hitler shared some of her ideas, is irrelevant to what you said.


(Except that she probably was a racist by modern standards. )

Well, she strongly objected to the concept of race or religion or even wealthy vs poor as the deciding factor in whom should procreate. That is the line. However, she said some stupid crap along the way and she supported sterilization of people that had a severe mental illness, like schizophrenia, or were mentally disabled or had severe disabilities. Eugenics was taught in universities in the US. Hitler went as far as it could be taken. There were a whole lot of people that started to slowly back away and run for cover after that. Not enough to make sure that it didn't happen again........

If you knew that a child you were going to have, would have a severe disability, would you consider adopting as an alternative?

I don't know. I have never been faced with it. I would like to think that I was capable of terminating a pregnancy if the birth defects were so severe as to cause pain and inevitable death for that infant. Trisomy 18 and the like.

I don't know that I could live with trusting someone else or even trusting that someone else would eventually come along to care for an infant. Or the adult.

Depending on how severe the disability that might require life long care. Ok. But, when I die will my child wind up on the streets unable to care for himself, beaten, robbed, hungry, cold?

Yep. Not an easy decision and one I don't have to make.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

And so this thread begs the Q.....which of you here will be celebrating Columbus day in the context of the human race actually advancing morally?

~S~

Columbus did not cross the ocean to murder people

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Prologue

October 14th is the National day of the bastard, moral monster, misanthrope, killer and slave trader...

In the center of New York stands a monument to Christopher Columbus. Cities, squares, streets, and the Federal District are named after this person. Columbus Day is an American national holiday.

At the same time, all the monuments to Columbus and Cortes are demolished in Mexico, renaming cities and streets. His name is cursed and oblivious ...

So, whom do we Americans honor?

Since the first contact of Columbus, a Franciscan monk, according to some sources, with the indigenous people of America in Columbus, a slave trader in the recent past, two desires fought in him:

on the one hand, he wanted to assimilate them, so that they were like he wanted the Indians to be like himself, and on the other, to convert them to Christianity. He wanted to convert the Indians to propagate the Gospel. This intention was the fundamental to Columbus’s initial project. He declared: “I have known that they were people disposed to submit themselves to and to convert to out Holly Faith much more readily by love than by force (!!!)”.

He wrote to the Queen of Spain that “These people have no religion, nor are they idolators, but very gentle and ignorant of evil and do not even know how to kill one another ...and we ” would hold them all in subjection and do with them that you could wish ... ”

He wanted to convert the Indians to propagate the Gospel. This intention was the fundamental to Columbus’s initial project. He declared: “I have known that they were people disposed to submit themselves to and to convert to out Holly Faith much more readily by love than by force”.

He also wrote to the queen of Spain that “These people have no religion, nor are they idolators, but very gentle and ignorant of evil and do not even know how to kill one another…” … fifty men Your Highnesses would hold them all in subjection and do with them that you could wish…”

But then something went wrong. It turned out that the Indians did not want to accept a culture alien to them, in particular, the Christian religion.

Here is what Bartholome, the brother of the slave trader Columbus, wrote about this:

“After having left the chapel, these men flung the images to the ground, covered them with a heap of earth (the first sign that they had religious ideas about how to fight evil - A.F.) and pissed upon it. "

Watching that Bartholome decided to punish Indians just in the Christian fashion:

“As lieutenant of the Viceroy and governor of the islands, he brought these wretched men to justice and, their crimes being duly attested to, he caused them to be burned alive in public” (Ramon Pane, in Columbus, 62, 26).

The Indians received the first visual lesson on how to kill. Moreover, not just kill, but with particular cruelty and sadism…


But then something went wrong.

“After having left the chapel, these men flung the images to the ground, covered them with a heap of earth and pissed upon it”.

Watching that Bartholome Columbus brother) decided to punish Indians just in the Christian fashion:

“As lieutenant of the Viceroy and governor of the islands, he brought these wretched men to justice and, their crimes being duly attested to, he caused them to be burned alive in public” (Ramon Pane, in Columbus, 62, 26).

So, Columbus gave the Indians, people, “... who did not know how to kill one another” the first visual lesson of Christian cruelty ...

I want to note that the Christian religion in history was everywhere imposed by violence. In Russia, in particular, the so-called Prince Vladimir (in fact, he was not a “prince”, but received a document on the right to reign from the Tatars to rule in Russia), allegedly the son of a Jewish woman, the housekeeper of his father Svyatoslav, drove the inhabitants of the city of Kiev into the Dnieper River with “fire and sword” and carried out baptization.

The struggle with the Christian religion in Russia lasted two hundred years. Her victims were hundreds of thousands of Slavs, adherents of their faith.

A little later, Columbus changed his views. He decided that his mission was to rob the Indians of gold and give them the Christian religion in return. Spaniards give religion and take gold as for exchange.

During the fourth voyage Columbus finally understood that Indians did not seem especially enthusiastic about the declaration of Spanish sovereignty over their lands and them (by this time they finally began to understand the essence of the rite of establishing the Spanish flag on their land).

When the Spaniards began to build houses and fortresses the land of their leader (Columbus exchanged lands of the Chief for a pair of gloves and a red hat), the Chief ordered to destroy and burn those houses and kill all Spaniards in return (by this time the Spaniards had taught the once innocent Indians a good lesson in cruelty.) Columbus ordered the Chief’s extended family and relative to be held hostage to send them to Spain.

Here is what the son of the former and future slave trader, Franciscan monk Christopher Columbus, Ferdinand wrote about this:

"The remaining prisoners were seized with despair, for they had not had not escaped with their comrades, and it was discovered the next morning that they had hanged themselves from the bridge-poles with some ropes they had managed to find there, bending their knees to do so, for otherwise there was not enough room for them to hang themselves properly ”

That was the time when the killer, Columbus, shifted from assimilationalizm, based on principal of equality, to an ideology of enslavement. To be consistent, the criminal established distinctions between “innocent, potentially Christian Indians and idolatrous Indians, practicing cannibalism (being immune to foreign languages, he misinterpreted the word“ canabi ”’s, Canary Islands’s name, often used by the Indians, and thought it meant “ cannibals ”and therefore , should be punished "thereby deserve to be punished, ... become slaves: there is no middle path".

Columbus was a good economist: Spanish ships carrying arms, soldiers, and livestock should not have been empty. This is what he wrote to the queen ":

“... From here one might send, in the name of the Holy Trinity, as many slaves as could be sold, as well as a quantity of Brazil (timber - A.F.). If the information I have is correct it appears that we could sell four thousand slaves, who might be worthy twenty millions and more ”(Letter to the Sovereigns, September 1498).

Columbus was a product of his times
Virtue preening is silly

 

[sparky]

And so this thread begs the Q.....which of you here will be celebrating Columbus day in the context of the human race actually advancing morally?

~S~

Columbus did not cross the ocean to murder people

Really, is that the story now.....

~S~

 

[Alexandre Fedorovski]

try paying attention next time you are in church or reading the literature thereof

I've been in church, many times. Never heard anything to support your position.

you may not be paying attention. OR---there are churches and there are churches. You may not be catholic or attend a church much influenced
by the original first reich

I would have noticed that. And though I am not catholic, I have married into a catholic family. Been part of it for many years. Never heard the slightest hint of anti-semitism.

In your family? ok so? That's your family. I am referring to church teachings.

From when? The Dark Ages?

It looks I need write a separate chapter on the "Christian" churces participation in the American genocide...
OK.Priests immediately before the execution of Native Americans converted them to Christianity. The devilish conveyor worked for about three centuries

 

[whitehall]

If you want to go back to the 13th century for historic perspective, why single out Columbus? Every nation in the known world at that time engaged in some sort of slave trade. Some still do. It's not healthy to try to try to minimize the effects of the 20th century Jewish Holocaust with pretend outrage over a 13th century Spanish explorer.

 

[Correll]

I've been in church, many times. Never heard anything to support your position.

you may not be paying attention. OR---there are churches and there are churches. You may not be catholic or attend a church much influenced
by the original first reich

I would have noticed that. And though I am not catholic, I have married into a catholic family. Been part of it for many years. Never heard the slightest hint of anti-semitism.

In your family? ok so? That's your family. I am referring to church teachings.

From when? The Dark Ages?

It looks I need write a separate chapter on the "Christian" churces participation in the American genocide...
OK.Priests immediately before the execution of Native Americans converted them to Christianity. The devilish conveyor worked for about three centuries

Sounds like quite the stretch. Hey, what groups do you identify with. I want to find examples of them, from centuries ago, of wrongdoing, so that I can hold you morally responsible for their actions.


Sound like fun?


Ok, go.

 

[irosie91]

stick to current teachings-----fine with me