Video essay about Columbus, bad but not pure evil?

[Politesse]

Taken in context, Columbus was probably like any other man, only more so.

Also taken in context, the greatest mistake the Native Americans made was letting any European return to Europe alive.

So genocide is good if white not people of no color subhuman cave beasts are the victim? Columbus brought multiculturism and diversity to the Americas. Aren't they good things?

Eldarion Lathria

You define fighting off an invasion force from another country "genocide"? Did words stop having meanings or something? Bronzeage did not suggest or recommend that the Taino cross the ocean sea and massacre the population of Spain in reprisal.

 

[steve_bank]

The major cultures in the Americas over time were well versed in conquest, genocide, and brutality to each other. Some were peaceful some were imperial so to speak.

 

[Politesse]

The major cultures in the Americas over time were well versed in conquest, genocide, and brutality to each other. Some were peaceful some were imperial so to speak.

A few nations were imperial "so to speak", so it's okay to murder everyone with the same skin color as them, regardless of their personal level of complicity in this alleged enterprise? Is that your argument? Can I rape and murder you, since I happen to know that many of the "major cultures of Europe" were "well versed in conquest, genocide and brutality"?

 

[steve_bank]

The major cultures in the Americas over time were well versed in conquest, genocide, and brutality to each other. Some were peaceful some were imperial so to speak.

A few nations were imperial "so to speak", so it's okay to murder everyone with the same skin color as them, regardless of their personal level of complicity in this alleged enterprise? Is that your argument? Can I rape and murder you, since I happen to know that many of the "major cultures of Europe" were "well versed in conquest, genocide and brutality"?

A predictable knee jerk progressive type response I expected. In said noting of justifying in moral hindsight the abuse of Native Americans. The Europeans dominated due to superior weapons and technology.

South American cultures did not seem to be interested in science in general. The wheel was never fully exploited. The Incas were fantastic civil engineers. They surveyed mountain roads that would rival modern surveying equipment.

An objective view looks at the entire context. North American plains natives fought battles over location

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The major cultures in the Americas over time were well versed in conquest, genocide, and brutality to each other. Some were peaceful some were imperial so to speak.

A few nations were imperial "so to speak", so it's okay to murder everyone with the same skin color as them, regardless of their personal level of complicity in this alleged enterprise? Is that your argument? Can I rape and murder you, since I happen to know that many of the "major cultures of Europe" were "well versed in conquest, genocide and brutality"?

How on earth do you get that from what steve_bank actually wrote? I would like to know the thought process behind that leap.

 

[Politesse]

The major cultures in the Americas over time were well versed in conquest, genocide, and brutality to each other. Some were peaceful some were imperial so to speak.

A few nations were imperial "so to speak", so it's okay to murder everyone with the same skin color as them, regardless of their personal level of complicity in this alleged enterprise? Is that your argument? Can I rape and murder you, since I happen to know that many of the "major cultures of Europe" were "well versed in conquest, genocide and brutality"?

How on earth do you get that from what steve_bank actually wrote? I would like to know the thought process behind that leap.

I'm baffled as to what other message could be contrived. If it isn't an attempt to draw a false equivalencies and thus excuse genocide, what the hell is it? To a non-racist, how are wars on the Great Plains even relevant to a conversation about Hispaniola?

 

[steve_bank]

Progressive's are baffled often by the concept of unbiased objectivity.

Any criticism of non white groups is considered racists. It can be revisionist history. Only Europeans did things we consider immoral today.

From a regional history I read the native chief for whom Seattle is named made his tribal reputation by single handedly intercepting a rival tribe's raiding party.

 

[Politesse]

Progressive's are baffled often by the concept of unbiased objectivity.

Any criticism of non white groups is considered racists. It can be revisionist history. Only Europeans did things we consider immoral today.

From a regional history I read the native chief for whom Seattle is named made his tribal reputation by single handedly intercepting a rival tribe's raiding party.

From your perspective, why was your contribution useful or relevant to the proceeding discussion, which was about questioning whether Columbus' acts were excuseable?

I am by no means incapable of criticizing "non-whites", a category that I indeed entirely reject as valid, especially in a discussion of the 15th century; the whole idea of "whiteness" was not invented until two centuries later.

 

[skepticalbip]

Progressive's are baffled often by the concept of unbiased objectivity.

Any criticism of non white groups is considered racists. It can be revisionist history. Only Europeans did things we consider immoral today.

From a regional history I read the native chief for whom Seattle is named made his tribal reputation by single handedly intercepting a rival tribe's raiding party.

From your perspective, why was your contribution useful or relevant to the proceeding discussion, which was about questioning whether Columbus' acts were excuseable?

I am by no means incapable of criticizing "non-whites", a category that I indeed entirely reject as valid, especially in a discussion of the 15th century; the whole idea of "whiteness" was not invented until two centuries later.

Apparently Steve is trying to make the point that modern PC culture selects a specific group or individual to demonize, implying that what they did was extraordinarily evil when compared to the innocence of other groups of peoples. Peoples around the world did and do things that should be condemned given today's morality. It does not mean that evil of one culture should be excused because some other culture does evil. It is quite proper to condemn the actions of the Spanish conquistadors just as it is quite proper to condemn the actions of the Maya for raiding other cities for captives then sacrificing them by cutting their hears out while they are still alive as sacrifices to their gods.

In our current PC culture, it is a "good" to condemn Europeans today because, in the past, some Europeans engaged in despicable actions. But any condemnation today of past despicable actions by cultures that are not European is called "racism".

 

[Politesse]

Progressive's are baffled often by the concept of unbiased objectivity.

Any criticism of non white groups is considered racists. It can be revisionist history. Only Europeans did things we consider immoral today.

From a regional history I read the native chief for whom Seattle is named made his tribal reputation by single handedly intercepting a rival tribe's raiding party.

From your perspective, why was your contribution useful or relevant to the proceeding discussion, which was about questioning whether Columbus' acts were excuseable?

I am by no means incapable of criticizing "non-whites", a category that I indeed entirely reject as valid, especially in a discussion of the 15th century; the whole idea of "whiteness" was not invented until two centuries later.

Apparently Steve is trying to make the point that modern PC culture selects a specific group or individual to demonize, implying that what they did was extraordinarily evil when compared to the innocence of other groups of peoples. Peoples around the world did and do things that should be condemned given today's morality. It does not mean that evil of one culture should be excused because some other culture does evil. It is quite proper to condemn the actions of the Spanish conquistadors just as it is quite proper to condemn the actions of the Maya for raiding other cities for captives then sacrificing them by cutting their hears out while they are still alive as sacrifices to their gods.

In our current PC culture, it is a "good" to condemn Europeans today because, in the past, some Europeans engaged in despicable actions. But any condemnation today of past despicable actions by cultures that are not European is called "racism".

Who said that cultures of any sort were beyond criticism? No one in this thread. This thread is about whether Columbus actions were excusable. Bringing up the war career of Chief Seattle is as relevant as complaining about Napoleon in a thread about the conquest of India by the Mughals.

I don't see anyone here excessively praising the Taino nations, or indeed having any idea who they are or were. They certainly weren't pacifists, but that shouldn't have any bearing on whether Columbus' actions were right or wrong. By his own accounts, he was killing people for money, political conquest, and sexual access. Not to liberate the Caribs from Taino attacks. And definitely not to save people from the depredations of the 19th Sioux, however that might work. Those peoples are connected only by Steve's belief that they are of the same "race".

 

[skepticalbip]

Apparently Steve is trying to make the point that modern PC culture selects a specific group or individual to demonize, implying that what they did was extraordinarily evil when compared to the innocence of other groups of peoples. Peoples around the world did and do things that should be condemned given today's morality. It does not mean that evil of one culture should be excused because some other culture does evil. It is quite proper to condemn the actions of the Spanish conquistadors just as it is quite proper to condemn the actions of the Maya for raiding other cities for captives then sacrificing them by cutting their hears out while they are still alive as sacrifices to their gods.

In our current PC culture, it is a "good" to condemn Europeans today because, in the past, some Europeans engaged in despicable actions. But any condemnation today of past despicable actions by cultures that are not European is called "racism".

Who said that cultures of any sort were beyond criticism? No one in this thread. This thread is about whether Columbus actions were excusable. Bringing up the war career of Chief Seattle is as relevant as complaining about Napoleon in a thread about the conquest of India by the Mughals.

I don't see anyone here excessively praising the Taino nations, or indeed having any idea who they are or were. They certainly weren't pacifists, but that shouldn't have any bearing on whether Columbus' actions were right or wrong. By his own accounts, he was killing people for money, political conquest, and sexual access. Not to liberate the Caribs from Taino attacks. And definitely not to save people from the depredations of the 19th Sioux, however that might work. Those peoples are connected only by Steve's belief that they are of the same "race".

Reread my post. I said nothing about any of those things. I only stated what I saw the point of what Steve's post was. You had asked.

It looked like a reaction to the typical SJW's reason for bringing up Columbus - to paint all "white people" as evil and all other groups as innocent victims of "white people".

ETA:
You may note that Steve lives near Seattle. He has likely seen the mobs of antifa SJW in that city screaming their curses condemning and blaming "white people" for all the worlds ills. Their highest curse is to call someone a "white man". If so then that likely makes him more sensitive to the SJW hatred for "white people".

 

[Politesse]

Apparently Steve is trying to make the point that modern PC culture selects a specific group or individual to demonize, implying that what they did was extraordinarily evil when compared to the innocence of other groups of peoples. Peoples around the world did and do things that should be condemned given today's morality. It does not mean that evil of one culture should be excused because some other culture does evil. It is quite proper to condemn the actions of the Spanish conquistadors just as it is quite proper to condemn the actions of the Maya for raiding other cities for captives then sacrificing them by cutting their hears out while they are still alive as sacrifices to their gods.

In our current PC culture, it is a "good" to condemn Europeans today because, in the past, some Europeans engaged in despicable actions. But any condemnation today of past despicable actions by cultures that are not European is called "racism".

Who said that cultures of any sort were beyond criticism? No one in this thread. This thread is about whether Columbus actions were excusable. Bringing up the war career of Chief Seattle is as relevant as complaining about Napoleon in a thread about the conquest of India by the Mughals.

I don't see anyone here excessively praising the Taino nations, or indeed having any idea who they are or were. They certainly weren't pacifists, but that shouldn't have any bearing on whether Columbus' actions were right or wrong. By his own accounts, he was killing people for money, political conquest, and sexual access. Not to liberate the Caribs from Taino attacks. And definitely not to save people from the depredations of the 19th Sioux, however that might work. Those peoples are connected only by Steve's belief that they are of the same "race".

Reread my post. I said nothing about any of those things. I only stated what I saw the point of what Steve's post was. You had asked.

It looked like a reaction to the typical SJW's reason for bringing up Columbus - to paint all "white people" as evil and all other groups as innocent victims of "white people".

ETA:
You may note that Steve lives near Seattle. He has likely seen the mobs of antifa SJW in that city screaming their curses condemning and blaming "white people" for all the worlds ills. Their highest curse is to call someone a "white man". If so then that likely makes him more sensitive to the SJW hatred for "white people".

So your defense of Steve is that he was striking a blow against a hypothetical group of white-haters who aren't in this thread but supposedly exist. Because the only reason to protest open celebration of the Colombian genocide is "hating white people", I guess?

 

[skepticalbip]

Reread my post. I said nothing about any of those things. I only stated what I saw the point of what Steve's post was. You had asked.

It looked like a reaction to the typical SJW's reason for bringing up Columbus - to paint all "white people" as evil and all other groups as innocent victims of "white people".

ETA:
You may note that Steve lives near Seattle. He has likely seen the mobs of antifa SJW in that city screaming their curses condemning and blaming "white people" for all the worlds ills. Their highest curse is to call someone a "white man". If so then that likely makes him more sensitive to the SJW hatred for "white people".

So your defense of Steve is that he was striking a blow against a hypothetical group of white-haters who aren't in this thread but supposedly exist. Because the only reason to protest open celebration of the Colombian genocide is "hating white people", I guess?

Just damned. You read a hell of a lot into what other people write. Can you only think in straw men?

... I offered no defense of Steve. I only stated what I think he was talking about and why. You had asked why he posted.
... Antifa and social justice warriors are not a hypothetical groups. They are quite real.
... No one celebrates genocide or the death of the natives. Italians celebrate Columbus because he was a notable Italian.

 

[Politesse]

Reread my post. I said nothing about any of those things. I only stated what I saw the point of what Steve's post was. You had asked.

It looked like a reaction to the typical SJW's reason for bringing up Columbus - to paint all "white people" as evil and all other groups as innocent victims of "white people".

ETA:
You may note that Steve lives near Seattle. He has likely seen the mobs of antifa SJW in that city screaming their curses condemning and blaming "white people" for all the worlds ills. Their highest curse is to call someone a "white man". If so then that likely makes him more sensitive to the SJW hatred for "white people".

So your defense of Steve is that he was striking a blow against a hypothetical group of white-haters who aren't in this thread but supposedly exist. Because the only reason to protest open celebration of the Colombian genocide is "hating white people", I guess?

Just damned. You read a hell of a lot into what other people write. Can you only think in straw men?

... I offered no defense of Steve. I only stated what I think he was talking about and why. You had asked why he posted.
... Antifa and social justice warriors are not a hypothetical groups. They are quite real.
... No one celebrates genocide or the death of the natives. Italians celebrate Columbus because he was a notable Italian.

So you were merely trying to be helpful? If so, I think that this attempt has failed. Like Steve, you're bringing in an awful lot of non-sequiturs into a supposed history discussion. I mean, am I really supposed to get into an argument about Antifa here?? What does that gave to do with anything?

 

[Politesse]

And if it's a question of Italian pride, I'm okay with that, but why not have a holiday in honor of someone who is

A. Actually Italian

B. Maybe even Italian-American, who knows?

C. Not considered a violent autocrat by half of the national population.

I don't think anyone minds having an Italian culture & heritage day. Marconi Day is coming up on the 25th, and I have never heard anyone object to it on racial or any other grounds.

But as a PR move, having a Columbus Day makes about as much sense as having a Mussolini Day. I mean, he too was "bad but not pure evil" and accomplished some great deeds in his time, did he not?

 

[skepticalbip]

And if it's a question of Italian pride, I'm okay with that, but why not have a holiday in honor of someone who is

A. Actually Italian

Columbus was born and grew up in Genoa Italy. For reasonable people (especially Italians), that makes him Italian. He was unable to convince the Italian government to finance his voyage so resorted to asking Spain to finance him... they did.

B. Maybe even Italian-American, who knows?

Because Italian-Americans are not Italian. They are Americans who can trace their ancestry to Italy. Besides, who exactly has the right to tell Italians who they honor?

C. Not considered a violent autocrat by half of the national population.

A new phenomenon that arose only a few decades ago, long after Columbus day was declared. Just because some non-Italians hate Columbus doesn't mean that most Italians don't still honor him.

I don't think anyone minds having an Italian culture & heritage day. Marconi Day is coming up on the 25th, and I have never heard anyone object to it on racial or any other grounds.

I'm sure that Italians are relieved that you don't mind them honoring their culture and heritage.

 

[steve_bank]

politesse

The OP itself ' Columbus bad but not pure evil' is biased and a bit silly. And now we are talking about Italian pride? Nonsense. He was born in Genoa before there was an Italian nationalism/ He was under contract to the Spanish crown. How about Amerigo Vespucci? Captain Cook? Pissarro? Cortez?

I said you can not just look at it like a black and white dichotomy, you also have to look at the native cultures as well. By our moral views today pretty much all colures would be 'evil' in some way. But then that was the 15th century.

Other than bashing people of European descent in this country and stirring up bigotry what is the point of debating how evil Columbus was?

You made a knee jerk response of racism and got called out on it. Move on.

 

[skepticalbip]

politesse

The OP itself ' Columbus bad but not pure evil' is biased and a bit silly. And now we are talking about Italian pride? Nonsense. He was born in Genoa before there was an Italian nationalism/ He was under contract to the Spanish crown. How about Amerigo Vespucci? Captain Cook? Pissarro? Cortez?

I said you can not just look at it like a black and white dichotomy, you also have to look at the native cultures as well. By our moral views today pretty much all colures would be 'evil' in some way. But then that was the 15th century.

Other than bashing people of European descent in this country and stirring up bigotry what is the point of debating how evil Columbus was?

You made a knee jerk response of racism and got called out on it. Move on.

Well said.

I think that Poitesse should actually watch that video that was in the OP which shoots down most of the claims that he/she is making about Columbus..... nah, that would leave little to viscerally react to with steaming hatred. Besides, it is easier to just accept the divisive bull shit that is promoted by the current PC culture.

 

[Politesse]

politesse

The OP itself ' Columbus bad but not pure evil' is biased and a bit silly. And now we are talking about Italian pride? Nonsense. He was born in Genoa before there was an Italian nationalism/ He was under contract to the Spanish crown. How about Amerigo Vespucci? Captain Cook? Pissarro? Cortez?

I said you can not just look at it like a black and white dichotomy, you also have to look at the native cultures as well. By our moral views today pretty much all colures would be 'evil' in some way. But then that was the 15th century.

Other than bashing people of European descent in this country and stirring up bigotry what is the point of debating how evil Columbus was?

You made a knee jerk response of racism and got called out on it. Move on.

What's the point? Correcting a propagandistic and inaccurate model of history that was taught as doctrine for centuries. I am more than willing to die on the hill of evidence-based history education.

The only people talking about race here are you and your friends. As I said earlier, I think it is anachronistic at best, and ethically dubious, to apply modern notions of race to a 15th century context.

 

[repoman]

In the video and earlier in the thread there is a discussion that a sizeable portion of the the violent and genocidal attributed to Columbus were actually done by his contemporaries or within a couple generations after Columbus.

These acts DID happen, attribution of responsibility is a bit more tricky.