Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to go with the "Genocide is never OK, even "accounting for the time"" school of thought. Columbus was certainly sanctioned for it, that is the reason why he was stripped of his title and punished.
I mean, he cut off the arms of indians who didn't find enough gold to his taste. Even during the Renaissance this was distasteful.
In the centuries after Columbus "discovered" America, The Iroquois were expanding eastward into Algonquin territory. The torture and genocide that they were enacting on those tribes, including putting babies on sharpened poles and inserting flaming brands into the... orifices of women, would even make Columbus blush.
Did those Iroquois learn nothing from Columbus's crimes?
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to go with the "Genocide is never OK, even "accounting for the time"" school of thought. .
You are a perfect example of misinformation swinging the other way - the pademics that killed most of the indians of Hispaniola occured after Columbus's death actually. I can't see him fitting the definition of genocide, although he was certainly guilty of attrocities.
According to anthropologist Jack Weatherford, "Columbus set a precedent virtually every other explorer followed in the succeeding years: he financed his explorations by trading in the flesh of captured Indian slaves." In the first ten years of Columbus' voyages, thousands of slaves were sent to Seville and sold in cities throughout Europe. Thousands more were forcibly pressed into working early Caribbean mines and plantations. The rich silver mines of Hondurus later attracted Spanish adventurers and the Indians were brutally exploited.
An account of Columbus' second voyage written by crew member Miguel de Cuneo, relates that, of 1600 Indian slaves taken in a 1495 slave raid, only 550 could be taken on the ships. The remainder were divided among those men staying on the island. About two hundred of the 550 Indians taken aboard died and their bodies disposed at sea. De Cuneo's mentions
a gift by Columbus of an attractive Caribe woman given to him, whom de Cuneo admits he managed to subdue "only after a long fight and a thorough beating."
Note: Quoted material is from Native Roots: How the Indians Enriched America by Jack Weatherford. 1
-----
Nonsense. He brought a few Indians, parrots and fruits.
Those Indians were only used as illustration. I don't doubt that Columbus tried to make money selling Indians (or whatever), but he failed.
The ones that arrived alive caught the attention of Queen Isabella and they were freed.
All that text seems extracted from the Black Legend.
Last edited by Nosferatu; 10-13-2009 at 03:45 PM..
Indians killed Indians way before Columbus showed up. Some of those clashes were very violent and catastrophic.
Superior technology made the arrival of Columbus more bloody.
New diseases killed more natives than anything else. That was not planned.
Killings continue in mass to this day around the world.
Blame Columbus? Don't think so......
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to go with the "Genocide is never OK, even "accounting for the time"" school of thought. Columbus was certainly sanctioned for it, that is the reason why he was stripped of his title and punished.
I mean, he cut off the arms of indians who didn't find enough gold to his taste. Even during the Renaissance this was distasteful.
------
Colombus was a medieval man.
Yes, cutting limbs and skinning people, or cutting ears and noses were quite entertaining in those days, not bad taste (people were used to it). It was also entertainment. No TV back then.
He was voracious concerning money and power. Colombus was punished and jailed by the Crown because he was a nepotist, he put "hidalgos" to work and he confused Crown Property with his own, apart from that, as a manager or "Admiral", he was a complete disaster.
According to anthropologist Jack Weatherford, "Columbus set a precedent virtually every other explorer followed in the succeeding years: he financed his explorations by trading in the flesh of captured Indian slaves."
That is factually false, and I don't care who wrote it. Columbus captured slaves indeed, but soon found that the death rate, both from working in the mines and bringing them over the Europe, was unprofitable. No explorere financed his exploration with indian slaves, as again, they succumbed to desease to quickly. They (or the governments that sponsored such colonization) financed exploration by gold and and later setting up colonies to grow tobacco, sugar, etc...and by that time they found out it was much more profitable to import african slaves.
The mere suggestion that Columbus founded the institution of slavery is laughable. As it had of course existed for centuries (including among american indian cultures).
^people are interpreting history incorrectly. when it's faulty is when you use the past to justify today and vice versa. it was what it was but you certainly don't use the evil or pain of the past to justify it since there was evil then as today but understand that it took place. you still have to call a spade a spade no matter if all were bad and certainly there were good people in the past no matter what creed who were victims of the mayhem just as today.
Indians killed Indians way before Columbus showed up. Some of those clashes were very violent and catastrophic.
Superior technology made the arrival of Columbus more bloody.
New diseases killed more natives than anything else. That was not planned.
Killings continue in mass to this day around the world.
Blame Columbus? Don't think so......
and you are also putting a spin on it. killings continueing today don't justify it anymore than yesterday nor does anything that ails us whether we have a current solution to the problem.
"blame" is relative in that pretending that it was considered 'okay' to do something in the past does not justify it. we could say they were ignorant in the past or a person cut and dry of their time can be a bit misleading when there are also people in the past who did wrong and knew they were being immoral or hurting others or taking advantage etc just like today. there are people today who believe it's justifiable to oppress others and all manner of things.
they were people of thier time but they are not free from responsibility and or motivations of thier actions. that is also a copout.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
