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.
So many people with limited knowledge of history just have been taught one side of the situation, a lot of European settler narratives were about "liberation" instead of brutal oppression etc. which we both know is BS.
However, most people are uncomfortable recognizing that pretty much....we're all a-holes regardless of pigment and that what separated the winners and losers was not moral but rather better weapons or tactics.
Here is a good example for you. Total number shipped to the US as slaves is reliably <1mil including those that died enroute.
The alliance under his leadership survived Zwide's first assault at the Battle of Gqokli Hill (1818). Within two years, Shaka had defeated Zwide at the Battle of Mhlatuze River (1820) and broken up the Ndwandwe alliance, some of whom in turn began a murderous campaign against other Nguni tribes and clans, setting in motion what became known as Defecane or Mfecane, a mass-migration of tribes fleeing the remnants of the Ndwandwe fleeing the Zulu. The death toll has never been satisfactorily determined, but the whole region became nearly depopulated. Normal estimates for the death toll during this period range from 1 million to 2 million people.
In summation, I don't care if they call it indigenous peoples day or Columbus day....because they were both a-holes bent on conquest. Something to recognize when cheering either group.
The Europeans have just MORE RECENTLY in the big scheme of things been better at it after getting their own arses kicked if you look at history.
In some urbanized areas of the Aztec and Inca empires, native Americans suffered 90% loss of life due to old world diseases. It is probably the greatest proportional loss of life ever for a civilization. Do you blame Columbus for this?
That's a false analogy. But that is how Pre-Columbian America operated. It's how Indians operated against settlers too.
Yep. People need to understand the difference between ability and intent.
If Bob and Betty both want to rob me while jogging and Bob trips running up to stab me....he's not somehow better than Betty who does and takes my wallet. Betty was just more capable.
Yep. People need to understand the difference between ability and intent.
If Bob and Betty both want to rob me while jogging and Bob trips running up to stab me....he's not somehow better than Betty who does and takes my wallet. Betty was just more capable.
Good point. The muslims tried and failed to forcefully take over Europe up till the colonial era and gave up. The fact they did not succeed in taking over Europe and likely would've went on to the Americas does not make them morally superior.
Anyone else would or did do everything and worse than the Europeans did if they had the capability at the time.
A lot of leftist are "anti-capability" and are ironically the ones who see whites as supreme and that's why they are against them.
What someone said earlier - Columbus never made it to the mainland of N. America.
However, I do "blame" him for the indigenous people that he killed and enslaved and allowed to be raped/mistreated and I do believe that his treatment of the native population set a "standard" that Europeans followed for decades (centuries) after he landed on the island of Hispaniola.
I had to read portions of his journal in college. He was a horrible person who basically bragged about how kind, generous, and naive the native people were and invited folks in Europe to come and kill and enslave them because they didn't have weapons and were nice....yet there are folks today who still like to claim that said colonizers were the "civilized" ones.
Reviewed most of the thread. Odd that so many posters keep acting like Columbus got to North America or even Central or South America.....He didn't.
He initially went to what is now the Dominican Republic. In his journals he wrote about the indigenous population of the islands - the Arawak and Taino people:
Quote:
As soon as I arrived in the Indies, on the first Island which I found, I took some of the natives by force in order that they might learn and might give me information of whatever there is in these parts.
he also wrote:
Quote:
They ... brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks' bells. They willingly traded everything they owned... . They were well-built, with good bodies and handsome features.... They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane... . They would make fine servants.... With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.
He actually did do the bold....
You all are acting like specific tribes in N. America represent all of the native populations of this hemisphere. Different tribes had different customs. Just like all Europeans were note colonizers going around pillaging the world, all Africans were not engaging in the slave trade and all indigenous people in what is now called the Americas were not all violent, warring folks.
People are people. However, violence and domination is something that some see as "good" and some see as "bad."
Whoever is doing the subjugation, violent acts upon people in distant lands for no other reason for their greed, IMO they are "bad." This goes for Columbus and crew and Africans who warred and sold off black people from that continent and murderous indigenous tribes who tormented their own and other tribes for greed/power.
Columbus did set a precedent on encouraging Europeans to come to the Americas and subjugate the native tribes and get what they wanted for them. It was all done for greed and power.
So it comes down to if you believe that greed and the thirst for power are positive attributes or not in regards to people who behave in a "civilized" manner.
Facts are that specific European people went around the world and claimed other people were less civilized than them and they reasoned that due to them being less civilized, they (the Europeans) had the right to be violent, horrible people to the others. So it also comes down to what you view as civilized behavior versus savage behavior. If you look at it from a realistic perspective IMO you'd recognize that those who cause havoc, death, rape, who focus primarily on greed and power - they are the savages. All people can and do have those amongst us who are savage but it is silly to try to make excuses for historic savages. You are basically perpetuating those same silly excuses that Columbus and others who followed him made.
Columbus completed several voyages to the Americas and to the Bahamas, central America and south America. Those islands he discovered on his first voyage are considered part of North America. He even set up the first colony since the Norse explorations in Haiti.
Quote:
12 October 1492, in which he wrote of them: "Many of the men I have seen have scars on their bodies, and when I made signs to them to find out how this happened, they indicated that people from other nearby islands come to San Salvador to capture them; they defend themselves the best they can. I believe that people from the mainland come here to take them as slaves. ."
In this thread, I see posters stating that if *insert group* had the opportunity to cross the seas they would have did the same thing as Columbus and other Europeans. I don't believe that to be correct. The fact of the matter is, the Europeans(specifically the Portuguese and Spanish) did not have a monopoly on maritime expeditions during the 15th century. Chinese royalty (Ming dynasty) just 60-70 years earlier had similar ambitions to cross the big oceans to various new lands and actually were capable of not only building ships that could cross the Atlantic but even colonize a very large portion(if not all) of the world, given gunpowder was invented in China. The difference is the Chinese had the intent of establishing whatever new land they cross to become part of their tribute system, not to colonize. It has been documented that their junks have at least reached Africa's east coast and made contact with the locals.
Its no secret that many groups of people have been very brutal to one another shortly after first contact. It should also be stated that a few of the more advanced civilizations did not always engaged in mass genocide upon the subjugated populace, nor did they created a system of perpetual slavery in the detriment of the indigenous communities. One of the most prominent characteristics of Muslims(Moors) during their initial conquest of Europe was their acts of chivalry. Christopher's actions in Hispaniola were condemned even during those times. A time period doesn't necessarily make one's actions less barbaric, savage. Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin should have been ambassadors of social justice when considering they came up after the age of Enlightenment.
Last edited by Chicagoland60426; 10-10-2018 at 01:14 AM..
The millions alive today owe a debt of gratitude to those who displaced the indigenous stone age culture, their inefficient means of food production, and incessant fighting to expand/defend hunting grounds.
Yes, there is a moral imperative to relocate 1000 so 100,000 can live.
In terms of land usage, hunter gatherers require the most, followed by nomadic herdsmen, followed by sedentary farmers.
The Europeans, with their advanced agriculture and exclusive ownership of land clashed with the Amerindians, whose culture and lifestyle was incompatible.
The leftists have a goal to destroy traditional authority and thus its history, so revisionists will concoct nonsense to revile anything that opposes their magnanimous plans to confiscate all property and enslave all people.... for our own good.
One of the most prominent characteristics of Muslims(Moors) during their initial conquest of Europe was their acts of chivalry.
Perhaps you need to recheck your sources.
Islam is notoriously blood thirsty with a 270 million body count (conservative) versus 830 million body count (Islamic sources).
Tears of Jihad (1400 years and counting)
Kafir Deaths (cumulative)
• Christians : 60 million
• Buddhists : 10 million
• Hindus : 80 million
• Africans : 120 million
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total : 270 million
Source : www.politicalislam.com
(Not to mention the millions captured, enslaved and abused.)
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.
