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.
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.)
"Acts of Chivalry" according to Muslim historians. Mohamad created 1400 years of modern organized Slavery that is still in use in North Africa to this day. Mohamad a murdering Slaving Pediphile
Columbus was a flawed person but he was nonetheless an important historical figure who changed the course of history and his voyage led to the development of the Americas and eventually to the esablishment of the US.
Very hypocritical for the liberal left to criticize Columbus's history but present Muhammad's Islamic conquests and the Arab Muslim invasions of the present day Iraq and Egypt as bringing some kind of "light" as they spread Islam and colonized others. In fact Arabs are native to Saudi Arabia and Iraq and Egypt were not historically Arab Muslim nations till they were conquered. Muhammad was a master imperialist and invader.
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.
This is true.
I also think it is important to note that even other Europeans - especially the Norweigians came to North America prior to Columbus. They primarily came to settle and not enslave the native population even though they also had conflicts with the natives in Greenland and Iceland.
It is odd to me that people credit Columbus with "discovering" anything when people were already there when he got there and other people outside of North America had already sailed there and they didn't do the things that Columbus did.
FWIW I remember laughing at a comedian speaking about the British (I think it was Trevor Noah) and how they went around the world colonizing because of the horrible weather in Britain lol. I think this is true for many Europeans since being in a horrible climate would make you want to go somewhere else and take other people's lands for your own because it was a nicer environment.
I'll also note that the Portuguese and Spanish IMO started this trend primarily due to them, as nations wanting to out-do other European nations/people, especially after they had been dominated by an outside influence themselves in regards to the Moor invasion. Dominating other people was a way to show their own dominance and power.
Interestingly, many of the Norweigian settlements, even though the Vikings have a bad rep as being horribly violent, were created in order to set up new towns to live regular lives (even after being exiled from their homes/towns for committed crimes themselves - like Erik the Red) not purposefully to out do other Europeans and exert their power and they didn't try to force the indigenous people into slavery. On the contrary, evidence suggest the Norse stayed to themselves and may have been victims of Inuit raids and aggression in Greenland especially.
So the thirst for power and greed as mentioned earlier is what is to "blame" and I do agree that those sorts of desires are inherent to all humans. However, the competition between Portugal, Spain, Britain, and France is what caused the genocide of the American indigneous population. I think it is also very important to note that the indigenous population, especially on the mainland of what is now America and Canada - those people heavily fought against European settlement. Most of the history of the violence and attacks on European settlers in America and Canada is just not well known.
In my opinion, both pro and anti Columbus people give him way to much credit. Perhaps he can be given credit for kick starting the age of discovery, but I imagine if he didn't make it to the Americas, some other European would have eventually, soon also.
Columbus was a flawed person but he was nonetheless an important historical figure who changed the course of history and his voyage led to the development of the Americas and eventually to the esablishment of the US.
Very hypocritical for the liberal left to criticize Columbus's history but present Muhammad's Islamic conquests and the Arab Muslim invasions of the present day Iraq and Egypt as bringing some kind of "light" as they spread Islam and colonized others. In fact Arabs are native to Saudi Arabia and Iraq and Egypt were not historically Arab Muslim nations till they were conquered. Muhammad was a master imperialist and invader.
I know this is the political forum, but from an historical perspective, Columbus' voyage and his subjugation of the native population is not the same sort of scenario as the Moorish invasion. I don't see either as a "light" and I am aware of the fact that the spread of Islam came first to Africa (east Africa and North Africa) prior to it coming to Europe. As I noted that people are not aware of the history of the indigenous populations of America, people are also not aware about the Islamic conquest that ran through Asia and Africa then Europe via the Iberian peninsula.
I personally feel that the various conquests of Europeans over the continent, especially the Roman conquests drastically changed the indigenous cultures even of European people/tribes and that sadly those cultures are also not well known anymore or the tribes/people that are the historic ancestors of Europeans.
The Moorish invasion was not a huge "light" but it did bring benefits to those in Europe and Africa and Asia who survived.
The European colonization of a particular type - the type started with Columbus, it also had some benefits in regards to providing certain technology to the indigenous American population, same as the Moors did for Europeans and Africans.
However that colonization actually did create a genocide and it is realistic to acknowledge this. Europeans were not victims of genocide by the Moors. I agree that there is kind of a biological weapon for the indigenous population by way of them not being immune to diseases of Europeans, which Africans and Asians were also immune to due to being in close proximity to each other for millenia already had. So the European arrival in the Americas did cause a genocide. It was caused by both disease and systematic murder of tribes, especially those who were kind/naive tribes like Columbus described. Those who were more warlike - such as the Inuit and Algonquin and other North American and South American nations, they were not as kind and naive and they put up a good fight for centuries against the European invaders. The diseases though especially were things that just could not be overcome due to a lack of knowledge about disease on all sides.
In my opinion, both pro and anti Columbus people give him way to much credit. Perhaps he can be given credit for kick starting the age of discovery, but I imagine if he didn't make it to the Americas, some other European would have eventually, soon also.
Again, the Norse people came to North America centuries before Columbus.
I agree he gets too much credit. Erik the Red came to Greenland because there had been an earlier Norseman sailor who said that he saw Greenland 100 years prior to 982 - which is when Erik the Red sailed to Greenland due to having been punished for being a murderer. Even though he was a murderer in Iceland, when he got to Greenland, he didn't go out and seek the indigenous population to enslave them and subjugate them. He was in North America over 500 years prior to Columbus and a previous Norwegian Viking had sailed in that area and seen Greenland over 600 years prior to Columbus.
The idea that he was the first (Columbus) is just a ridiculous idea in way considering there is documentation that the first known Europeans to settle in North American were Norwegians.
Lot's of wrongs were done to the Natives, and to many many other cultures in the history of man.
We can't change history, and we can't FIX what has already happened. But we can acknowledge it, and do our best to make things right. Obviously, people 200 years later are not going to just abandon their possessions, but perhaps acknowledging and moving in the right direction is a start. Applies to the Americas, it applies to the Israeli Palestinian conflict, and it applies to SO MANY other situations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1
The colonist didn't steal anything. They and their Indian allies won under the right of conquest. The same right Indians themselves always operated under.
People making claims like yours should give all they have to an American Indian and leave America or at least put a sock in it.
So let me get this strait: If someone acknowledges the societal wrongs of the past, they and they alone (including all who acknowledge with them) should bear all of the responsibility of reparations, but all someone has to do is deny it happened, and they get off scott-free? That doesn't seem right.
Lot's of wrongs were done to the Natives, and to many many other cultures in the history of man.
We can't change history, and we can't FIX what has already happened. But we can acknowledge it, and do our best to make things right. Obviously, people 200 years later are not going to just abandon their possessions, but perhaps acknowledging and moving in the right direction is a start. Applies to the Americas, it applies to the Israeli Palestinian conflict, and it applies to SO MANY other situations.
So let me get this strait: If someone acknowledges the societal wrongs of the past, they and they alone (including all who acknowledge with them) should bear all of the responsibility of reparations, but all someone has to do is deny it happened, and they get off scott-free? That doesn't seem right.
Denial does not absolve the past@!
First, there were no natives. All of our ancestors migrated here from somewhere else. Second, if we are going to remember history let's remember all of it not just the one that favors one or the other side of the story. There were guilty parties and atrocities committed by both sides. You cannot use the past and how things were done back then as reason to compare it to today. Third, no one alive today is responsible for what happened in the past and dwelling on it serves no purpose.
First of all, the "genocide" of Native Americans is controversial. The belief that there was a systematic genocide of indigenous Americans is not widely accepted (consensus) by scholars or political powers. The United States has never been legally admonished by the international community for genocidal acts against its indigenous population. My understanding is that none of the other contemporary American nation-states have either. Canada has had an idiotic "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" to look into the matter, but no resolution has been made, and it has just led to conflict.
I support Columbus Day, because of what it meant to my great-grandparents. My great-grandparents were converts to Roman Catholicism, and my great-grandfather was a Knight of Columbus. I believe that it honors the Italian contribution to American society and the integration of Roman Catholics into the American mainstream.
Italian Americans have many other celebrated figures who they could honor - such as Garibaldi, Enrico Fermi, Marconi. There are some who are starting to question that connection with Columbus....
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.
. Mohamad created 1400 years of modern organized Slavery that is still in use in North Africa to this day. Mohamad a murdering Slaving Pediphile
