Current Events > L.A. Votes to Replace Columbus Day With Indigenous Peoples Day

(+) Yeah! (+)

Fuck white people, am I right?

They don't get to feel good about their accomplishments.
---

Callixtus posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

Callixtus posted...

Columbus didn't personally oversee the destruction of 10-20% of the population either, unless you have sources to prove your bogus claims of genocide otherwise. Do you?

It was obviously genocidal. I don't know the exact numbers (those percentages were based on your own numbers - if you think 80-90% died of disease, what do you think the other up to 20% died of, if the assumption was not Columbus killing them? did Columbus just hug them too hard for gracefully giving their land to him voluntarily?), but they were explicitly targeted and also killed and enslaved based on their race. Others have already shown you other quotes from Columbus' diary and you embarrassingly rationalize the behavior.

Newsflash:

Columbus didn't show up and then all of the Indians died. There were still Indians on Hispaniola for decades after he was gone. Just another example of the played out game of tagging Columbus with anything bad that happened to any native anywhere.

There were still Jews in Europe after the Holocaust. You don't have to get complete kills in order for it to be considered genocidal. I think you're trying to get Columbus off on "attempted genocide"... you're not a very good defense attorney, that's still a Nuremberg-style death penalty.

wah_wah_wah posted...

Callixtus posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

Callixtus posted...

Columbus didn't personally oversee the destruction of 10-20% of the population either, unless you have sources to prove your bogus claims of genocide otherwise. Do you?

It was obviously genocidal. I don't know the exact numbers (those percentages were based on your own numbers - if you think 80-90% died of disease, what do you think the other up to 20% died of, if the assumption was not Columbus killing them? did Columbus just hug them too hard for gracefully giving their land to him voluntarily?), but they were explicitly targeted and also killed and enslaved based on their race. Others have already shown you other quotes from Columbus' diary and you embarrassingly rationalize the behavior.

Newsflash:

Columbus didn't show up and then all of the Indians died. There were still Indians on Hispaniola for decades after he was gone. Just another example of the played out game of tagging Columbus with anything bad that happened to any native anywhere.

There were still Jews in Europe after the Holocaust. You don't have to get complete kills in order for it to be considered genocidal. I think you're trying to get Columbus off on "attempted genocide"... you're not a very good defense attorney, that's still a Nuremberg-style death penalty.

I'm still waiting for the evidence that he attempted a genocide. Whenever you're ready to offer it, I can properly address it.

I see I've already got you off the erroneous proposition that Columbus destroyed 20% of the population himself. That's a good start.
---

Callixtus posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

Callixtus posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

Callixtus posted...

Columbus didn't personally oversee the destruction of 10-20% of the population either, unless you have sources to prove your bogus claims of genocide otherwise. Do you?

It was obviously genocidal. I don't know the exact numbers (those percentages were based on your own numbers - if you think 80-90% died of disease, what do you think the other up to 20% died of, if the assumption was not Columbus killing them? did Columbus just hug them too hard for gracefully giving their land to him voluntarily?), but they were explicitly targeted and also killed and enslaved based on their race. Others have already shown you other quotes from Columbus' diary and you embarrassingly rationalize the behavior.

Newsflash:

Columbus didn't show up and then all of the Indians died. There were still Indians on Hispaniola for decades after he was gone. Just another example of the played out game of tagging Columbus with anything bad that happened to any native anywhere.

There were still Jews in Europe after the Holocaust. You don't have to get complete kills in order for it to be considered genocidal. I think you're trying to get Columbus off on "attempted genocide"... you're not a very good defense attorney, that's still a Nuremberg-style death penalty.

I'm still waiting for the evidence that he attempted a genocide. Whenever you're ready to offer it, I can properly address it.

You've got it in Columbus' diaries. He talks about targeting and killing and enslaving them, and raping them. You earlier made clumsy defenses of this.

wah_wah_wah posted...

You're framing "genocide" as "set up successful colonies" because you're f***ed in the head. It would be funny if you were funny, but you're also boring too. Typical mundane message board barbs.

No, no. You spouted off some comment about the Vikings, deflecting and trying to pretend they had something to do with events leading up to and including our current realization of modern North American society.

There's a difference between recognizing violent events occurring in the past while also acknowledging matter of facts versus being upset about past atrocities and pretending Columbus didn't do anything and trying to erase and discredit history---'It was the peaceful Vikings!'
---

wah_wah_wah posted...

Callixtus posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

Callixtus posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

Callixtus posted...

Columbus didn't personally oversee the destruction of 10-20% of the population either, unless you have sources to prove your bogus claims of genocide otherwise. Do you?

It was obviously genocidal. I don't know the exact numbers (those percentages were based on your own numbers - if you think 80-90% died of disease, what do you think the other up to 20% died of, if the assumption was not Columbus killing them? did Columbus just hug them too hard for gracefully giving their land to him voluntarily?), but they were explicitly targeted and also killed and enslaved based on their race. Others have already shown you other quotes from Columbus' diary and you embarrassingly rationalize the behavior.

Newsflash:

Columbus didn't show up and then all of the Indians died. There were still Indians on Hispaniola for decades after he was gone. Just another example of the played out game of tagging Columbus with anything bad that happened to any native anywhere.

There were still Jews in Europe after the Holocaust. You don't have to get complete kills in order for it to be considered genocidal. I think you're trying to get Columbus off on "attempted genocide"... you're not a very good defense attorney, that's still a Nuremberg-style death penalty.

I'm still waiting for the evidence that he attempted a genocide. Whenever you're ready to offer it, I can properly address it.

You've got it in Columbus' diaries. He talks about targeting and killing and enslaving them, and raping them. You earlier made clumsy defenses of this.

None of that is genocide. You do know that genocide is a specific thing right?
---

Callixtus posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

Callixtus posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

Callixtus posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

Callixtus posted...

Columbus didn't personally oversee the destruction of 10-20% of the population either, unless you have sources to prove your bogus claims of genocide otherwise. Do you?

It was obviously genocidal. I don't know the exact numbers (those percentages were based on your own numbers - if you think 80-90% died of disease, what do you think the other up to 20% died of, if the assumption was not Columbus killing them? did Columbus just hug them too hard for gracefully giving their land to him voluntarily?), but they were explicitly targeted and also killed and enslaved based on their race. Others have already shown you other quotes from Columbus' diary and you embarrassingly rationalize the behavior.

Newsflash:

Columbus didn't show up and then all of the Indians died. There were still Indians on Hispaniola for decades after he was gone. Just another example of the played out game of tagging Columbus with anything bad that happened to any native anywhere.

There were still Jews in Europe after the Holocaust. You don't have to get complete kills in order for it to be considered genocidal. I think you're trying to get Columbus off on "attempted genocide"... you're not a very good defense attorney, that's still a Nuremberg-style death penalty.

I'm still waiting for the evidence that he attempted a genocide. Whenever you're ready to offer it, I can properly address it.

You've got it in Columbus' diaries. He talks about targeting and killing and enslaving them, and raping them. You earlier made clumsy defenses of this.

None of that is genocide. You do know that genocide is a specific thing right?

are you ok with rape, though?
---

Sounds better tbh.
---

chill02 posted...

are you ok with rape, though?

Are you ok with not having a country?
---

Callixtus posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

Callixtus posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

Callixtus posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

Callixtus posted...

Columbus didn't personally oversee the destruction of 10-20% of the population either, unless you have sources to prove your bogus claims of genocide otherwise. Do you?

It was obviously genocidal. I don't know the exact numbers (those percentages were based on your own numbers - if you think 80-90% died of disease, what do you think the other up to 20% died of, if the assumption was not Columbus killing them? did Columbus just hug them too hard for gracefully giving their land to him voluntarily?), but they were explicitly targeted and also killed and enslaved based on their race. Others have already shown you other quotes from Columbus' diary and you embarrassingly rationalize the behavior.

Newsflash:

Columbus didn't show up and then all of the Indians died. There were still Indians on Hispaniola for decades after he was gone. Just another example of the played out game of tagging Columbus with anything bad that happened to any native anywhere.

There were still Jews in Europe after the Holocaust. You don't have to get complete kills in order for it to be considered genocidal. I think you're trying to get Columbus off on "attempted genocide"... you're not a very good defense attorney, that's still a Nuremberg-style death penalty.

I'm still waiting for the evidence that he attempted a genocide. Whenever you're ready to offer it, I can properly address it.

You've got it in Columbus' diaries. He talks about targeting and killing and enslaving them, and raping them. You earlier made clumsy defenses of this.

None of that is genocide. You do know that genocide is a specific thing right?

This is all part of genocide. I'm sorry you fail to understand what a genocide is.

I've already said I'm not going to defend rape. However, as I've pointed out, rape is what the vast majority of conquerors have done in history and continue to do even today. I even posted a link showing that the US occupiers of Japan in WWII committed rampant rapes even when there was a strong stigma against that sort of behavior, which didn't exist at all during Columbus' day.
---

Callixtus posted...

I've already said I'm not going to defend rape. However, as I've pointed out, rape is what the vast majority of conquerors have done in history and continue to do even today.

I'm not going to defend rape. Here's my defense of rape.

wah_wah_wah posted...

This is all part of genocide. I'm sorry you fail to understand what a genocide is.

So at which stage are you going to show the intentional aspect that is required for genocide? I'm still waiting.

Genocide as defined by the UN Convention:

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

So at which point are you going to show that Columbus intentionally sought not to oppress, enslave, or rape Native Americans, but that he sought to intentionally destroy the racial group, in part or whole?

Now please avoid the mistake of confusing imperialism with genocide.
---

Callixtus posted...

A lot of the writing about Columbus is greatly exaggerated

You keep saying this...
---

Callixtus posted...

So at which stage are you going to show the intentional aspect that is required for genocide? I'm still waiting.

More like "still ignoring":
wah_wah_wah posted...

He talks about targeting and killing and enslaving them, and raping them.

Just stop dude, this is fucking embarrassing and I'm ashamed to be a part of the same species as you.
---

Callixtus posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

This is all part of genocide. I'm sorry you fail to understand what a genocide is.

So at which stage are you going to show the intentional aspect that is required for genocide? I'm still waiting.

Genocide as defined by the UN Convention:

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

So at which point are you going to show that Columbus intentionally sought not to oppress, enslave, or rape Native Americans, but that he sought to intentionally destroy the racial group?

So stealing their land by force, raping their women, enslaving them and then killing them doesn't destroy their people. These are all strategies used during any genocide. Again, I'm sorry you have absolutely no familiarity of how genocidal wars are waged.

chill02 posted...

are you ok with rape, though?

Rape came from both sides, no doubt about that. Take a look into some of the practices of some Native American tribes before (even before colonization) you try and paint one side a saint and the other a sinner.

You'll discover a whole lotta stuff.
---

wah_wah_wah posted...

Callixtus posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

This is all part of genocide. I'm sorry you fail to understand what a genocide is.

So at which stage are you going to show the intentional aspect that is required for genocide? I'm still waiting.

Genocide as defined by the UN Convention:

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

So at which point are you going to show that Columbus intentionally sought not to oppress, enslave, or rape Native Americans, but that he sought to intentionally destroy the racial group?

So stealing their land by force, raping their women, enslaving them and then killing them doesn't destroy their people. These are all strategies used during any genocide. Again, I'm sorry you have absolutely no familiarity of how genocidal wars are waged.

So you immediately confused genocide with imperialism despite me giving you fair warning?

So I assume that during WWII the Soviets committed genocide against the Germans since they did everything you just accused Columbus of, as well as the Japanese against the Chinese. Since we now know that both the Soviets and the Japanese have committed genocide within living memory, why aren't you more upset at them?
---

How about replacing Columbus Day with nothing?
Ditch the rest of the "bank holidays" as well.

Political correctness run amok.
---

Callixtus posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

Callixtus posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

This is all part of genocide. I'm sorry you fail to understand what a genocide is.

So at which stage are you going to show the intentional aspect that is required for genocide? I'm still waiting.

Genocide as defined by the UN Convention:

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

So at which point are you going to show that Columbus intentionally sought not to oppress, enslave, or rape Native Americans, but that he sought to intentionally destroy the racial group?

So stealing their land by force, raping their women, enslaving them and then killing them doesn't destroy their people. These are all strategies used during any genocide. Again, I'm sorry you have absolutely no familiarity of how genocidal wars are waged.

So you immediately confused genocide with imperialism despite me giving you fair warning?

So I assume that during WWII the Soviets committed genocide against the Germans since they did everything you just accused Columbus of, as well as the Japanese against the Chinese. Since we now know that both the Soviets and the Japanese have committed genocide within living memory, why aren't you more upset at them?

Are you excusing them for it like you are Columbus?
---

I'm not "excusing" any of Columbus' actions. However, I am much less sympathetic to war crimes committed in more recent times because we actually have stigmas and customs against such practices that did not exist 500 years ago, believe it or not.
---

Callixtus posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

Callixtus posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

This is all part of genocide. I'm sorry you fail to understand what a genocide is.

So at which stage are you going to show the intentional aspect that is required for genocide? I'm still waiting.

Genocide as defined by the UN Convention:

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

So at which point are you going to show that Columbus intentionally sought not to oppress, enslave, or rape Native Americans, but that he sought to intentionally destroy the racial group?

So stealing their land by force, raping their women, enslaving them and then killing them doesn't destroy their people. These are all strategies used during any genocide. Again, I'm sorry you have absolutely no familiarity of how genocidal wars are waged.

So you immediately confused genocide with imperialism despite me giving you fair warning?

So I assume that during WWII the Soviets committed genocide against the Germans since they did everything you just accused Columbus of, as well as the Japanese against the Chinese. Since we now know that both the Soviets and the Japanese have committed genocide within living memory, why aren't you more upset at them?

The Soviets were not interested in killing the entire German peoples. See: East Germany. The Japanese were engaged in genocide in Manchuria. All this post proves is that you didn't read other history, in addition to the Columbus diaries you didn't read.

Callixtus posted...

I'm not "excusing" any of Columbus' actions. However, I am much less sympathetic to war crimes committed in more recent times because we actually have stigmas and customs against such practices that did not exist 500 years ago, believe it or not.

The stigma and abhorrence of rape existed back then just as it does now. What didn't exist is the prosecutorial attitude towards it that exists today

Callixtus posted...

I'm not "excusing" any of Columbus' actions. However, I am much less sympathetic to war crimes committed in more recent times because we actually have stigmas and customs against such practices that did not exist 500 years ago, believe it or not.

Columbus governorship was so disgusting to the Monarchy at the time that he was jailed for it. Pretty sure even customs during his own lifetime found the man to be barbaric. So why are you, a dude living in the year [current year] making excuses for it?
---

Zikten posted...

BootyGif posted...

Give it to the Vikings

Leif Erikson Day

Legit
---

wah_wah_wah posted...

Callixtus posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

Callixtus posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

This is all part of genocide. I'm sorry you fail to understand what a genocide is.

So at which stage are you going to show the intentional aspect that is required for genocide? I'm still waiting.

Genocide as defined by the UN Convention:

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

So at which point are you going to show that Columbus intentionally sought not to oppress, enslave, or rape Native Americans, but that he sought to intentionally destroy the racial group?

So stealing their land by force, raping their women, enslaving them and then killing them doesn't destroy their people. These are all strategies used during any genocide. Again, I'm sorry you have absolutely no familiarity of how genocidal wars are waged.

So you immediately confused genocide with imperialism despite me giving you fair warning?

So I assume that during WWII the Soviets committed genocide against the Germans since they did everything you just accused Columbus of, as well as the Japanese against the Chinese. Since we now know that both the Soviets and the Japanese have committed genocide within living memory, why aren't you more upset at them?

The Soviets were not interested in killing the entire German peoples. See: East Germany. The Japanese were engaged in genocide in Manchuria. All this post proves is that you didn't read other history, in addition to the Columbus diaries you didn't read.

You still have yet to provide this source showing that Columbus was interested in intentionally destroying in part or whole indigenous peoples. Still waiting for that citation...

Killing, raping, and enslaving could be evidence of genocide, however, the very definition of genocide requires a systematic attempt to intentionally destroy a people. Your accusation, your burden.
---

Axiom posted...

Callixtus posted...

I'm not "excusing" any of Columbus' actions. However, I am much less sympathetic to war crimes committed in more recent times because we actually have stigmas and customs against such practices that did not exist 500 years ago, believe it or not.

The stigma and abhorrence of rape existed back then just as it does now. What didn't exist is the prosecutorial attitude towards it that exists today

Maybe in civil society. Conquerors have always been rapists and always will be. Yet we honor many conquerors. Why should we draw the line at Columbus just because he conquered Native people?
---

Callixtus posted...

You still have yet to provide this source showing that Columbus was interested in intentionally destroying in part or whole indigenous peoples. Still waiting for that citation...

Killing, raping, and enslaving could be evidence of genocide, however, the very definition of genocide requires a systematic attempt to intentionally destroy a people. Your accusation, your burden.

dave_is_slick posted...

Callixtus posted...

So at which stage are you going to show the intentional aspect that is required for genocide? I'm still waiting.


More like "still ignoring":

---

Callixtus posted...

Yet we honor many conquerors.

Such as?
---

A_Good_Boy posted...

Callixtus posted...

I'm not "excusing" any of Columbus' actions. However, I am much less sympathetic to war crimes committed in more recent times because we actually have stigmas and customs against such practices that did not exist 500 years ago, believe it or not.

Columbus governorship was so disgusting to the Monarchy at the time that he was jailed for it. Pretty sure even customs during his own lifetime found the man to be barbaric. So why are you, a dude living in the year [current year] making excuses for it?

We honor people who have committed crimes much worse than Columbus. The Founding Fathers, instituted and affirmed a system of slavery relegating millions of people to slavery for another hundred years, even at a time where there was significant debate about slavery. Yet Columbus shouldn't be honored because he was possibly a bit tyrannical? I don't see why that should take away from his accomplishments.
---

Callixtus posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

Callixtus posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

Callixtus posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

This is all part of genocide. I'm sorry you fail to understand what a genocide is.

So at which stage are you going to show the intentional aspect that is required for genocide? I'm still waiting.

Genocide as defined by the UN Convention:

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

So at which point are you going to show that Columbus intentionally sought not to oppress, enslave, or rape Native Americans, but that he sought to intentionally destroy the racial group?

So stealing their land by force, raping their women, enslaving them and then killing them doesn't destroy their people. These are all strategies used during any genocide. Again, I'm sorry you have absolutely no familiarity of how genocidal wars are waged.

So you immediately confused genocide with imperialism despite me giving you fair warning?

So I assume that during WWII the Soviets committed genocide against the Germans since they did everything you just accused Columbus of, as well as the Japanese against the Chinese. Since we now know that both the Soviets and the Japanese have committed genocide within living memory, why aren't you more upset at them?

The Soviets were not interested in killing the entire German peoples. See: East Germany. The Japanese were engaged in genocide in Manchuria. All this post proves is that you didn't read other history, in addition to the Columbus diaries you didn't read.

You still have yet to provide this source showing that Columbus was interested in intentionally destroying in part or whole indigenous peoples. Still waiting for that citation...

Killing, raping, and enslaving could be evidence of genocide, however, the very definition of genocide requires a systematic attempt to intentionally destroy a people. Your accusation, your burden.

I have told you where the sources are. Read Columbus' diaries. The words right from his mind. You won't find him say "I will make a systematic attempt to intentionally destroy a people, in accordance to the UN guidelines on genocide!" but you will read every single strategy and tactic used in the genocide cookbook.

But now you desperately want to get this into a words with friends game, where we argue over the word. Even if you refuse to read and refuse to consider it genocide, Columbus still raped and slaughtered those islands, without a single drop of remorse, and nothing at all justifies it or excuses it.

EyeWontBeFooled posted...

Good, Columbus was a moron, and a ruthless killer.

Explain moron

dave_is_slick posted...

Callixtus posted...

Yet we honor many conquerors.

Such as?

All of the Founding Fathers participated in or were connected to wars of conquest.
---

Callixtus posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

Callixtus posted...

I'm not "excusing" any of Columbus' actions. However, I am much less sympathetic to war crimes committed in more recent times because we actually have stigmas and customs against such practices that did not exist 500 years ago, believe it or not.

Columbus governorship was so disgusting to the Monarchy at the time that he was jailed for it. Pretty sure even customs during his own lifetime found the man to be barbaric. So why are you, a dude living in the year [current year] making excuses for it?

We honor people who have committed crimes much worse than Columbus. The Founding Fathers, instituted and affirmed a system of slavery relegating millions of people to slavery for another hundred years, even at a time where there was significant debate about slavery. Yet Columbus shouldn't be honored because he was possibly a bit tyrannical? I don't see why that should take away from his accomplishments.

Our founding fathers have accomplishments to point towards that actually eclipse their worst traits. What has Columbus done worthy of celebrating? Owning 3 boats?
---

Callixtus posted...

Axiom posted...

Callixtus posted...

I'm not "excusing" any of Columbus' actions. However, I am much less sympathetic to war crimes committed in more recent times because we actually have stigmas and customs against such practices that did not exist 500 years ago, believe it or not.

The stigma and abhorrence of rape existed back then just as it does now. What didn't exist is the prosecutorial attitude towards it that exists today

Maybe in civil society. Conquerors have always been rapists and always will be. Yet we honor many conquerors. Why should we draw the line at Columbus just because he conquered Native people?

...

You realize that Columbus was literally from civilized society which makes what he did even worse. He knew it was wrong and didn't care. I'm also curious about what conquerors are honored because I'm pretty sure I've never looked up to anyone that went around raping killing people

Callixtus posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

Callixtus posted...

I'm not "excusing" any of Columbus' actions. However, I am much less sympathetic to war crimes committed in more recent times because we actually have stigmas and customs against such practices that did not exist 500 years ago, believe it or not.

Columbus governorship was so disgusting to the Monarchy at the time that he was jailed for it. Pretty sure even customs during his own lifetime found the man to be barbaric. So why are you, a dude living in the year [current year] making excuses for it?

We honor people who have committed crimes much worse than Columbus. The Founding Fathers, instituted and affirmed a system of slavery relegating millions of people to slavery for another hundred years, even at a time where there was significant debate about slavery. Yet Columbus shouldn't be honored because he was possibly a bit tyrannical? I don't see why that should take away from his accomplishments.

Also because other horrible people are honored, doesn't suddenly justify ALL horrible people being honored. Honestly there's a good argument that Charles Manson is a better person than Nathan Bedford Forrest, but it is a pretty piss poor argument to be like "Well Forrest has a statue, so now Manson HAS to have one"

wah_wah_wah posted...

Callixtus posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

Callixtus posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

Callixtus posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

This is all part of genocide. I'm sorry you fail to understand what a genocide is.

So at which stage are you going to show the intentional aspect that is required for genocide? I'm still waiting.

Genocide as defined by the UN Convention:

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

So at which point are you going to show that Columbus intentionally sought not to oppress, enslave, or rape Native Americans, but that he sought to intentionally destroy the racial group?

So stealing their land by force, raping their women, enslaving them and then killing them doesn't destroy their people. These are all strategies used during any genocide. Again, I'm sorry you have absolutely no familiarity of how genocidal wars are waged.

So you immediately confused genocide with imperialism despite me giving you fair warning?

So I assume that during WWII the Soviets committed genocide against the Germans since they did everything you just accused Columbus of, as well as the Japanese against the Chinese. Since we now know that both the Soviets and the Japanese have committed genocide within living memory, why aren't you more upset at them?

The Soviets were not interested in killing the entire German peoples. See: East Germany. The Japanese were engaged in genocide in Manchuria. All this post proves is that you didn't read other history, in addition to the Columbus diaries you didn't read.

You still have yet to provide this source showing that Columbus was interested in intentionally destroying in part or whole indigenous peoples. Still waiting for that citation...

Killing, raping, and enslaving could be evidence of genocide, however, the very definition of genocide requires a systematic attempt to intentionally destroy a people. Your accusation, your burden.

I have told you where the sources are. Read Columbus' diaries. The words right from his mind. You won't find him say "I will make a systematic attempt to intentionally destroy a people, in accordance to the UN guidelines on genocide!" but you will read every single strategy and tactic used in the genocide cookbook.

But now you desperately want to get this into a words with friends game, where we argue over the word. Even if you refuse to read and refuse to consider it genocide, Columbus still raped and slaughtered those islands, without a single drop of remorse, and nothing at all justifies it or excuses it.

So why don't you cite an example or two and explain how that shows his intention, not to merely oppress or exploit Natives, but to attempt to wipe them out in part or whole? I don't have the burden of proving your own accusations.
---

Callixtus posted...

All of the Founding Fathers participated in or were connected to wars of conquest.

Were they jailed for being cruel?
---

wah_wah_wah posted...

Callixtus posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

Callixtus posted...

I'm not "excusing" any of Columbus' actions. However, I am much less sympathetic to war crimes committed in more recent times because we actually have stigmas and customs against such practices that did not exist 500 years ago, believe it or not.

Columbus governorship was so disgusting to the Monarchy at the time that he was jailed for it. Pretty sure even customs during his own lifetime found the man to be barbaric. So why are you, a dude living in the year [current year] making excuses for it?

We honor people who have committed crimes much worse than Columbus. The Founding Fathers, instituted and affirmed a system of slavery relegating millions of people to slavery for another hundred years, even at a time where there was significant debate about slavery. Yet Columbus shouldn't be honored because he was possibly a bit tyrannical? I don't see why that should take away from his accomplishments.

Also because other horrible people are honored, doesn't suddenly justify ALL horrible people being honored. Honestly there's a good argument that Charles Manson is a better person than Nathan Bedford Forrest, but it is a pretty piss poor argument to be like "Well Forrest has a statue, so now Manson HAS to have one"

There is a long history of almost a century of honoring Columbus, an ancient figure that is a symbol of pride to certain groups of our population. There is no reason to overturn this established custom, just because he is a politically convenient target.
---

dave_is_slick posted...

Callixtus posted...

All of the Founding Fathers participated in or were connected to wars of conquest.

Were they jailed for being cruel?

Columbus was jailed for being exceptionally cruel, barbaric, and tyrannical even for his own time period and this clown is still making excuses for it.
---

dave_is_slick posted...

Callixtus posted...

All of the Founding Fathers participated in or were connected to wars of conquest.

Were they jailed for being cruel?

Nope, but many of them were slaveholders. Do you think they were all free from cruelty when they had their slaves whipped?
---

Callixtus posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

Callixtus posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

Callixtus posted...

I'm not "excusing" any of Columbus' actions. However, I am much less sympathetic to war crimes committed in more recent times because we actually have stigmas and customs against such practices that did not exist 500 years ago, believe it or not.

Columbus governorship was so disgusting to the Monarchy at the time that he was jailed for it. Pretty sure even customs during his own lifetime found the man to be barbaric. So why are you, a dude living in the year [current year] making excuses for it?

We honor people who have committed crimes much worse than Columbus. The Founding Fathers, instituted and affirmed a system of slavery relegating millions of people to slavery for another hundred years, even at a time where there was significant debate about slavery. Yet Columbus shouldn't be honored because he was possibly a bit tyrannical? I don't see why that should take away from his accomplishments.

Also because other horrible people are honored, doesn't suddenly justify ALL horrible people being honored. Honestly there's a good argument that Charles Manson is a better person than Nathan Bedford Forrest, but it is a pretty piss poor argument to be like "Well Forrest has a statue, so now Manson HAS to have one"

There is a long history of almost a century of honoring Columbus, an ancient figure that is a symbol of pride to certain groups of our population. There is no reason to overturn this established custom, just because he is a politically convenient target.

We can easily look at the reasons for why he's honored and see if they hold up to reason. For instance, the only reason why he's honored in the first place is because a couple of Catholic Italians were desperate for an honorory figure to lionize and Columbus was about the closest they could come up with. Why should we continue to honor some consolation prize?
---

Callixtus posted...

So why don't you cite an example or two and explain how that shows his intention, not to merely oppress or exploit Natives, but to attempt to wipe them out in part or whole? I don't have the burden of proving your own accusations.

Just that you haven't read the diaries in their entirety before deciding that Columbus should be honored is enough for me to realize that it doesn't really matter if I quote even one sentence, you don't care to read any part of it. You've made up your mind, and now you're only seeking to waste my time. Mission accomplished I guess.

Callixtus posted...

We honor people who have committed crimes much worse than Columbus. The Founding Fathers, instituted and affirmed a system of slavery relegating millions of people to slavery for another hundred years, even at a time where there was significant debate about slavery. Yet Columbus shouldn't be honored because he was possibly a bit tyrannical? I don't see why that should take away from his accomplishments.

It's this that really gets me. Do you really not believe Columbus committed any of these horrible acts? What do you think he did, if you can believe he did any of them? And please don't mention things other people did, because I'm not talking about them.
---

A_Good_Boy posted...

Callixtus posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

Callixtus posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

Callixtus posted...

I'm not "excusing" any of Columbus' actions. However, I am much less sympathetic to war crimes committed in more recent times because we actually have stigmas and customs against such practices that did not exist 500 years ago, believe it or not.

Columbus governorship was so disgusting to the Monarchy at the time that he was jailed for it. Pretty sure even customs during his own lifetime found the man to be barbaric. So why are you, a dude living in the year [current year] making excuses for it?

We honor people who have committed crimes much worse than Columbus. The Founding Fathers, instituted and affirmed a system of slavery relegating millions of people to slavery for another hundred years, even at a time where there was significant debate about slavery. Yet Columbus shouldn't be honored because he was possibly a bit tyrannical? I don't see why that should take away from his accomplishments.

Also because other horrible people are honored, doesn't suddenly justify ALL horrible people being honored. Honestly there's a good argument that Charles Manson is a better person than Nathan Bedford Forrest, but it is a pretty piss poor argument to be like "Well Forrest has a statue, so now Manson HAS to have one"

There is a long history of almost a century of honoring Columbus, an ancient figure that is a symbol of pride to certain groups of our population. There is no reason to overturn this established custom, just because he is a politically convenient target.

We can easily look at the reasons for why he's honored and see if they hold up to reason. For instance, the only reason why he's honored in the first place is because a couple of Catholic Italians were desperate for an honorory figure to lionize and Columbus was about the closest they could come up with. Why should we continue to honor some consolation prize?

Maybe because Columbus had some actually admirable traits?

You know he conquered a vast Ocean and initiated the modern world as we know it, meanwhile you sit on your fatass typing away, trying to take down the achievements of men far better than yourself.
---

wah_wah_wah posted...

Callixtus posted...

So why don't you cite an example or two and explain how that shows his intention, not to merely oppress or exploit Natives, but to attempt to wipe them out in part or whole? I don't have the burden of proving your own accusations.

Just that you haven't read the diaries in their entirety before deciding that Columbus should be honored is enough for me to realize that it doesn't really matter if I quote even one sentence, you don't care to read any part of it. You've made up your mind, and now you're only seeking to waste my time. Mission accomplished I guess.

Great. I'll take your refusal to provide an iota of evidence as a concession of defeat. Goodbye.
---

Callixtus posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

Callixtus posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

Callixtus posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

Callixtus posted...

I'm not "excusing" any of Columbus' actions. However, I am much less sympathetic to war crimes committed in more recent times because we actually have stigmas and customs against such practices that did not exist 500 years ago, believe it or not.

Columbus governorship was so disgusting to the Monarchy at the time that he was jailed for it. Pretty sure even customs during his own lifetime found the man to be barbaric. So why are you, a dude living in the year [current year] making excuses for it?

We honor people who have committed crimes much worse than Columbus. The Founding Fathers, instituted and affirmed a system of slavery relegating millions of people to slavery for another hundred years, even at a time where there was significant debate about slavery. Yet Columbus shouldn't be honored because he was possibly a bit tyrannical? I don't see why that should take away from his accomplishments.

Also because other horrible people are honored, doesn't suddenly justify ALL horrible people being honored. Honestly there's a good argument that Charles Manson is a better person than Nathan Bedford Forrest, but it is a pretty piss poor argument to be like "Well Forrest has a statue, so now Manson HAS to have one"

There is a long history of almost a century of honoring Columbus, an ancient figure that is a symbol of pride to certain groups of our population. There is no reason to overturn this established custom, just because he is a politically convenient target.

We can easily look at the reasons for why he's honored and see if they hold up to reason. For instance, the only reason why he's honored in the first place is because a couple of Catholic Italians were desperate for an honorory figure to lionize and Columbus was about the closest they could come up with. Why should we continue to honor some consolation prize?

Maybe because Columbus had some actually admirable traits?

You know he conquered a vast Ocean and initiated the modern world as we know it, meanwhile you sit on your fatass typing away, trying to take down the achievements of men far better than yourself.

Trolling isn't an argument. Try again or close your account.
---

Callixtus posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

Callixtus posted...

So why don't you cite an example or two and explain how that shows his intention, not to merely oppress or exploit Natives, but to attempt to wipe them out in part or whole? I don't have the burden of proving your own accusations.

Just that you haven't read the diaries in their entirety before deciding that Columbus should be honored is enough for me to realize that it doesn't really matter if I quote even one sentence, you don't care to read any part of it. You've made up your mind, and now you're only seeking to waste my time. Mission accomplished I guess.

Great. I'll take your refusal to provide an iota of evidence as a concession of defeat. Goodbye.

The best tennis player gets defeated by a brick wall.

jborgan posted...

Callixtus posted...

We honor people who have committed crimes much worse than Columbus. The Founding Fathers, instituted and affirmed a system of slavery relegating millions of people to slavery for another hundred years, even at a time where there was significant debate about slavery. Yet Columbus shouldn't be honored because he was possibly a bit tyrannical? I don't see why that should take away from his accomplishments.

It's this that really gets me. Do you really not believe Columbus committed any of these horrible acts? What do you think he did, if you can believe he did any of them? And please don't mention things other people did, because I'm not talking about them.

Yes, he probably did commit some of the actions alleged against him. A significant amount of it was also probably exaggeration by his enemies. Do I think he was probably a bad governor, yes. He was removed from duty as governor, but obviously nothing he did was so horrible that the Spanish monarchy wouldn't consider employing him further, which they did, although not in any governance role.

But the true is that we know very little about the details of his governorship and now this is filtered through 500 years of changes in political landscapes and opinions.

I don't think he should be honored for his governorship, but for his voyage which was a near singular achievement and which created the modern world.
---