Minneapolis Changes "Columbus Day" To "Indigenous People's Day"

[Jack Hays]

Yea. He stumbled upon a continent where people were already living while partaking in genocide against them.

And thereby opened the new world to the old, with immense consequences. He might be among the ten most consequential people of the last millennium.eace

 

[jamesrage]

According to more than just "left wing sources".. But hey, I know what you are going to do, if any source that documents the genocide comes to source you'll just play it as a "left wing source".
And you "New Moderate source" just repeated what people already stated. Oh he wasnt that bad, i mean the natives werent nice either.. Give me a break.

The left does have this idiotic romantic idea that Indians just sat around honoring mother earth and smoking peace pipes all day and were peaceful with everyone they encountered.

Exactly! He did bad ****! How can you have a holiday for a man that committed genocide, and just ignore that part? Is that not hypocritical?

Again no one celebrates Columbus for the bad **** he did.No one celebrates the bad **** any historical figure did.
By your logic we shouldn't have George Washington,Ben Franklin and many other founders on our money because they owned and or raped slaves, because after all how can we have slave owners,land thieves and rapists on our money. You fail to understand that getting your ***** hurt over the bad **** or alleged bad **** people did in the past is a waste of time.

What he do? Sleep around? How "terrible"

To many people being unfaithful and being a piece of **** commie are terrible things.No one goes oh its womanizing piece of **** commie day on MLK jr Day. Or Oh its its the start of the decline of the Native Americans and their land day on Thanksgiving day.

Left wing editorial comics doesn't make fact

 

[polgara]

And thereby opened the new world to the old, with immense consequences. He might be among the ten most consequential people of the last millennium.eace

Well said, Jack. :thumbs:

 

[TheDemSocialist]

The left does have this idiotic romantic idea that Indians just sat around honoring mother earth and smoking peace pipes all day and were peaceful with everyone they encountered.

No i dont have that idea at all. I mean most native american cultures were based around war with rivaling tribes. But does this somehow excuse genocide?
But how did they treat Columbus mostly? :"The encounter between Columbus and the Indians was a complete clash of cultures. The Indians were described as being very hospitable, and were thought of as remarkable for their belief in sharing. This was much in opposition to the Europeans who were dominated by religion, kings, and an obsession for wealth (Zinn 1-2). " http://ux.brookdalecc.edu/fac/history/Tangents/ARTICLESFORTANGENTS/Columbus's%20Genocide.htm

Again no one celebrates Columbus for the bad **** he did.No one celebrates the bad **** any historical figure did.

Not all historical figures partook in genocide. Its like saying to an Italian, "hey Mussolini rebuilt the Italian economy after WW1, but hey lets not talk about him being a evil fascist, but lets have a holiday for him for rebuilding the economy!". How idiotic is that?

By your logic we shouldn't have George Washington,Ben Franklin and many other founders on our money because they owned and or raped slaves, because after all how can we have slave owners,land thieves and rapists on our money.

Did they own slaves? Yes. Did the partake in a genocide? No.

You fail to understand that getting your ***** hurt over the bad **** or alleged bad **** people did in the past is a waste of time.

"alleged bad ****"? Its historically documented. And ***** hurt? Hey might as well have a holiday for Hitler as well because he rebuilt the German economy (i know godwins law), and lets just forget about the genocide he did, right?

To many people being unfaithful and being a piece of **** commie are terrible thingsNo one goes oh its womanizing piece of **** commie day on MLK jr Day. Or Oh its its the start of the decline of the Native Americans and their land day on Thanksgiving day.

:lamo :lamo You are comparing genocide to sleeping around! Are you seriously doing this. And for the 8th time King was not a commmunist he was a democratic socialist.

Left wing editorial comics doesn't make fact

First one was a direct quote taken from his journal.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

And thereby opened the new world to the old, with immense consequences. He might be among the ten most consequential people of the last millennium.eace

Yea consequences of Genocidal proportions.

 

[Jack Hays]

Yea consequences of Genocidal proportions.

The Euros were brutally violent on their own continent; there's no reason to expect them to be any different elsewhere. And the Native Americans had their own wars of extermination before the gringos arrived. eace

 

[Rainman05]

Journals of people on the voyage admit they did! They were free to kill!
Remember this: " But our work was so exasperate, ravage, kill, mangle and destroy; small wonder, then, if they tried to kill one of us now and then… The admiral, it is true was blind as those who came after him, and he was so anxious to please the King that he committed irreparable crimes against the Indians… (qtd. in Zinn 6)."

Sure they used forced labor. Can using forced labor at massive amounts that lead to the deaths not account for genocide? The nazis used forced labor and people died while being used as forced labor for the war effort. Do those acts not account for genocide?

"When he arrived on Hispaniola in 1508, Las Casas says, "there were 60,000 people living on this island, including the Indians; so that from 1494 to 1508, over three million people had perished from war, slavery, and the mines. Who in future generations will believe this? I myself writing it as a knowledgeable eyewitness can hardly believe it...." Columbus, The Indians, and Human Progress


How does one discover something when humanity was already there?

Your source is history as a weapon. As a weapon against who?

Also, those quotes have absolutely no other source than Howard Zinn's book which is known to use second-hand sources to account for his notions. He is a revisionist historian and a vocal one at that, well, not anymore since he's dead, but still, a revisionist. He wrote a book from the viewpoint of the 1980s when he lived and through a stupid anarchist socialist viewpoint. It is why these quotes cannot be found anywhere else. There aren't any records of them. They only exist within his book. Nowhere else. Now why is that... well maybe it's because in reality, they don't really exist. They're a patchwork of unreliable sources or sources that are not historical and with the gaps filled in by his imagination.

Las Casas was a priest and most of his writings are good. He was an anti-slavery advocate for all slaves. He wanted a lot of good things for "the new world" but this doesn't change the fact that he himself notted that a lot of the stuff he wrote about the indians was to invoke and stirr the hearts back home. So ofc, he exaggerated some stuff or made-up some stuff to impress the people back home and to get his view of what the future of the indies should be implemented by the will of the King. He's a 'ok source' if you wanna read something like a novel. If you want to quote him for historical accuracy, like Zinn did, then you're a fool. Look him up. He himself, Bartolome Las Casas admits that most of his work is fictional.

------
I told you how something is discovered. Because it's noted down and recognized. It's put on a map. If the Europeans hadn't written down stuff about the native americans of N. America and the islands like Cuba and the Bahamas, they wouldn't really exist. They had no writings. No important permanent structures. They did nothing but kill one another like savages for milleniums, and in the case of the Taino, kill and subjugate everyone else coz they knew how to build ships that could bunny hop from island to island.



The problem with people today is that they are so average and yet they think themselves so cool. Because we do know a lot, and have access to a lot of knowledge. So because most people are pathetic little plebes with too high an opinion of themselves, they cant' recognize greatness unless it hits them, hard. Columbus wasn't great because he was a man who behaved like most people do. People always did harm to other people intentional or not. That's just how the world works. he is great because he achieved more than that. He achieved something that nobody achieved before. well, 2 people achieved before but they didn't write anything down about it. It's why that viking, Leif Erikson, isn't credited for discovering america, because he didn't write it down or put it on a map. Columbus did.
It's not about the fact that humans live there or not.
Nobody 'discovered' the moon. Everyone knew it was real and it existed. But some thought it was a God. Some thought it was another sun or whatever. We only really discovered the moon when we understood what it really was and even more, when the USA landed on it and explored it.

 

[Excon]

Hmmm saying that dictators usually "make their own laws" so therefore they can operate in their rule of law....

The point is there is a difference between what each is. Calling one a dictator who isn't is silly.

Still nothing like trying to justify genocide is there?

Get a grip.
Learning the difference between a dictator and a Governor is not justifying anything.
It is pointing out the difference so you can use them properly.

Secondly: There is no need to justify that which was justified.
Sorry you don't like what he did.
It was justified, and it was the norm at the time.

But not his brutal genocide and slavery aint he? We like to forget those bad parts because then it really doesnt paint him as such a great guy.

First of all he wasn't committing genocide. That is nothing but a false claim.
Heck that word didn't even exist then. That is as absurd as saying the death penalty in use today in the US, is Genocide.
It just a false and extreme overreaction to what is actually occurring.

And no we haven't forgot the bad parts, but they do not compare to the greatness of his discovery and what it has brought and lead to.

So again: The point of history is to learn from it. Not to point fingers and lay blame or vilify for that which was the norm.

 

[LadyMoonlight]

This man committed GENOCIDE. He didnt have more than one **** buddy, or took a cookie from the cookie jar, he committed full blown genocide! There is nothing who have to be reasonable about it.

Ok, let's look at genocide shall we. You appear to have this idea that genocide involves huge numbers. Well, yes, with some genocides that has happened. However, that has not always been the case throughout history.

Say there is a village/tribe/mob somewhere in North America, or South America or Africa or Australia. This village has, let's say, 50 people. Another tribe attacks the village. 38 people from the village are killed in the fighting. Of the remaining 12, 5 are women, 6 are children and 1 is an old man who has been wounded. The 5 women are raped by several of the victors and then 4 of them are traded to another group, 3 of the children are also traded and 3 are kept as slaves. The old man dies of his wounds. THAT'S a genocide because a whole tribe, a whole people have been slaughtered and sold. 6 million, or 2 million or 50....genocide is genocide. Now, let's say that this event has been repeated on and off over 20,000 years, now we are getting to the numbers you can relate to.

EVERY race, people, civilisation whatever, that has ever existed has been guilty of genocide and other atrocities, every single one. They have all been guilty of some form of slavery, too. I am not ashamed of white explorers or white history because it is no worse than any other peoples' history. Take for example the Spanish and Aztecs. Modern people talk about the way the Spanish destroyed Aztecs civilisation in the name of religion and greed. Gasp, shock, horror, those evil Spaniards, look what they did. They wanted gold, they wanted to force people to follow Christianity, they killed people abroad and at home with the Spanish Inquisition. That's just so terrible, they were just evil people. On the other hand, the Aztecs conquered and slaughtered in the name of greed and religion. They sacrificed thousands and thousands of men, women and children(more than the Spanish Inquisition did) and there was cannibalism involved. They demanded tribute from surrounding tribes (greed) and they forced conquered tribes to worship Blue Hummingbird (forced religious conversion). Wow, aren't the Aztecs interesting, how fascinating. The Spanish are condemned for their actions, the Aztecs are seen as an interesting society for their actions.

Africans who kept slaves for centuries, who traded in slaves for centuries, who sold slaves to Europeans, are not seen in the same light as European/American slave traders. Why not? There was no difference, none.

I am so over this idea that Europeans destroyed everything but other races/civilisations/peoples didn't. Anyway, tis late, I am half asleep and should stop now.

Leave Columbus alone. Was he perfect? No. Did he do wrong things? Yes. Was he courageous for sailing so far and exploring? Yes.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

The problem with the argument against Columbus Day is that people are trying to apply 21st century standards to 14th century events. The fact that they can't seem to understand the logical fallacy in taking this approach is why this entire discussion has turned into such an epic fail.

 

[Jack Hays]

Journals of people on the voyage admit they did! They were free to kill!
Remember this: " But our work was so exasperate, ravage, kill, mangle and destroy; small wonder, then, if they tried to kill one of us now and then… The admiral, it is true was blind as those who came after him, and he was so anxious to please the King that he committed irreparable crimes against the Indians… (qtd. in Zinn 6)."

Sure they used forced labor. Can using forced labor at massive amounts that lead to the deaths not account for genocide? The nazis used forced labor and people died while being used as forced labor for the war effort. Do those acts not account for genocide?

"When he arrived on Hispaniola in 1508, Las Casas says, "there were 60,000 people living on this island, including the Indians; so that from 1494 to 1508, over three million people had perished from war, slavery, and the mines. Who in future generations will believe this? I myself writing it as a knowledgeable eyewitness can hardly believe it...." Columbus, The Indians, and Human Progress


How does one discover something when humanity was already there?

Howard Zinn's "history" is a prolonged propaganda rant. The behavior of Columbus and his men, and those who came after him, was no worse than what the Euros did to each other during their wars of religion. It was a violent age. And the Indians routinely exterminated rival tribes, so they're not sainthood candidates either.eace

 

[Critter7r]

I didn't know that murder by a specific individual was justified against other people so long as you broadly generalize them into a group and hold them all collectively responsible. I wonder if someone on trail for the killing of a black person today could use "Yeah because its not like black people never killed anyone" as a defense.

I doubt it.

Cal's point ... you missed it.

The point is that if they're getting rid of Columbus Day because he killed a bunch of people, that's dumb, because the indiginous people also killed a lot of people. Six of one, half-dozen of the other.

 

[Critter7r]

He committed massive genocide! Massive genocide. Killing innocent people. I dont care if he built a trading post, founded the new world, whatever. He still massacred innocent indgenious peoples for no good reason, and because of that I still dont think we should have a holiday after him, I mean afterall its in celebration of "him discovering the new world", even tho he didnt really discover it because people were already here!

And if you'll permit the new guy one further revival of this old thread, you really need to figure out the context of CC "discovering" America. The civilized world at the time was unaware that the continent existed. So yes, as far as the Europeans at the time were concerned, he had discovered a new continent.