1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Goodbye, Columbus

jwilliams Wrote: Oct 15, 2014 11:51 AM
I believe that it is irresponsible historical revisionism with far-reaching negative consequences to characterize native americans as uniformly peace-loving, spiritual, and innocent of all evil, and that this characterization does exist in abundance. I also believe it is irresponsible revisionism with far-reaching negative consequences to characterize Columbus as a saintly pioneer who did no wrong and who embodies only the best virtues of the West, and that this misrepresentation also abounds. I also believe that people get weirdly prickly when this misrepresentation of Columbus is challenged, writing Columbus a pass that one could just as easily write for Hitler, who also believed in the superiority of his own people and who also acted according to the recent examples of his own time (Armenia, specifically).
In response to:

Goodbye, Columbus

jwilliams Wrote: Oct 15, 2014 6:22 AM
And just going to copy/paste from my own words below: My liberal Massachusetts history professor was highly critical of Columbus, but also held that Cortez's primary weapon against the Aztecs was the fact that everyone else in Central America hated the Aztecs. There is no inconsistency in thinking Columbus was a monster and that the Aztecs deserved everything they had coming to them.
In response to:

Goodbye, Columbus

jwilliams Wrote: Oct 15, 2014 6:21 AM
Why do you say I have no idea what I'm talking about? I was arguing in response to the ignorant claim that he enslaved no one. I said that he plainly did. You're saying that he plainly did. Hurray. We agree. I also say that his crimes were not limited to his slaving. You do not respond to that bit. Truth is, if it was just slaving, I think we could all turn the blind eye we afford so many of the founding fathers. It wasn't just slaves, though. In the words of Bartolome de las Casas, an eyewitness to Columbus's reign as governor on Hispaniola: ""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....""
In response to:

Goodbye, Columbus

jwilliams Wrote: Oct 14, 2014 4:11 PM
Well said, but the traditional image of Columbus that we grow up with is a saintly and noble explorer who dared to believe the world was round and who more or less got along with the natives he encountered. One can't help but think the anti-anti-Columbus crowd wants us to return to this image, and we've got to acknowledge that that is itself revisionist history.
In response to:

Goodbye, Columbus

jwilliams Wrote: Oct 14, 2014 4:05 PM
My liberal Massachusetts history professor was highly critical of Columbus, but also held that Cortez's primary weapon against the Aztecs was the fact that everyone else in Central America hated the Aztecs. There is no inconsistency in thinking Columbus was a monster and that the Aztecs deserved everything they had coming to them.
In response to:

Goodbye, Columbus

jwilliams Wrote: Oct 14, 2014 4:02 PM
Same reason we don't call him Cristofor Colombo, I expect.
In response to:

Goodbye, Columbus

jwilliams Wrote: Oct 14, 2014 3:58 PM
"That includes the indigenous American peoples today." What few of them are left.
In response to:

Goodbye, Columbus

jwilliams Wrote: Oct 14, 2014 3:55 PM
Says the man who clearly hasn't made any attempt to learn why people say this about him. Much of the criticism against Columbus comes from crimes - including his taking of slaves - that he recorded in his own writings. Europe wasn't exactly in a dark age at the time, and all his atrocities are well-documented.
In response to:

Goodbye, Columbus

jwilliams Wrote: Oct 14, 2014 3:49 PM
"What great nation, what great empire, what great civilization ever rose on a belief in the equality of all other peoples and all other faiths?" Um..."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"? I wonder if Buchanan would make the same case for Hitler. The man rose to power in a Germany ravaged by the punishments of the Versailles treaty and managed to revitalize it. An ironclad belief in German superiority over other peoples, particularly over the Jews, powered this revitalization, their success in the subsequent war, and the attendant atrocities. Because after all, how else does society exist if not by the superior folks clearing out the lesser peoples? Do I have you more or less right, Buchanan?
In fairness, I've never heard reference to "The Adams brothers." John was the one we most associate with the state constitution and John Quincy was the one we think of as most following in his father's political footsteps. Which brothers is it supposed to refer to?
1 - 10 Next