• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Christopher Columbus was one of history's greatest monsters

Status
Not open for further replies.
It allows us to feel superior to our past.

Columbus Day isn't even a "thing" about Columbus and there are no celebrations about him. In grammar school we were taught the happy histories but in jr high we learned what actually happened. I don't think we need to teach 8 year olds about genocide.

Then why teach about Columbus Day at all? I'm sure teachers can find a better thing to celebrate for that day. I don't believe children need to be lied to in the first place, just avoid it.
 

GreekWolf

Member
Columbus was certainly a despicable individual, as were most of the Spaniards during that period. Along those lines, I remember my high school history teacher garnering a few eye-rolls when he compared Columbus to villanous juggernauts like Hitler and Pol Pot. That always seemed a bit over the top to me.

He also showed us an old movie that discussed several different eras of human history, and somehow concluded that the English people of Medieval Britian were the most vile and "evil" in recorded history. I'm almost positive our teacher was a Berkeley grad.
 
Appeals to historical relativism are so en vogue. It's kind of annoying, to be frank. Yes, he was a beast. Enough for multiple disgusted accounts of his actions to be written in his time by fellow countrymen. Enough for him to be jailed (although later released) and stripped of his governorship by the Spanish Crown.

Columbus seems like a particularly nasty piece of work, but raping and pillaging and slavery and extermination and maltreatment of the natives WAS common.
 
Well I bet Mongolia has a Genghis Khan day :p

Off topic, but I couldn't resist. I'm not sure if they have a day dedicated to him, but he's on their money.

mongolian_money.jpg
 
Most so called great men are cunts. That's probably the most depressing thing about history.

He also showed us an old movie that discussed several different eras of human history, and somehow concluded that the English people of Medieval Britian were the most vile and "evil" in recorded history. I'm almost positive our teacher was a Berkeley grad.

Sure he wasn't a butthurt irishman?
 
See 10% of all revenues went to him.

Voiding his claim on the revenues as part of the motive for the Crown stripping him of his governorship is a sound point. The accounts of his poor leadership and cruelty might have just been a good excuse for them, but I don't see how it invalidates those accounts.

Columbus seems like a particularly nasty piece of work, but raping and pillaging and slavery and extermination and maltreatment of the natives WAS common.

And certain perpetrators are worse than others. Columbus was amongst the worst of the period, as judged by his fellow compatriots. I don't see anything 'annoying' or 'en vogue' about pointing that out. It's simply fact.
 

televator

Member
Columbus seems like a particularly nasty piece of work, but raping and pillaging and slavery and extermination and maltreatment of the natives WAS common.

Okay, no one is denying that. So should we have a Holiday for a man who wrought mass raping pillaging and extermination?
 
Okay, no one is denying that. So should we have a Holiday for a man who wrought mass raping pillaging and extermination?

I don't think so.

It's tough, because history needs a lot of revision. It wasn't really properly done during the 20th century. But so much of American/European culture is steeped in these myths, so rewriting them in a way that reflects the past properly is not an easy task. But certainly a worthy one.
 

Valhelm

contribute something
White people.

Specifically, early 20th century Italian Americans. They encouraged the US government to respect the contributions of Christopher Columbus to global history, and this led to our current elementary school lionization, where's he's mentioned in the same breath as Lincoln or Martin Luther King.
 

Caja 117

Member
Voiding his claim on the revenues as part of the motive for the Crown stripping him of his governorship is a sound point. The accounts of his poor leadership and cruelty might have just been a good excuse for them, but I don't see how it invalidates those accounts.
.
Invalidates it? No, make it Unreliable? Yes
 

mantidor

Member
Ugh. This is why I hate our education system. It's so fucking whitewashed and uses broad strokes on the brutality, cruelty, and disgusting practices at the time.

"Hey white children...feel bad...but don't feel TOO bad."

This is all kinds of insane I hope you are just joking. Why instill guilt on some children that had nothing to do with it? Why separate them by race? they are all now in the same country and have the same nationality.
 
I want a hardcore history episode about Columbus now, has he done one already? I might pay the fee just to hear it

The crown stripping his titles because he was mean to the natives is suspect as hell to me. There had to be some other motives
 

News Bot

Banned
This is all kinds of insane I hope you are just joking. Why instill guilt on some children that had nothing to do with it? Why separate them by race? they are all now in the same country and have the same nationality.

Why lie to children and inflate their egos and sense of entitlement with false pride?

"Tell it like it is" should be the default. No lying, no whitewashing. Show that people are, in-fact, deplorable monsters. Give the good with the bad.
 
Cortez was so insane. Have any of you read Wargod, by Graham Hancock? jesus christ. it's half fiction / half based on real accounts.


I had no idea there was no horses on the American peninsula. When the Aztecs first witnessed a man on a horse they thought it was a half-dear half man monster. They were terrified tripping on their psychedelic shrooms and herbs.


I feel almost guilty for being so fascinated with how such a small force was able to take on an empire and win through tactics, guerilla tactics, kidnapping of their leader, ransoming, extortion, blowing them apart from sea with small cannon boats, using their few guns as cover fire. Superior steel and armory.

And a fiery hatred.


The Aztec tribes were not used to the brutality. they were used to enslaving and using war victims to fill their own war ranks. Some got sacrificed, but not as many as we think(movies like Apocalypto exaggerates this, greatly).
 
My favorite Columbus factoid is that nobody knows what he looks like.

The bob hairdo, feathered cap and long nose is all bullshit. There were no written or pictorial descriptions of him during his lifetime.
 
I have both, spanish and italian ascendance, but I was born in Costa Rica, and I'm 100% american (by my continent).

A few years back when I visited Spain, I was pretty pissed to see all the "pre-Columbine" treasures they keep on museums and how a lot of older people celebrate columbus day as if they came to "save" the americas.
 

Hari Seldon

Member
Why lie to children and inflate their egos and sense of entitlement with false pride?

"Tell it like it is" should be the default. No lying, no whitewashing. Show that people are, in-fact, deplorable monsters. Give the good with the bad.

I spent many years in US public school learning about slavery and about the mistreatment of the NA natives. That stuff is far more relevant to US history than Columbus. Columbus is only important as a 1 liner history bullet point. He discovered NA for Europe to exploit. He is not important enough to US history beyond this. And I for one think the US public school already spends way too much time on US centric history, so I'm all for cutting out even more crap in order to get more relevant history.
 

mantidor

Member
Why lie to children and inflate their egos and sense of entitlement with false pride?

"Tell it like it is" should be the default. No lying, no whitewashing. Show that people are, in-fact, deplorable monsters. Give the good with the bad.

No one is advocating for lying.

On the other hand this idea that children, specifically white children, should feel bad about what some people did 500 years ago is appalling and frankly racist.
 

Akuun

Looking for meaning in GAF
I really didn't know this about Columbus until earlier this year.

They didn't mention ANY of this in school.
 
No one is advocating for lying.

On the other hand this idea that children, specifically white children, should feel bad about what some people did 500 years ago is appalling and frankly racist.

Monsters have no race.
We should teach the way it happened not to create hate, but to learn from it.
 

Azih

Member
No one is advocating for lying.

On the other hand this idea that children, specifically white children, should feel bad about what some people did 500 years ago is appalling and frankly racist.

Everybody should feel bad about the bad things other people do. That's kinda the thing that keeps them from happening again (or at least more regularly).
 

Valhelm

contribute something
We should teach the way it happened not to create hate, but to learn from it.

This is what matters most. White people, especially children, should not feel guilty for what they didn't do, but they should come to terms with the fact that their position in global society was built on the corpses of hundreds of cultures.
 

EMT0

Banned
I don't understand the people saying that Columbus was just a monster amongst many. Sure, other people were doing the conquering, slaving, and murdering before him, but it was Columbus that established precedence for doing that against the Natives in the New World. And what an ugly precedent he set.
 

IceCold

Member
My favorite Columbus factoid is that nobody knows what he looks like.

The bob hairdo, feathered cap and long nose is all bullshit. There were no written or pictorial descriptions of him during his lifetime.


This is most probably the most accurate pic of him




I don't think you can blame that on just him. The Spaniards didn't control the African coast.
 

mantidor

Member
Cortez was so insane. Have any of you read Wargod, by Graham Hancock? jesus christ. it's half fiction / half based on real accounts.


I had no idea there was no horses on the American peninsula. When the Aztecs first witnessed a man on a horse they thought it was a half-dear half man monster. They were terrified tripping on their psychedelic shrooms and herbs.


I feel almost guilty for being so fascinated with how such a small force was able to take on an empire and win through tactics, guerilla tactics, kidnapping of their leader, ransoming, extortion, blowing them apart from sea with small cannon boats, using their few guns as cover fire. Superior steel and armory.

And a fiery hatred.


The Aztec tribes were not used to the brutality. they were used to enslaving and using war victims to fill their own war ranks. Some got sacrificed, but not as many as we think(movies like Apocalypto exaggerates this, greatly).

Wasn't Cortez success heavily relying on his alliance with the Toltec, which were in war with the aztecs at the time?

Cortez was an absolute cunt no doubt but the aztecs were not naive at all about brutality, accounts say there were 20000 sacrifices (more than likely exaggerated, but you get the picture). The Aztec empire was enormous, there was no way Cortez could have been able to take it all just with the spaniards, it is said Tenochtitlan was bigger than the biggest cities of Europe at the time.

Apocalypto is pure trash anyway.
 

huxley00

Member
Appeals to historical relativism are so en vogue. It's kind of annoying, to be frank. Yes, he was a beast. Enough for multiple disgusted accounts of his actions to be written in his time by fellow countrymen. Enough for him to be jailed (although later released) and stripped of his governorship by the Spanish Crown.

The written letter is always correct. Just look at what was written about Tesla for many years. It was written down by reliable sources, it must be 100% correct...yes...let us trust anything said about anyone, as long as it was written down.

I'm not saying that he wasn't a monster. He certainly seems like he was an evil man. All I'm saying is that we can't assume every bad account is accurate (especially those detailed by others whose best interests were served by taking him down a peg or two). I'm surprised critical thinking is so frowned upon by some people here.
 

geomon

Member
Still bothers me that as a Puerto Rican myself, there's a statue of this rotten son of a bitch sitting in Old San Juan.
 

HK-47

Oh, bitch bitch bitch.
Because in the US, they like to pretend that the Natives simply vanished or something, not they were wiped out by various countries including our own. Everyone pretty much ignores the existence of Natives until it comes time to bitch about casinos or gripe about pressure to change a football teams name.

I dont know about else where, but we learned all about the slave triangle, the trail of tears, the conquistadors and all that shit. I had the whole shitty Columbus lionization torn down in high school.
 

Caja 117

Member
Are you suggesting the multiple accounts were a conspiracy? Including Columbus's own son?
No, Im suggesting that the information that came from people that wanted his wealth shouldn't be taken as absolute fact. None of this conquistadores were saints, but there were a lot of interest behind Colon's Share.
 
The written letter is always correct. Just look at what was written about Tesla for many years. It was written down by reliable sources, it must be 100% correct...yes...let us trust anything said about anyone, as long as it was written down.

I'm not saying that he wasn't a monster. He certainly seems like he was an evil man. All I'm saying is that we can't assume every bad account is accurate (especially those detailed by others whose best interests were served by taking him down a peg or two). I'm surprised critical thinking is so frowned upon by some people here.

Yes, I think everyone is aware of the fragilities of historicity. But -

No, Im suggesting that the information that came from people that wanted his wealth shouldn't be taken as absolute fact. None of this conquistadores were saints, but there were a lot of interest behind Colon's Share.

Even his own supporters at the time admitted he committed atrocities. Even his own son's account entailed them. And I wouldn't class Bartolomé - behind the most damning of the accounts - as someone who wanted Columbus's wealth. This is beyond reasonable doubt territory.
 

Ikael

Member

Wrong. Bartolomé de Las Casas latter abjured of every form of slavery and retracted from that statement. Not to mention that he freed every slave that the owned prior to his pro-indian campaign too, in order to back his words with example.

Trans-atantic slave trade, albeit a multi-national global business, it was originally a wholly 101% English creation that you guys controlled for the main part of its existance, and whose blame you latter tried to endorse us. The first "commodity" that Britain fought for trading and introducing in the Spanish-controlled ports was not silver, nor gold nor spices, but slaves. So enough with the ridiculous notion of anglo-saxon moral superiority.

He was arrested for killing natives? Seems hard to believe that the same nation that gave us conquistadors had such a progressive view on the subject.

Conquistadores were semi-independent soldiers of fortune that conquered in the name of the Crown, but that is, in name-only. Central authority over their occuppied lands was tenous as fuck, and consequently, that lead to many, many conflicts between the Crown and the Conquistadores and their offspring, which soon became oligarchs.The tragedy of South America was in great part due the fact that these were the same guys (well, their grandsons) that latter independized their countries so they could keep their privileges in place. Natives actually sided with the Spanish Crown fighting agains the independentists, you can guess why.

In addition to that, the Spanish empire's main drive, unfying force and source of balls-to-the-wall intolerance revolved around religion, first and foremost, not race. In just one generation after the conquest, you had Aztecs and Incans occupying higher goverment offices in the Spanish territory, and leading armies in Europe. Noone gave two shits about it because they were Catholics.
 

huxley00

Member
Yes, I think everyone is aware of the fragilities of historicity. But -



Even his own supporters at the time admitted he committed atrocities. Even his own son's account entailed them. And I wouldn't class Bartolomé - behind the most damning of the accounts - as someone who wanted Columbus's wealth. This is beyond reasonable doubt territory.

Fair enough, I think the one thing that we can all agree on is that the man certainly doesn't deserve a holiday or a place of reverence in the history of the Americas. I'd be interested to hear the argument of anyone who supported that.
 

IceCold

Member
Wrong. Bartolomé de Las Casas latter abjured of every form of slavery and retracted from that statement. Not to mention that he freed every slave that the owned prior to his pro-indian campaign too, in order to back his words with example.

Trans-atantic slave trade, albeit a multi-national global business, it was originally a wholly 101% English creation that you guys controlled for the main part of its existance, and whose blame you latter tried to endorse us. The first "commodity" that Britain fought for trading and introducing in the Spanish-controlled ports was not silver, nor gold nor spices, but slaves. So enough with the ridiculous notion of anglo-saxon moral superiority.



Conquistadores were semi-independent soldiers of fortune that conquered in the name of the Crown, but that is, in name-only. Central authority over their occuppied lands was tenous as fuck, and consequently, that lead to many, many conflicts between the Crown and the Conquistadores and their offspring, which soon became oligarchs.The tragedy of South America was in great part due the fact that these were the same guys (well, their grandsons) that latter independized their countries so they could keep their privileges in place. Natives actually sided with the Spanish Crown fighting agains the independentists, you can guess why.

In addition to that, the Spanish empire's main drive, unfying force and source of balls-to-the-wall intolerance revolved around religion, first and foremost, not race. In just one generation after the conquest, you had Aztecs and Incans occupying higher goverment offices in the Spanish territory, and leading armies in Europe. Noone gave two shits about it because they were Catholics.


For the majority of history, the Portuguese had the monopoly on the trans Atlantic slave trade. Countries like the England were playing catch up to the Iberians and were only involved much later. You think there were a lot of slaves in the US? Go look at how many were brought to Brazil. iirc the number is more than 10x larger.
 

mantidor

Member
Wrong. Bartolomé de Las Casas latter abjured of every form of slavery and retracted from that statement. Not to mention that he freed every slave that the owned prior to his pro-indian campaign too, in order to back his words with example.

Trans-atantic slave trade, albeit a multi-national global business, it was originally a wholly 101% English creation that you guys controlled for the main part of its existance, and whose blame you latter tried to endorse us. The first "commodity" that Britain fought for trading and introducing in the Spanish-controlled ports was not silver, nor gold nor spices, but slaves. So enough with the ridiculous notion of anglo-saxon moral superiority.



Conquistadores were semi-independent soldiers of fortune that conquered in the name of the Crown, but that is, in name-only. Central authority over their occuppied lands was tenous as fuck, and consequently, that lead to many, many conflicts between the Crown and the Conquistadores and their offspring, which soon became oligarchs.The tragedy of South America was in great part due the fact that these were the same guys (well, their grandsons) that latter independized their countries so they could keep their privileges in place. Natives actually sided with the Spanish Crown fighting agains the independentists, you can guess why.

In addition to that, the Spanish empire's main drive, unfying force and source of balls-to-the-wall intolerance revolved around religion, first and foremost, not race. In just one generation after the conquest, you had Aztecs and Incans occupying higher goverment offices in the Spanish territory, and leading armies in Europe. Noone gave two shits about it because they were Catholics.

Thank you for this bit of information, it's unfortunate even many of my fellow Latinamericans are ignorant about it but who can blame them, history is written by the winners. It makes the modern figure of Simon Bolivar pushed mainly from Venezuela as something completely ironic.

I do have to add that the natives that supported the Crown were not really a majority.

This is my problem with the outrage about Colombus, he did awful things, but this wasn't a one man only operation, colonization has plenty of Conquistadores that make Colombus look like saint. At least back home in Colombia, no one really cares about Colombus, and the country is even named after him, you see no glorification but no condemnation, he's just sort of there, the guy who made the first trips, which is really his only noteworthy contribution to the whole thing.
 
The usual stubborn refusal to change long-standing traditions. It's not a major national holiday but could easily be changed to celebrate someone more deserving. Someone who didn't commit genocide and other various human atrocities.

But who cares, we get the day off.

Not all businesses get the day off.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom