Why Columbus Sailed

Tallguy88 said:

Not according to the Wiki aticle on their main ally, the Tlaxcala

"The Tlaxcalteca served as allies to Hernán Cortés and his fellow Spanish conquistadors, and were instrumental in the invasion of Tenochtitlan, capital of the Aztec empire, helping the Spanish reach the Valley of Anahuac and providing a key contingent of the invasion force.

Due to their alliance with the Spanish Crown in the conquest of Mexico, the Tlaxcalteca enjoyed some privileges among the indigenous peoples of Mexico, including the right to carry firearms, ride horses, hold noble title and to rule their settlements autonomously."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tlaxcaltec

Click to expand...

According to the same article the Aztec's never conquered the Tlaxcalteca so I don't get your point.

Columbus was a slave trader.

Tallguy88 said:

Not according to the Wiki aticle on their main ally, the Tlaxcala

"The Tlaxcalteca served as allies to Hernán Cortés and his fellow Spanish conquistadors, and were instrumental in the invasion of Tenochtitlan, capital of the Aztec empire, helping the Spanish reach the Valley of Anahuac and providing a key contingent of the invasion force.

Due to their alliance with the Spanish Crown in the conquest of Mexico, the Tlaxcalteca enjoyed some privileges among the indigenous peoples of Mexico, including the right to carry firearms, ride horses, hold noble title and to rule their settlements autonomously."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tlaxcaltec

Click to expand...

that is awesome, I never new that

tadoflamb said:

Columbus was a slave trader.

Click to expand...

yep, Jefferson and Washington owned slaves
Rev Martin Luther King Jr cheated on his wife

lots of great men have also had moral failings
and Columbus was a great man, or at least a great navigator, and if it was not for him, we would not be here

man I love this forum "hey look, a Catholic did something, lets tear him down"

lol Lief Erikson, well that explains that massive Viking empire that spans Nova Scotia to Seattle
oh wait? that never happened
they did not know how to capitalize on this.

as for the Native Nations here,
fact of life, when two countries go to war, the country with a smaller army and inferior technology looses
sorry the Native Nations were not smart enough to build their own cannons
or have farming technics that would have let them be more populated
none of them even domesticated animals?

if they had the upper hand, they would have invaded Europe and set up pyramids for human sacrifice on the banks of the Danube, Thames, Seine, and the Tiber

tadoflamb said:

Columbus was a slave trader.

Click to expand...

Among other things, like a psychotic murderous tyrant. And although this sociopathic maniac never stepped foot on the North American continent, least of all, having the credit for discovering it, he was still only one locust among a horde that would soon swarm down on an entire race of people, bringing death and destruction with it.

I am quite pleased to see some places i have lived on this list (Albuquerque and Oregon), and hope to see more in the future.

To me the question is not one of character assassination of an individual (not because it isn't totally appropriate in this case, but because it just leads to defenses such as we've already seen in this thread: everyone has done bad stuff; nobody's perfect; we can't judge the past by modern values; etc.), but what has the person actually done that is worthy of celebrating. In Columbus' case, I can't think of anything. And I don't buy the "but we wouldn't be here if...!" kind of justifications, for several reasons: (1) some of us [Red Fox and other natives] would still be here...in fact, a lot more of them would still be here if it weren't for European settlement. (2) So we'd be somewhere else! Who cares? Perhaps there is something I'm not understanding, but I would think that if anyone has a special connection to these lands, it'd be the people who were robbed of them in the process of being forcibly sent off to reservations, boarding schools, etc. Whereas if you're a European American, unless you are a recent immigrant chances are your ancestors came here some time before you were born because being a fisherman in rural Italy or whatever was not economically viable and they'd heard that America was better. America is not some kind of birthright for you; you just sort of ended up here by happenstance (again, unless you yourself made the trip). You could be just as happy in some other place in Western, Northern, or Southern Europe, so long as we're engaging in alternative histories such as the ones people here have mentioned would've improved the current plight of the Native Americans. Nothing improves that more than Europeans staying in Europe! For myself, I have evidence in the form of having spoken directly to my grandmother about it that the Mexican side of my family came here in 1926 in the aftermath of the Mexican Revolution, because some of our relatives had fought on the losing side (oops), so it wasn't safe for my great grandmother to stick around with a young family. The Irish guy she married had family in the USA dating back to the 1880s, but apparently not earlier. On my mom's side, it is the same -- only about 100 years removed from Europe (well, Greenland...) in any case. I kinda doubt that my own family's story is terribly atypical in this regard.

Given the above, am I somehow supposed to feel like America is "mine" and my place in it is God-ordained? Or is the truth just that my family was slightly richer than the other Irish bowler makers (yeah, no kidding), or able to flee faster, or whatever it was that got us here? I don't know and I don't think it honestly matters at this point. But I do know that my people have not been here, in this spot, forever and ever (or at least as long as historical records allow), unlike the case of Native Americans who have been. I think it's better to look at it this way. It's not my land...I'm just on it for now, and it's better not to treat it as though I am descended from intrepid pioneers or something, who found a new place when there were already people living on it. And so what if those people didn't have canons or whatever? Europeans didn't have chocolate or potatoes prior to their contact with the native peoples of the Americas, and I think we'd all agree that chocolate and potatoes (not together! Well...hmm...no, nevermind) are a heck of a lot better signposts for the advancement of humanity on this earth than canons.

Miss Shelby said:

well you're probably right about that.

Click to expand...

Up here we have British Columbia, for which the link with Christopher Columbus is kind of thin, I guess...

I think we should just let the man speak for himself:

"They... brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks' bells. They willingly traded everything they owned.... They were well-built, with good bodies and handsome features.... They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane.... They would make fine servants.... With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want."

Tallguy88 said:

"Columbia" is an archaic name for the New World, generally replaced with "America" in modern usage.

Click to expand...

Yes, good point. Also, to your earlier point, James Bartelsman was Ontario's Lieutenant-Governor and he is of First Nations heritage, and he said his ancestors moved to the Muskoka region in the 19th century and so he find it odd to think that somehow the land belonged exclusively to one racial group (renaming everything for First Nations names would seem to imply that it did).

Tallguy88 said:

I don't know. It just showed up in my Facebook feed for the Knights of Columbus and since it's relevant to today, I figured I'd post it herem

Click to expand...

You should know better than that, tsk

and because of the New World
the wealth and resources that the Europeans obtained in the Americas, Europe no longer had to fear Islamic encroachment

Red Fox said:

I guess it is fair to assume that when a foreign country comes into America to invade and conquer it that whatever happens during that invasion will be perfectly justifiable since Americans once fought against each other in the Civil War and their government once committed genocide against one race while initially allowing the enslavement of another race. So, whatever that foreign country does to accomplish conquering America and whatever atrocities it commits against the American people will be perfectly justifiable as it is seemingly justifiable for Columbus to have committed genocide and slaughtered native people because tribes once fought against each other in the past. Interesting. I will remember all of that when many American people are slaughtered during a foreign invasion and whoever is left is forcibly removed from their own land and confined to a barren wasteland. I will also remember all of that if innocent American children are ruthlessly ripped from their families to be forcibly assimilated and religiously indoctrinated into the foreign invader's religion and dominant society. Word to the wise, do not accept any blankets from the enemy and do not trust their hollow promises. What a turn of events that will be if America finally begins to reap what it has sown in its own history and falls to the ground in ashes because of its past sins.

Click to expand...

If any of this ranting rambling post makes sense to anyone, I'd appreciate a translation.

Tallguy88 said:

This thread isn't really meant to be a Native vs European "who had better stuff, who was worse" thread.

Click to expand...

well of course you would not make a thread about that
it is not even worth talking about it is so obvious

Sumwear said:

How about someone non white for a change?

Click to expand...

I see, so give someone a holiday at least in part because they aren't white? A racist holiday. Sorry I'll pass.

How about an Indigenous or Native American day? And make this day mean something. Make this a day off for everyone and not just school children and federal employees.

Click to expand...

You want to force businesses to give employees a day off? And that somehow makes it "mean something" it wouldn't have otherwise? ???

mark46 said:

You are simply incorrect. President's Day is NOT the celebration of all presidents. It is the celebration of Washington and Lincoln.

Click to expand...

Sure it is. That's why they call it Washington and Lincoln Day.

Red Fox said:

Among other things, like a psychotic murderous tyrant. And although this sociopathic maniac never stepped foot on the North American continent, least of all, having the credit for discovering it, he was still only one locust among a horde that would soon swarm down on an entire race of people, bringing death and destruction with it.

Click to expand...

But he wasn't Genocidal as many have claimed.

classicalhero said:

But he wasn't Genocidal as many have claimed.

Click to expand...

It wasn't for lack of trying.