Moderators: kylervk, Joe, Hank Fist, inx515xhell
Probably because Columbus and his posse had guns while the natives didn't.El Rhino wrote: How do less than a hundred guys go about enslaving however many Indians there were? I'm sure Columbus encountered hostility and returned it.
Is it? Prove it. Once again, I think this is only a fact you learned from a Rage Against The Machine song.It's a well known fact that Columbus had any native who refused to become Catholic killed .
Face it, Columbus was a punk who got lost and had no idea where he landed. Nords and Asians were here long before him so he never "discovered" America. He did absolutely nothing that made a positive difference in world history.
Any firearms Columbus wouldn't have given them THAT much of an advantage. A rifle from that era takes much preparation to load and re-load and would be highly inaccurate. They would've been drastically outnumbered. A couple Indians with bows or spears would be more useful than a Spaniard with a boomstick from that era on paper. There would be an intimidation factor and that's about it.Probably because Columbus and his posse had guns while the natives didn't.
I was kind of hoping someone would say this, I just wish it was one of the people who get upset when I say I don't want certain people in my country.If he encountered hostility and the injuns told him to get the fuck out, he should have just got the fuck back in his boat and kept sailing.
Can't say I learned it from a rage song, but I did learn it in Jr High history. But then again you can't believe everything a government schools tells so maybe he really wiped out the injuns because they wouldn't suck his dirty old headcheese infested cock.El Rhino wrote:
Is it? Prove it. Once again, I think this is only a fact you learned from a Rage Against The Machine song.
The only Asians that were here long before him are the ones who crossed the Bering Strait and became injuns many moons ago. Yes, Leif Ericson was here before Columbus (and possibly a Welshman named Prince Madoc) but the difference between Columbus and these guys is that his journey actually changed the course of history. His voyages here lead to European colonization of the Americas. Pretty important chapter in world history, right? Right. This coming from a guy who's piece de resistance
is a song about smoking weed, QT burritos and Hawaiian Punch.
You shoot someone in front of a bunch of people who have never seen a gun before and then ask them who wants to be next, I doubt you're going to get much resistance after that.Any firearms Columbus wouldn't have given them THAT much of an advantage. A rifle from that era takes much preparation to load and re-load and would be highly inaccurate. They would've been drastically outnumbered. A couple Indians with bows or spears would be more useful than a Spaniard with a boomstick from that era on paper. There would be an intimidation factor and that's about it.
I don't want certain people in my country either. They're called lawyers, politicians, judges, cops, and preachers.I was kind of hoping someone would say this, I just wish it was one of the people who get upset when I say I don't want certain people in my country.
i'm pretty sure this isn't hard to prove. and really... all you need is some historical background on colonization, religion, christopher columbus and his men, and spain in the 1400/1500s to realize that this is not only likely, but most certainly a fact. the only thing hard to prove would be that he killed EVERY native who refused christianity.El Rhino wrote:Is it? Prove it. Once again, I think this is only a fact you learned from a Rage Against The Machine song.It's a well known fact that Columbus had any native who refused to become Catholic killed .
i'm pretty sure this isn't hard to prove. and really... all you need is some historical background on colonization, religion, christopher columbus and his men, and spain in the 1400/1500s to realize that this is not only likely, but most certainly a fact. the only thing hard to prove would be that he killed EVERY native who refused christianity.
"here's a little bit of history:
That the conversion of the people he found was a central purpose of Christopher Columbus is made unmistakably clear by an entry in his log book written November 6, when he was exploring the coast of Cuba. It is addressed directly to Isabel and Fernando: "I have to say, Most Serene Princess, that if devout religious persons know the Indian language well, all these people would soon become Christians. Thus I pray to Our Lord that Your Highnesses will appoint persons of great diligence in order to bring to the Church such great numbers of peoples, and that they will convert these peoples. . . . And after your days, for we are all mortal, you will leave your realms in a very tranquil state, free from heresy and wickedness, and you will be well received before the Eternal Creator.
now take into account the fact that in 1492 all the jews and muslims were kicked out of spain, and those that remained had to convert to catholicism or be burned alive.
do you believe that any cruel, greedy man who's being funded by these amazingly intolerant rulers would be kind or compassionate towards SAVAGES who refuse to accept christ?
i wish i had at least one of the many books on this subject so i could debate with actual numbers and names and locations and all that, but i do not, so we'll have to postpone until a later date. however... until then, you cannot deny that columbus did, in fact, murder innocent people, and more than a couple. even if he did not personally kill all of them, he was in charge and is to blame for every killing that occured and was not reprimanded. he could have ordered his men to not harm the natives except in self-defense, but his stance was definitely not defensive in any way. you can deny and question the exact numbers of dead indigenous people, but you cannot deny that they were treated in ways that no human should ever have to be subjected to.El Rhino wrote: ..but the fact that he killed every native who refused Christianity is what was said. Not by you, of course.
I have a hard time believing that Columbus and his dudes spoke to the Indians about Christianity in the Queen's Spanish (or Genoese Italian) and then killed them when they had no clue what he was talking about. Certainly some efforts were made to introduce Christianity to the heathens, but I have a hard time believing that the only Indians allowed to live were the ones in the center of the venn diagram that converted to Christianity, mined for gold, found gold and were willing to give Fernando a ride across the camp on their backs. I wonder how much ammunition they could fit on the Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria?
yes. amazingly intollerant. killing or removing an entire group of people based on religion is intollerant. you can try and defend it, but ultimately it is intollerant.Amazingly intolerant? If that's what you want to call it. Would the Indians be amazingly intolerant if they didn't want to be conquered by Europeans? I don't know how you think that the Muslims got to Spain, but the books I've read talk about a very bloody and lengthy conquest with all kinds of torture, rape, murder and destruction caused by the Moors. Call that intolerance, I'll call it liberation and the Spanish would call it "reconquista"... and be glad that they did (along with a few other key players), because if they didn't boot the Arabs out of Europe there's a good chance we would all be riding around on donkeys, shitting in holes and beating our wives right now.
As far as the Jews, they were seen to be collaborators with the Moors and generally fared well under Islamic occupation. I think I would be a little pissed off if I had my women raped, men killed and churches destroyed while a group of foreigners made a profit off the Islamic occupation.
Ok, well, you know where to find me.i wish i had at least one of the many books on this subject so i could debate with actual numbers and names and locations and all that, but i do not, so we'll have to postpone until a later date.
So what did he do? Did one moment he try to teach them about JC and then have a change of heart five minutes later and kill everyone in sight? I'm sure Columbus and his dudes killed a lot of people. I'm also sure they encountered enough hostility (or "intolerance" as you would say) to be on edge when dealing with the natives.however... until then, you cannot deny that columbus did, in fact, murder innocent people, and more than a couple. even if he did not personally kill all of them, he was in charge and is to blame for every killing that occured and was not reprimanded. he could have ordered his men to not harm the natives except in self-defense, but his stance was definitely not defensive in any way
You're right, I do feel for the Injuns that they had their lands taken from them and their cultures belittled. I hope that never happens to me or my kind.you can deny and question the exact numbers of dead indigenous people, but you cannot deny that they were treated in ways that no human should ever have to be subjected to.
Intolerant is right. I wouldn't tolerate someone raping my women, killing my dudes, destroying my houses of worship and trying to force Allah upon me. If you would tolerate that or think that others should tolerate that, I don't know what to tell you. Tolerance can be a virtue, but you can't tell me that being tolerant of that sort of thing is anything positive. Fortunately you have the luxury of thinking that way and fortunately our ancestors didn't think like you or else we would be shitting in holes, riding around on donkeys and beating our wives.yes. amazingly intollerant. killing or removing an entire group of people based on religion is intollerant. you can try and defend it, but ultimately it is intollerant.
So they killed a bunch of people, but hey, they were tolerant. They ushered in the renaissance? I was under the impression that the renaissance began in the parts of Italy that were never touched by Muslim invaders. Some texts were preserved by A-rabs and some info was obtained from them, but it was pretty much entirely a European thing. Please tell me how I'm wrong though.m sure the moors were not all great people, and i'm sure that their conquest of spain was plenty bloody. however... from what I'VE read, the moors were much more tolerant of other cultures and religions, and not only did they lead the eurpoeans out of the dark ages, but they are given credit for ushering in the renaissance.
"Hey, but they were tolerant"it's a fact that cordova, the capital of moorish spain, was the pinacle of intelligence in europe, and that people from all over traveled there to learn from the moors. and although people who were not muslim had to pay an extra tax, they were allowed to live their lives and practice their religion however they liked. (you couldn't find this kind of tolerance anywhere else in europe for many many hundreds of years).
Again, tolerance isn't always a virtue.eventually the moors started fighting amongst themselves and the christians up north decided to join together to bring down the muslims. the moors got weaker and less organized as the christians got more powerful and moved through spain RAPING AND MURDERING ALONG THE WAY. the christians kept most of the books they came across but destroyed the moor civilization and culture as they took over power. and they definitely destroyed the tolerance by killing or exiling all non-christians.
These people had absolutely nothing on the ancient Greeks or Romans. If these people were so far ahead of the Europeans, can you explain to me why we haven't heard of any great technological, scientific, medical, political, cultural, architecture or military achievements from these people in say, six hundred years? That would be our future. Until you can name these achievements, I can only assume that they're too busy riding around on donkeys, shitting in holes and beating their wives.your statement that we'd be riding donkeys, shitting in holes, etc. if the muslims weren't killed or exiled is so completely false that it's laughable. without these muslims and their 700 or so years in spain, europe would never have become what it is today. without all the arab scholars and texts, europe might never have seen universities, the concept of zero, the keyboard, the flute, harmony, architecture, painting techniques (especially perspective), lawyers, or cooking utensils, as well as countless other intellectual, philosophical, and artistic improvements.
Rooster wrote:cant worship the devil unless you are 21 now
I don't know, Hitler did spend several years at the front lines in WWI. You don't spend any significant time in a war like that without killing someone at least.Beaver wrote: 2. Columbus prolly killed more people than Hitler who I think didnt kill anyone,...personally? Maybe wrong.
!
