Native Americans On Christopher Columbus

[chrysostom]

phatmassssss

you're phun again

Edited November 26, 2015 by chrysostom

[little2add]

Every Thanksgiving we remember that, to escape religious persecution, the Pilgrims sailed to the New World, landing at Plymouth Rock in 1620. But numerous trading ships had visited the area earlier. Around 1608 an English ship dropped anchor off the coast of what is today Plymouth, Mass., ostensibly to trade metal goods for the natives’ beads and pelts. The friendly Patuxets received the crew but soon discovered their dark intentions. A number of the braves were brutally captured, taken to Spain and sold into slavery. 

One of them, a young man named Tisquantum, or Squanto, was bought by a group of Catholic friars, who evidently treated him well and freed him, 

Squanto was  freed by a group of Catholic Friars

[Didacus]

Wouldnt the world be a better place if only all whites and their heritage was removed from the world altogether?

Edited November 26, 2015 by Didacus

[Ice_nine]

@Lilllabettt Had me up a crick? Like I was panicking and then I had to backtrack on what I said because the almighty lillabett had me cornered? I don't think it's really possible for me to have a conversation with you because things tend to invariably get nasty esp around this particular topic.

If it didn't matter about whether it was the reason for their name or for lobbying for it I don't know why you made such a beaver dam issue about it, but fine. I meant perhaps racist in the sense that @Peace was talking about, a glossing over the suffering of natives or a wholesale dismissal of their suffering, or maybe even ignorance that they suffered undeservedly or suffered at all. I believe our culture has racism embedded in its framework, so lots of Americans were probably racist (whether overt KKK racists or more subtle, implicit racism esp. back in the day). If that's true, it follows that some of the Knights (mostly white) were probably racist to varying degrees. Maybe. Who knows? I'm not judging any particular individual. If you want to skewer me for saying that's a likely possibility, go right ahead. It's clear that you among others don't have a very high opinion of me, and that's foine.

The kicker is I didn't even call the knights racist. I asked knight if he would consider that perhaps they were, [or do you believe so strongly that they were great Catholic men who were so good they could never be racist]? Again the last part was implied. If you want to assume that I was calling them definitely racist then cool. I guess it's not totally unreasonable to extrapolate that from my post, but it sure is assuming the worst of me, which you tend to do.

happy thanksgiving!

2 hours ago, SaintOfVirtue said:

lol, a minute ago you didn't know what an Argument from Analogy was, and now you play the card against me.

well, SOV, I didn't know what that term meant off the top of my head (although I got it when you explained), but I do know a good analogy and a bad one. Maybe "argument from analogy" is synonymous with "bad analogy" idk. And didn't you even admit that that particular logical fallacy didn't really apply to that meme?

Either way if you wanted to make the point that you're smarter than me, don't feel too good about yourself. I'm kind of a moron.

[Peace]

3 hours ago, SaintOfVirtue said:

lol, a minute ago you didn't know what an Argument from Analogy was, and now you play the card against me.

Ad hominem?

It was a bad analogy, regardless of what she knew a minute ago.

[dominicansoul]

 

1 hour ago, little2add said:

Every Thanksgiving we remember that, to escape religious persecution, the Pilgrims sailed to the New World, landing at Plymouth Rock in 1620. 

Wasn't the first thanksgiving actually held at Saint Augustine, Florida? And didn't it include *gasp* European Catholic missionaries???  T H E  H O R R O R!!!!!

[Socrates]

Oh the microagression!

[Lilllabettt]

1 hour ago, Didacus said:

Wouldnt the world be a better place if only all whites and their heritage was removed from the world altogether?

I shudder to think what would happen if we didn't have Stuff White People Like

[Lilllabettt]

1 hour ago, Ice_nine said:

If that's true, it follows that some of the Knights (mostly white) were probably racist to varying degrees. Maybe. Who knows? I'm not judging any particular individual. If you want to skewer me for saying that's a likely possibility, go right ahead. It's clear that you among others don't have a very high opinion of me, and that's foine.

The kicker is I didn't even call the knights racist. I asked knight if he would consider that perhaps they were, [or do you believe so strongly that they were great Catholic men who were so good they could never be racist]? Again the last part was implied. If you want to assume that I was calling them definitely racist then cool. I guess it's not totally unreasonable to extrapolate that from my post, but it sure is assuming the worst of me, which you tend to do..

The mistake is mine.

Before, I thought I saw you express incredulity that anyone could be unaware of Columbus' crimes and then go on to say that it was not even worth having a discussion with someone unwilling to give countenance to the idea that the Knights chose to "honor" Columbus because they felt superior to, and racist towards, American Indians. (iotw, these items are a litmus test of reasonability, along the lines of believing in evolution/ the moon landing.) Meanwhile, the fact that Columbus sinned horribly is indisputable historical truth, and the suggestion that the Knights were racist in origin is something with zero historical back up, created out of thin air, and based entirely on the proposition that white people = racist, Knights of Columbus = white people, therefore Knights of Columbus = racist. 

Like I said that was Before. I guess I read it wrong! Words are hard!  I love the lack of certainty and room for nuance and ambiguity in your post above. Keep it up!!! <3 <3<3 <3

 

[vee]

ahh the traditional thanksgiving family quarrel,  happy turkey day to you people (a term Im sure someone will find offensive, possibly cos Chris Columbus said it)

back to your regularly scheduled thread

[Luigi]

6 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

And your analogy is flawed. I don't see how Hitler can be connected to ISIS, but I think he can be "blamed" for the ideology behind the KKK and other racial supremacist groups.

 

The KKK originated in the American post-Civil-War South, some 60 years before Hitler ever came to power. If we're going to blame anybody, we have to blame the KKK for HItler, not the other way around. 

[Ice_nine]

1 hour ago, Luigi said:

The KKK originated in the American post-Civil-War South, some 60 years before Hitler ever came to power. If we're going to blame anybody, we have to blame the KKK for HItler, not the other way around. 

whoops! I obviously don't know anything cuz I'm so stupid! (which one of the more charitable assumptions made about me in this thread). Mistake duly noted!

 

3 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

Like I said that was Before. I guess I read it wrong! Words are hard!  I love the lack of certainty and room for nuance and ambiguity in your post above. Keep it up!!! <3 <3<3 <3

 

Well, Lilla I have become emotionally upset by this thread. It's my fault really, I've vowed to not become emotionally invested in internet debates but I couldn't help feel that your attacks were a little too personal. I don't know whether this emotional defeat makes you feel good, bad, or utterly indifferent. I also can't help but feel it was your goal to take me down a few notches. Hope I'm wrong. I'm pretty beat down already so it's not really worth hanging on your fridge.

I'll try to explain myself one last time even though I'm apparently too stupid to use words good. To me considering a possibility or probability is not an endorsement of that thing as an actuality. To me it's more like playing devil's advocate if anything, because there are people who will say that the KofColumbus is racist and the evidence is their love of Columbus who was a horrible person towards natives. There are some people who, by virtue of being a white/American/Catholic would immediately recoil at this suggestion and automatically take the mirrored view that not only is the KofC a great organization but Cristopher Columbus is a laudable figure. If you aren't willing to consider the truth to the opposing side, then I don't think a debate is worth having.

I assumed KnightofChrist was one of these people. That was a bad assumption on my part. Condescending and as it also turns out, wrong. He is in all likelihood a much better person than I am. I apologized to him and he seemed to accept.

Even if you aren't sold on the idea that we live in a racist society today, you could probably admit the late 1800's America was fairly racist. How can you have a racist society without racist people? Even if said people are racist because they don't know any better? They have to be somewhere. As a Catholic I'd like to believe that all devout Catholics were never the least bit racist but I know this is in all likelihood not true. The promotion of Columbus Day makes me question how they were willing to justify that move. Were they thinking about how the Natives would feel and not care? Or was it off their radar entirely? Were they simply unaware of the sordid history? Your explanation painted the Knights in a much better light. I hope it's true and that none of them were racist and they really cared about the native community and perhaps this was a simple oversight but I guess they're all dead right now and only God knows their true motives.

We live in America. I've had racist thoughts and feelings not only by virtue of me being a flawed human being, but of living in a country built on slavery and racial oppression. Ish happens. 

[CatherineM]

Ice I rarely agree with anything you post, so bare with me. This isn't an attack on you, but on the idea that the US was built on racial oppression. That phrase is a new construct. It's a PC coup de gras. The first oppressed people to build the US weren't African slaves, but white indentured servants. Temporary slaves that often didn't live to be free men. The original colonists couldn't afford real slaves. The reason that once they could, the preponderance of slaves (but not all) were from Africa is that they were cheaper. Irish slaves tended to be more expensive and legally complicated to obtain. Africans were being sold by their neighbors at a much cheaper price. Since the majority of slaves had dark faces, we assume it was racial when in fact it was about money. 

I should add that real racial oppression started after the Civil War. It was also started because of money. Fear that poor blacks would steal white jobs. A lot of our societal angst seems to revolve around fear someone is going to take our jobs. 

It could also be I shouldn't post at 4am when I can't sleep. 

[Peace]

7 hours ago, Didacus said:

Wouldnt the world be a better place if only all whites and their heritage was removed from the world altogether?

Better?  No. Browner? Yes.

[Era Might]

1 hour ago, CatherineM said:

Ice I rarely agree with anything you post, so bare with me. This isn't an attack on you, but on the idea that the US was built on racial oppression. That phrase is a new construct. It's a PC coup de gras. The first oppressed people to build the US weren't African slaves, but white indentured servants. Temporary slaves that often didn't live to be free men. The original colonists couldn't afford real slaves. The reason that once they could, the preponderance of slaves (but not all) were from Africa is that they were cheaper. Irish slaves tended to be more expensive and legally complicated to obtain. Africans were being sold by their neighbors at a much cheaper price. Since the majority of slaves had dark faces, we assume it was racial when in fact it was about money. 

I should add that real racial oppression started after the Civil War. It was also started because of money. Fear that poor blacks would steal white jobs. A lot of our societal angst seems to revolve around fear someone is going to take our jobs. 

It could also be I shouldn't post at 4am when I can't sleep. 

The only difference after the civil war was that blacks were now people, not property. If racial oppression was different, it was only because whites now had to deal with blacks as people...before, they could be kind the way a dog's master is kind. Industrialization also changed the dynamic because slave labor was now inefficient, so society had to create new wage slaves...as you say, it was also economic, but in America it was always deeply racial. Blacks and Indians were the "white man's burden."

Edited November 26, 2015 by Era Might