If you read much of his work you would realize he doesn't outright lie. He just doesn't present the whole truth. He gives a slanted/biased view, which is lying IMHO.
That was the only relevant question, and you have still not challenged it.
His own work does it for me. I'm not going to give you a long dissertation. It's not worth my time.
Despite its popularity, Zinn’s work—likely because of his reputation as a fringe figure—has largely been ignored by conservative skeptics...(THX certainly qualifies)
Well, I'm sure I've read more Zinn than you so there goes that theory.
His work is "popular" only because lefty college professors make it required reading. He's as much as admitted he gives a biased view of history. You don't see anything wrong with that?
You'll find another great review by Scott Thill on Salon.com
In it, Columbus speaks of meeting the inhabitants of an island on October 13:
The natives are an inoffensive people, and so desirous to possess any thing they saw with us, that they kept swimming off to the ships with whatever they could find, and readily bartered for any article we saw fit to give them in return, even such as broken platters and fragments of glass. I saw in this manner sixteen balls of cotton thread which weighed above twenty-five pounds, given for three Portuguese ceutis. This traffic I forbade, and suffered no one to take their cotton from them,unless I should order it to be procured for your Highnesses, if proper quantities could be met with. It grows in this island, but from my short stay here I could not satisfy myself fully concerning it; the gold, also, which they wear in their noses, is found here, but not to lose time, I am determined to proceed onward and ascertain whether I can reach Cipango. At night they all went on shore with their canoes.
Not only did he trade with them (not steal), but he forbade his crew from trading junk like broken plates with them.
Then there was this from October 15:
A large canoe being near the caravel Nina, one of the San Salvador natives leaped overboard and swam to her; (another had made his escape the night before,) the canoe being reached by the fugitive, the natives rowed for the land too swiftly to be overtaken; having landed, some of my men went ashore in pursuit of them, when they abandoned the canoe and fled with precipitation; the canoe which they had left was brought on board the Nina, where from another quarter had arrived a small canoe with a single man, who came to barter some cotton; some of the sailors finding him unwilling to go on board the vessel, jumped into the sea and took him. I was upon the quarter deck of my ship, and seeing the whole, sent for him, and gave him a red cap, put some glass beads upon his arms, and two hawk's bells upon his ears. I then ordered his canoe to be returned to him, and despatched him back to land.
I now set sail for the other large island to the west and gave orders for the canoe which the Nina had in tow to be set adrift. I had refused to receive the cotton from the native whom I sent on shore, although he pressed it upon me.I looked out after him and saw upon his landing that the others all ran to meet him with much wonder. It appeared to them that we were honest people,and that the man who had escaped from us had done us some injury, for which we kept him in custody. It was in order to favor this notion that I ordered the canoe to be set adrift, and gave the man the presents above mentioned
In the entirety of this text, I see no mention of anything we today may consider bad or wrong. They did not take slaves, kill people, etc. If I missed something, please point it out.
Subsequent voyages definately resulted in slave shipments. Columbus had a hard time finding gold so that was all he could send back. That's one of the reasons Spanish royalty was angry with Columbus. They had no use for the slaves. They hadn't discovered the value of tobacco and maize which turned out to be greater than gold.
He also left some of his orginal crew behind, and they behaved less than admirably.
I read Zvi Dor-Ner's Columbus and the Age of Discovery. Great coffee-table book.
Â
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on Apr 24, 2005 at 03:43pm.]
In the entirety of this text, I see no mention of anything we today may consider bad or wrong. They did not take slaves, kill people, etc. If I missed something, please point it out.
At least I posted some information. Like I said, it was the only copy of his logbook I could find and if I am wrong, please show me in that text what I missed. If you have a link to more of his logs, please post them for us.
I have found a letter concerning the second voyage of Columbus. In the Introduction it claims that Columbus' journal of this trip is no longer existent. I wonder how many others of his journals are nonexistent and how a book can claim to base it's findings on such nonexistent documents?:
In it, the only people taken are a young boy and some women who had been captured by the Caribees who had been known to attack an island and take all inhabitants. The men were eaten, the boys used as slaves until they reached an age considered eatable and the women, well you get the drift. Those that were taken on board the ship did so willingly to get away from their captors.
Again, hardly anything that we would consider reprehensible by todays standards.
I don't think the Council was lying. Why do you become so defensive when challenged?
By other accounts he didn't die in poverty. Just like everything else, people seem to want to write the history of this man based one their own point of view.
I don't see the reason to paint Columbus in such stark terms as either totally good or totally evil. He was a man of his timeand applying today's standards and political correctness cheats everyone out a true picture of him. He was a capable sailor and daring explorer.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Apr 25, 2005 at 06:15am.]
Try some of these BOOKS, written by MANY knowledgeable people, not all of whom are "Marxists"?
I want to see the actual logs and first hand accounts of what happened, not what some "scholar" thinks. I prefer it to be on the web also because I do not wish to pay my hard earned money only to have you not believe what I find anyway.
[7] For example, see Mireya Navarro, "Guatemalan Army Waged 'Genocide,' New Report Finds," NEW YORK TIMES February 26, 1999, pg. unknown. The TIMES described "torture, kidnapping and execution of thousands of civilians" -- most of them Mayan Indians -- a campaign to which the U.S. government contributed "money and training." See http://www.nytimes.com/
I was not aware that the U.S. government was around and funding Columbus. Guess you learn something every day. The New York Times is not a very good source in my opinion.
Now, that took me all of 5 minutes to find all these links and related articles.
And not one link to the actual text of the logs or first hand knowledge. I am still searching though.
Oh and by the way, I claimed a few weeks ago that Columbus died in poverty, to which someone immediately claimed I was a liar. Like, I made it up or something? (More accurately, like ZINN made it up, because after all, he's a "Marxist".
Myth #5:Columbus died a pauper, in chains, in a Spanish prison.
Reality: Despite the fact that the Spanish crown retracted some of the privileges promised to Columbus, he was a relatively rich man at the time of his death.Although he returned to Spain in chains in 1500 after his third voyage, the King and Queen apologized for the misunderstanding and had them removed.Columbus died quietly at the age of 55 in Vallodolid, Spain, on May 20, 1506, in an apartment, attended by family and friends. There is a controversy over his burial place. The best evidence indicates that he is buried in Santo Domingo, the Dominican Republic. The cathedral in Seville, Spain claims to house his grave, but probably holds the remains of his son, Diego
The governing board of the National Council of Churches, meeting in New York (it fits) passed a resolution condemning Columbus for "invading" America. The NCC warned it will have no part of the quincentennial celebration.
You read that correctly. Columbus should have stayed home, in the view of the churchmen who pretend to speak for millions of Protestants.
Why? The resolution goes on to say that since he was the first white man to land on the western continent he can be blamed for inflicting upon Indians "slavery, genocide, theft and exploitation."
It does not say that he did these things, just that he showed the path for those that followed.
In the National Review's account of this 1,500-word resolution, it reports that an Episcopal bishop from Kentucky moved to amend by citing a few good things which flowed from Columbus' discovery. No go. The critics of the explorer would not concede anything to be good.
Names of the denominations belonging to the NCC will not be named here, to save embarrassment. The worshipers in the pews had nothing to do with the gesture.
Who did? It was the leftish core of the NCC and its use of "network," as usual.
Do you think Columbus was humane explorer who valued the culture of the Caribbean, Dan?
I asked: Why do we have to paint his image in such starkly different versions? -- like he's some two-dimensional person. Either he's a deeply disturbed killer or the almost mythical legend that's been told to kids for as long as there's been schools.
I'd have to see the NYT story, it's not in the link. But 500 year old logs of an ambitious explorer should not be the only source for a clear picture of the man. Who knows what embellishments he was capable of.
[Edited 9 times. Most recently by on Apr 25, 2005 at 04:45pm.]
Do you think Columbus was humane explorer who valued the culture of the Caribbean, Dan?
Honestly, I do not know. That is why I am asking for links to logs and first hand accounts. I think it is interesting to find out what was going on, but I want to know what really was going on. I do not trust second or third hand accounts, especially from someone (Zinn) who has claimed to use bias in his historical writings.
What I have seen so far is that he wished to trade bells and things that the "Indians" found valuable or interesting for some reason for gold which they seem to not find as valuable.
I asked: Why do we have to paint his image in such starkly different versions?
I am simply sharing what I have found concerning first hand accounts. I do not care if they are good or bad, just accurate. I wish to see more of them before making up my mind.
But 500 year old logs of an ambitious explorer could not should not be the only source.
Other than first hand recollections that were recorded, they are all we have that could be considered accurate. They are also what Zinn says his writings are based upon. All others are based on whatever bias the writer wishes to share with us either in his favor or against him.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Apr 25, 2005 at 05:03pm.]
In Columbus' writings concerning his 4th voyage (http://content.wisconsinhistory.org/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/aj&CISOPTR=4514), he writes to the King and Queen of Spain about the very abundant amount of gold that the kings of the islands have. He cautions on the bottom of page 414 that "I do not believe it would be well or desirable, on the part of your Highnesses, to take possesion of it in the way of plunder; by fair dealing, scandal and disrepute will be avoided, and all the gold will reach your Highnesses' treasury without the loss of a grain.
You know, the more I read these logs and such, the more I realize that these journeys were not about discovery, although I am sure there was some excitement in seeing the unknown. I think it comes down to two things:
Commerce: Everywhere he went he was looking for gold, spices, cloth, or any new things that may have value. He often speaks of trade with the "Indians" and as you see above, he even tells the King of Spain to trade fairly with the peoples. I do not think that conquest was in mind.
The spread of Christianity: Columbus appears to be a deeply religious person. In his writings he quotes scripture, speaks of riding out storms by reading the Bible, kneels and prays when they reach land, even believes he heard a voice during one extremely desperate time telling him that God has not foresaken him. As such, he has a desire to share his religious beliefs with the people of the various lands.
With all this in mind, why would he take them into slavery? And if the slavery thing was so good, why would he massacre tribes as some have said?
You asked earlier if I thought his motives were pure. I think that in his day commerce for King and country as well as wishing to spread religion would be considered so. By today's standards though, declaring land where these tribes lived as belonging to the King would not be considered pure.
"All others are based on whatever bias the writer wishes to share with us either in his favor or against him."
You sure don't give much credit to historians and/or biographers. Could it be that they are after the truth, too? Maybe that's their agenda. Some people or groups have an agenda, but individuals can do honest research and make contributions. You mockingly used the term "scholar" as if they don't exist.
I think it's kinda sad that you think everyone -- and you said everyone -- has some ulterior motive and is incapable of objectively looking at the life of Columbus. Why would that be impossible, in your estimation?
[Edited 6 times. Most recently by on Apr 26, 2005 at 06:50am.]
and of course, he's gonna reveal bad things about himself in his writings to the King and Queen... great source there.
Yes I believe that those that were there are a great source concerning what happened. As for the king and queen, they didn't care what he did as long as he brought them something of value. They would have thought him a great man if he had wiped out the tribes and took their gold. That is why he cautioned them that perhaps trading would be a good way of getting the gold they desired and not just wiping the people out.
Could it be that they are after the truth, too?
I am sure that some are, but which ones? That is why I wanted to see the original manuscripts they supposedly quote from.
You are right, patially, because during those times, many people, especially those who had POWER over the people they were raping, killing, handing disease to, all that stuff, (with impunity) were also seen as "Good Christains" in those times...
You have yet to show me a first hand account of what you speak. I have linked you to many first hand accounts which your hero Zinn supposedly based this theory on that do not agree with him or you.
I do have at least 1/2 of the total available Logs, and more importantly in fact, the pennings of some of his 1st, 2nd and 3rd crews.
Would be interesting to read. Have you? I have linked to much of what you speak of, yet you cannot show me where the rapings and killings are in them.
However, he SAYS it isn't, and in fact he SAYS that he is quoting directrly from the Logs kept BY Columbus on his several voyages.
According to Crabs that is not a very good source. However, I again ask for a link to what you and Zinn speak of. You may use the ones I linked to if you wish, but I doubt it will help you prove your point.
I'll have a book-burning party for them, as soon as it warms up.
I am trying to have an adult conversation with you so we can perhaps learn something and you resort ot this? You can do better.
In the meantime, may I suggestthat you try JUST a little harder to find them for yourself, as I did ...
I have linked you to the logs that you speak of and spent considerable amount of time reading them. I cannot find the things that you speak of in them. What more do you want?
The fact is Dan, that you MUST believe someof the very-bad things Columbus and his men are held responsible for, or you would be a fool, or as dumb as THX.
You don't need to attack THX while you are discussing this with me. I am not blaming you for what you 2 have going on, just don't try to drag me into it.
The truth is that I do not know if Zinn is right or not. I simply asked for links to the sources that I can read and find out what happened. As of yet, using what he claims as sources, I have not seen anything close to what he claims. Not even anything that can be twisted.
You have to admit that even what he claims contradicts himself. For example, if the slave trade was what Columbus had in mind, why would Columbus then choose to masacre and rape those that would bring in money? Would you pay top dollar for an item of commerce (a car for example)Â that is not working or has been abused? It does not make sense.
NOw I can transcribe one or two paragraphs for you of the Zinn books,
"For example, if the slave trade was what Columbus had in mind, why would Columbus then choose to masacre and rape those that would bring in money?"
He probably didn't have slave trade mind originally. There was the Slave Coast in Africa where much of the slaves were procured. It was a fallback. The gold was not there, and in the reading I've done, Columbus was not successful in finding much. He probably promised more than he could actually deliver. He unsuccessfully searched long and hard for gold. From my reading, I found that that is why he sent back slaves.
[Edited 5 times. Most recently by on Apr 26, 2005 at 04:09pm.]
"He found much gold and was given quite a bit of it for his efforts."
Then more ships should have come back laden with glistening booty instead of kidnapped people. Don't you think there would be a higher margin for gold?
And he was willing to do whatever it took (kill the people who lived on the island) to please them
What value do dead slaves have?
Why don't you make up your mind what you want to believe before we continue this debate.
Then more ships should have come back laden with glistening booty instead of kidnapped people.
I have yet to see first hand proof of this. Surely there is ship logs, bills of sale, places where they were sold, anything remaining that shows this happened.
"the thought has occurred to us that the greater the number that are sent over to Spain the better....The Caribees are a wild people, fit for any work, well proportioned and very intelligent, and who when the have got rid of the cruel habits to which they have became accustomed would be better than any kind of slaves."
Letter from Columbus to Ferdinand and Isabela, Zvi Di-Ner, Columbus and the Age of Discovery, page 213.
"As late as the third voyage, in 1499, Columbus was still sending back Indian slaves to Spain despite the Queen's objections..."
Page 219
"By 1514 only 26,000 of the island's (Hispaniola) original half millions natives would survive; by 1517 only 11,000. Smallpox would strike the last stragglers in 1518. Within 50 years of their first contact with Europeans, all of the Arawaks would be dead of disease and overwork."
Page 218
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Apr 26, 2005 at 07:54pm.]
"Your pride, your luster, your anger, your envy, your sloth, all blind. You are in mortal sin. And you are heading for damnation. For you are destroying an innocent people. For they are God's people, these innocents, whom you destroyed. By what right do you make them die? They lived in peace in this land before you came, in peace in their own homes. They did nothing to harm you to cause you to slaughter them wholesale . . . Are you not under God's command to love them as you love yourselves? Are you out of your souls, out of your minds? Yes. And that will bring you to damnation." "
--Santo Dominican Friar Anton Montecino (in a 1510 sermon to the Spaniards, reflecting on their cruelty to the Arawaks of Hispaniola and the Bahamas, whose population of one-half million people within 50 years of contact with Europeans no longer existed.) From the book "Columbus and the Age of Discovery" by Zvi Dor-Ner.
"I want to see the actual logs and first hand accounts of what happened, not what some "scholar" thinks."
Mocking intellectual study like this is pretty common among conservatives. It's a general disdain for, and distrust of people who devote time and effort in the search of knowledge, particularly in a university environment. I don't think many conservatives see it as real work.
Sadly, I think the notion is sweeping the country.
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on Apr 27, 2005 at 06:00am.]
Lest anyone disbelieve the new anti-intellectualism that is now sweeping the country: Read this account of Ann Coulter on two college campus visits:
"But Coulter did a disservice to the memory of the Great Communicator. While she was spewing hate, many St. Thomas students felt too intimidated to speak back. That is not free speech. That is highly paid partisan bullying."
Just for you, Bill Fold
http://hnn.us/articles/4370.html
http://hnn.us/articles/1493.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8145
http://howardzinn.org/default/
[Edited by on Apr 21, 2005 at 06:56am.]
You want to prove that he LIED about Columbus?
If you read much of his work you would realize he doesn't outright lie. He just doesn't present the whole truth. He gives a slanted/biased view, which is lying IMHO.
That was the only relevant question, and you have still not challenged it.
His own work does it for me. I'm not going to give you a long dissertation. It's not worth my time.
Despite its popularity, Zinn’s work—likely because of his reputation as a fringe figure—has largely been ignored by conservative skeptics...(THX certainly qualifies)
Well, I'm sure I've read more Zinn than you so there goes that theory.
His work is "popular" only because lefty college professors make it required reading. He's as much as admitted he gives a biased view of history. You don't see anything wrong with that?
You'll find another great review by Scott Thill on Salon.com
Salon.com? What a surprise.
What the hell? You make a claim, "....has largely been ignored by conservative skeptics...(THX certainly qualifies)".
I prove you're claim wrong.
You proceed to act like an insane man.
Take your meds.
based on Columbus' own log-books...
I have been unable to find these logbooks on the net. do you have a link?
[Edited by on Apr 24, 2005 at 01:08pm.]
I found a section of it http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/columbus1.html
In it, Columbus speaks of meeting the inhabitants of an island on October 13:
Not only did he trade with them (not steal), but he forbade his crew from trading junk like broken plates with them.
Then there was this from October 15:
In the entirety of this text, I see no mention of anything we today may consider bad or wrong. They did not take slaves, kill people, etc. If I missed something, please point it out.
[Edited by on Apr 24, 2005 at 01:55pm.]
Subsequent voyages definately resulted in slave shipments. Columbus had a hard time finding gold so that was all he could send back. That's one of the reasons Spanish royalty was angry with Columbus. They had no use for the slaves. They hadn't discovered the value of tobacco and maize which turned out to be greater than gold.
He also left some of his orginal crew behind, and they behaved less than admirably.
I read Zvi Dor-Ner's Columbus and the Age of Discovery. Great coffee-table book.
Â
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on Apr 24, 2005 at 03:43pm.]
Some of that "selective information", eh?
[Edited by molegrass on Apr 24, 2005 at 05:36pm.]
Some of that "selective information", eh?
At least I posted some information. Like I said, it was the only copy of his logbook I could find and if I am wrong, please show me in that text what I missed. If you have a link to more of his logs, please post them for us.
[Edited by on Apr 24, 2005 at 07:01pm.]
I have found a letter concerning the second voyage of Columbus. In the Introduction it claims that Columbus' journal of this trip is no longer existent. I wonder how many others of his journals are nonexistent and how a book can claim to base it's findings on such nonexistent documents?:
http://content.wisconsinhistory.org/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/aj&CISOPTR=4408
In it, the only people taken are a young boy and some women who had been captured by the Caribees who had been known to attack an island and take all inhabitants. The men were eaten, the boys used as slaves until they reached an age considered eatable and the women, well you get the drift. Those that were taken on board the ship did so willingly to get away from their captors.
Again, hardly anything that we would consider reprehensible by todays standards.
I don't think the Council was lying. Why do you become so defensive when challenged?
By other accounts he didn't die in poverty. Just like everything else, people seem to want to write the history of this man based one their own point of view.
I don't see the reason to paint Columbus in such stark terms as either totally good or totally evil. He was a man of his timeand applying today's standards and political correctness cheats everyone out a true picture of him. He was a capable sailor and daring explorer.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Apr 25, 2005 at 06:15am.]
Dan was after his logs not books written by someone else, Foldo.
Try some of these BOOKS, written by MANY knowledgeable people, not all of whom are "Marxists"?
I want to see the actual logs and first hand accounts of what happened, not what some "scholar" thinks. I prefer it to be on the web also because I do not wish to pay my hard earned money only to have you not believe what I find anyway.
[7] For example, see Mireya Navarro, "Guatemalan Army Waged 'Genocide,' New Report Finds," NEW YORK TIMES February 26, 1999, pg. unknown. The TIMES described "torture, kidnapping and execution of thousands of civilians" -- most of them Mayan Indians -- a campaign to which the U.S. government contributed "money and training." See
http://www.nytimes.com/
I was not aware that the U.S. government was around and funding Columbus. Guess you learn something every day. The New York Times is not a very good source in my opinion.
Now, that took me all of 5 minutes to find all these links and related articles.
And not one link to the actual text of the logs or first hand knowledge. I am still searching though.
Oh and by the way, I claimed a few weeks ago that Columbus died in poverty, to which someone immediately claimed I was a liar. Like, I made it up or something? (More accurately, like ZINN made it up, because after all, he's a "Marxist".
http://www.nps.gov/jeff/LewisClark2/Circa1804/Heritage/SpanishInfluence/More%20Information%20on%20Columbus.htm
Myth #5:Columbus died a pauper, in chains, in a Spanish prison.
Reality: Despite the fact that the Spanish crown retracted some of the privileges promised to Columbus, he was a relatively rich man at the time of his death.Although he returned to Spain in chains in 1500 after his third voyage, the King and Queen apologized for the misunderstanding and had them removed.Columbus died quietly at the age of 55 in Vallodolid, Spain, on May 20, 1506, in an apartment, attended by family and friends. There is a controversy over his burial place. The best evidence indicates that he is buried in Santo Domingo, the Dominican Republic. The cathedral in Seville, Spain claims to house his grave, but probably holds the remains of his son, Diego
"The Council of Churches Condemns Columbus"
You left out the link: http://www.millersv.edu/~columbus/data/art/SNYDER01.ART
It does not say that he did these things, just that he showed the path for those that followed.
Do you think Columbus was humane explorer who valued the culture of the Caribbean, Dan?
I asked: Why do we have to paint his image in such starkly different versions? -- like he's some two-dimensional person. Either he's a deeply disturbed killer or the almost mythical legend that's been told to kids for as long as there's been schools.
I'd have to see the NYT story, it's not in the link. But 500 year old logs of an ambitious explorer should not be the only source for a clear picture of the man. Who knows what embellishments he was capable of.
[Edited 9 times. Most recently by on Apr 25, 2005 at 04:45pm.]
Do you think Columbus was humane explorer who valued the culture of the Caribbean, Dan?
Honestly, I do not know. That is why I am asking for links to logs and first hand accounts. I think it is interesting to find out what was going on, but I want to know what really was going on. I do not trust second or third hand accounts, especially from someone (Zinn) who has claimed to use bias in his historical writings.
What I have seen so far is that he wished to trade bells and things that the "Indians" found valuable or interesting for some reason for gold which they seem to not find as valuable.
I asked: Why do we have to paint his image in such starkly different versions?
I am simply sharing what I have found concerning first hand accounts. I do not care if they are good or bad, just accurate. I wish to see more of them before making up my mind.
But 500 year old logs of an ambitious explorer could not should not be the only source.
Other than first hand recollections that were recorded, they are all we have that could be considered accurate. They are also what Zinn says his writings are based upon. All others are based on whatever bias the writer wishes to share with us either in his favor or against him.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Apr 25, 2005 at 05:03pm.]
In Columbus' writings concerning his 4th voyage (http://content.wisconsinhistory.org/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/aj&CISOPTR=4514), he writes to the King and Queen of Spain about the very abundant amount of gold that the kings of the islands have. He cautions on the bottom of page 414 that "I do not believe it would be well or desirable, on the part of your Highnesses, to take possesion of it in the way of plunder; by fair dealing, scandal and disrepute will be avoided, and all the gold will reach your Highnesses' treasury without the loss of a grain.
You know, the more I read these logs and such, the more I realize that these journeys were not about discovery, although I am sure there was some excitement in seeing the unknown. I think it comes down to two things:
With all this in mind, why would he take them into slavery? And if the slavery thing was so good, why would he massacre tribes as some have said?
You asked earlier if I thought his motives were pure. I think that in his day commerce for King and country as well as wishing to spread religion would be considered so. By today's standards though, declaring land where these tribes lived as belonging to the King would not be considered pure.
[Edited by on Apr 25, 2005 at 09:18pm.]
and of course, he's gonna reveal bad things about himself in his writings to the King and Queen... great source there.
and you have a better one?
"All others are based on whatever bias the writer wishes to share with us either in his favor or against him."
You sure don't give much credit to historians and/or biographers. Could it be that they are after the truth, too? Maybe that's their agenda. Some people or groups have an agenda, but individuals can do honest research and make contributions. You mockingly used the term "scholar" as if they don't exist.
I think it's kinda sad that you think everyone -- and you said everyone -- has some ulterior motive and is incapable of objectively looking at the life of Columbus. Why would that be impossible, in your estimation?
[Edited 6 times. Most recently by on Apr 26, 2005 at 06:50am.]
"Quit talking to me crabgrass" - Torpedo-8
and of course, he's gonna reveal bad things about himself in his writings to the King and Queen... great source there.
Yes I believe that those that were there are a great source concerning what happened. As for the king and queen, they didn't care what he did as long as he brought them something of value. They would have thought him a great man if he had wiped out the tribes and took their gold. That is why he cautioned them that perhaps trading would be a good way of getting the gold they desired and not just wiping the people out.
Could it be that they are after the truth, too?
I am sure that some are, but which ones? That is why I wanted to see the original manuscripts they supposedly quote from.
You are right, patially, because during those times, many people, especially those who had POWER over the people they were raping, killing, handing disease to, all that stuff, (with impunity) were also seen as "Good Christains" in those times...
You have yet to show me a first hand account of what you speak. I have linked you to many first hand accounts which your hero Zinn supposedly based this theory on that do not agree with him or you.
I do have at least 1/2 of the total available Logs, and more importantly in fact, the pennings of some of his 1st, 2nd and 3rd crews.
Would be interesting to read. Have you? I have linked to much of what you speak of, yet you cannot show me where the rapings and killings are in them.
However, he SAYS it isn't, and in fact he SAYS that he is quoting directrly from the Logs kept BY Columbus on his several voyages.
According to Crabs that is not a very good source. However, I again ask for a link to what you and Zinn speak of. You may use the ones I linked to if you wish, but I doubt it will help you prove your point.
I'll have a book-burning party for them, as soon as it warms up.
I am trying to have an adult conversation with you so we can perhaps learn something and you resort ot this? You can do better.
In the meantime, may I suggestthat you try JUST a little harder to find them for yourself, as I did
...
I have linked you to the logs that you speak of and spent considerable amount of time reading them. I cannot find the things that you speak of in them. What more do you want?
The fact is Dan, that you MUST believe someof the very-bad things Columbus and his men are held responsible for, or you would be a fool, or as dumb as THX.
You don't need to attack THX while you are discussing this with me. I am not blaming you for what you 2 have going on, just don't try to drag me into it.
The truth is that I do not know if Zinn is right or not. I simply asked for links to the sources that I can read and find out what happened. As of yet, using what he claims as sources, I have not seen anything close to what he claims. Not even anything that can be twisted.
You have to admit that even what he claims contradicts himself. For example, if the slave trade was what Columbus had in mind, why would Columbus then choose to masacre and rape those that would bring in money? Would you pay top dollar for an item of commerce (a car for example)Â that is not working or has been abused? It does not make sense.
NOw I can transcribe one or two paragraphs for you of the Zinn books,
I would much prefer the original source.
[Edited by on Apr 26, 2005 at 03:47pm.]
You don't need to attack THX while you are discussing this with me.
LOL
And he accuses me of always starting it.
Oh well
(This message not displayed because 'Bill - Fold' is on your Discussion Area Ignore List. To change your ignore lists go to Preferences.)
And he was willing to do whatever it took to please them.
"For example, if the slave trade was what Columbus had in mind, why would Columbus then choose to masacre and rape those that would bring in money?"
He probably didn't have slave trade mind originally. There was the Slave Coast in Africa where much of the slaves were procured. It was a fallback. The gold was not there, and in the reading I've done, Columbus was not successful in finding much. He probably promised more than he could actually deliver. He unsuccessfully searched long and hard for gold. From my reading, I found that that is why he sent back slaves.
[Edited 5 times. Most recently by on Apr 26, 2005 at 04:09pm.]
And he was willing to do whatever it took to please them.
Then why did he warn the king and queen not to massacre the tribes?
The gold was not there
He found much gold and was given quite a bit of it for his efforts.
What value do dead slaves have?
"He found much gold and was given quite a bit of it for his efforts."
Then more ships should have come back laden with glistening booty instead of kidnapped people. Don't you think there would be a higher margin for gold?
[Edited by on Apr 26, 2005 at 06:23pm.]
And he was willing to do whatever it took (kill the people who lived on the island) to please them
What value do dead slaves have?
Why don't you make up your mind what you want to believe before we continue this debate.
Then more ships should have come back laden with glistening booty instead of kidnapped people.
I have yet to see first hand proof of this. Surely there is ship logs, bills of sale, places where they were sold, anything remaining that shows this happened.
"the thought has occurred to us that the greater the number that are sent over to Spain the better....The Caribees are a wild people, fit for any work, well proportioned and very intelligent, and who when the have got rid of the cruel habits to which they have became accustomed would be better than any kind of slaves."
Letter from Columbus to Ferdinand and Isabela, Zvi Di-Ner, Columbus and the Age of Discovery, page 213.
"As late as the third voyage, in 1499, Columbus was still sending back Indian slaves to Spain despite the Queen's objections..."
Page 219
"By 1514 only 26,000 of the island's (Hispaniola) original half millions natives would survive; by 1517 only 11,000. Smallpox would strike the last stragglers in 1518. Within 50 years of their first contact with Europeans, all of the Arawaks would be dead of disease and overwork."
Page 218
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Apr 26, 2005 at 07:54pm.]
Your greed for gold is blind
"Your pride, your luster, your anger, your envy, your sloth, all blind. You are in mortal sin. And you are heading for damnation. For you are destroying an innocent people. For they are God's people, these innocents, whom you destroyed. By what right do you make them die? They lived in peace in this land before you came, in peace in their own homes. They did nothing to harm you to cause you to slaughter them wholesale . . . Are you not under God's command to love them as you love yourselves? Are you out of your souls, out of your minds? Yes. And that will bring you to damnation." "
--Santo Dominican Friar Anton Montecino (in a 1510 sermon to the Spaniards, reflecting on their cruelty to the Arawaks of Hispaniola and the Bahamas, whose population of one-half million people within 50 years of contact with Europeans no longer existed.) From the book "Columbus and the Age of Discovery" by Zvi Dor-Ner.
[Edited by on Apr 26, 2005 at 08:25pm.]
I was referring to what you said about it.
I haven't said anything about what I believe about it.
"I want to see the actual logs and first hand accounts of what happened, not what some "scholar" thinks."
Mocking intellectual study like this is pretty common among conservatives. It's a general disdain for, and distrust of people who devote time and effort in the search of knowledge, particularly in a university environment. I don't think many conservatives see it as real work.
Sadly, I think the notion is sweeping the country.
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on Apr 27, 2005 at 06:00am.]
Mocking intellectual study like this is pretty common among conservatives.
Those who do, do.
Those who can't, teach.
:-)
They don't value teachers much either.
It's not something I'd be proud to repeat.
[Edited by on Apr 27, 2005 at 05:51am.]
That's not true.
I value them so much I pay private tuition on top of my property tax.
And whine about it day in and day out.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Apr 27, 2005 at 05:54am.]
If I don't heep vulgar language on him and call him stupid, he'll probably continue talking to me.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Apr 27, 2005 at 06:16am.]
Lest anyone disbelieve the new anti-intellectualism that is now sweeping the country: Read this account of Ann Coulter on two college campus visits:
"But Coulter did a disservice to the memory of the Great Communicator. While she was spewing hate, many St. Thomas students felt too intimidated to speak back. That is not free speech. That is highly paid partisan bullying."
<http://www.startribune.com/stories/357/5371175.html>
And whine about it day in and day out.
That doesn't mean I don't value them.
Read this account of Ann Coulter on two college campus visits:
Yeah, from Nick Coleman.
Maybe it's a matter of Colemans anti conservativism and has nothing to do with anti-intellectualism.
Nominal as it is, she's gotten all the exposure she's going to get from me. She's not worth mentioning anymore.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Apr 27, 2005 at 08:57am.]
To be honest with you Rick, I don't have cable so I don't watch her, and I've never read her.
I think it's the Lefty's that keep her, Rush, and Foxnews in business.
"I think it's the Lefty's that keep her, Rush, and Foxnews in business. "
I think you're wrong.
[Edited by on Apr 27, 2005 at 09:03am.]
I think you're wrong.
Probably.
There are plenty of Lefty's watching Fox News and listening to Rush on the radio though.
You, Rat and Crabs
I don't know why Fox is mentioned. I thought the network was supposed to be fair and balanced.
As for Lumbaugh: It's good get in the head of the people you disagree with, even though it can be bit unsettling.
Read Coulter sometime, THX. She pinpoints and exposes liberal boobs like crabhole, Rick and Fold on a regular basis.
Ann is $$$$$$$$$$$.
I don't know why Fox is mentioned. I thought the network was supposed to be fair and balanced.
I wouldn't know, I don't watch it. I just hear about it from my Lefty friends here.
I listen to Limbaugh. He's funny. He reminds me of friends I knew in college.
Nice tribute to "the passing of a generation"
http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/PASSINGOFGENERATION.HTML