Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There were numerous credible sources for the article, as cited in the bibliography of sources with which you were provided. These sources were referenced for the article in question. What more do you want? What is your source for refuting the statements made, other than: "I never heard that before"?
Columbus is so shrouded in myth and hearsay and allegations that there is reason to doubt much of what is said or written after 500 years. We are not even sure of his family background or where he is buried. Because we know so little he is a convenient target...but the criticism might be deserved at some level. In his day there was a great deal of animosity and ill will connected to him by those associated with the voyages and early settlements because he was not Spanish.
We know he was a seaman and and navigator experienced on voyages along the coast of Africa and to northern Europe. He managed to talk himself into a position as the 'admiral' of a small group of three ships in search of a western route to Asia. He managed to sail to the New World and came to understand the currents and winds that made such voyages possible. He did not know what he found -- nothing like what he expected. He established a fort, La Navidad, on Hispaniola and left a small group of crew members there when he returned to Spain in his two remaining ships...the first to make the round trip. In his absence things went horribly wrong at La Navidad. The place was destroyed and there were no survivors when he returned in 1493. He was a better sailor than he was an administrator and was not liked by the Spanish who considered him a foreigner. He was absent from the second settlement (La Isabella) on exploration trips for weeks at a time leaving others in charge. The Spanish settlers were not interested in being kind to the Indians whether Columbus was or not. The Indians suffered catastrophic losses from disease and poor treatment. Columbus executed some of his own people for their actions. That was the basis for charges brought against him later. He also killed and mistreated the local Indians who became hostile and took some as slaves back to Spain. He was no angel or saint but certainly not as bad as what came after him.
His name is used or associated with so many places that having actual statues seems redundant. There is probably no historical figure that is subjected to the extremes of hatred and reverence after so many years.
Columbus is so shrouded in myth and hearsay and allegations that there is reason to doubt much of what is said or written after 500 years. We are not even sure of his family background or where he is buried. Because we know so little he is a convenient target...but the criticism might be deserved at some level. In his day there was a great deal of animosity and ill will connected to him by those associated with the voyages and early settlements because he was not Spanish.
His name is used or associated with so many places that having actual statues seems redundant. There is probably no historical figure that is subjected to the extremes of hatred and reverence after so many years.
If removed by vote of the people where they are situated, I don't care. The guy didn't discover North American and still wonder why we celebrate CC day.
However, a mob should not be allowed to tear down ANY statute; regardless of affiliation. That is mob rule and when the mob rules, justice is not given to the people.
Tearing down statues is one more way liberals tell conservatives that they no longer have power in America, and that liberals are now "in charge".
Conservatives still have control over much of the wealth and power in this country, so for liberals, statue destruction is a hollow victory.
Protestors get tired and go home. Entrenched power (and money) stands strong with or without statues.
Sure, you can call it a liberal, conservative thing, but in reality, it's showing racists they no longer have any power in America. It seems being a Liberal is being on the right side of history.
Please stop and think rationally. This is mindless destruction of symbols, not actual war against evil. Will destroying statues have any effect whatsoever on the continuing trafficking and abuse of sex slaves in the USA? Not as long as wealthy and powerful people are benefitting from it. And those people come in all skin colors.
Has anyone here stopped to wonder why most of the deaths of minorities by police have been occurring in cities already run by liberal politics? Often minorities are well entrenched in the politics and management of the cities already. Doesn't that seem like maybe, just maybe, the reasons offered for the necessity of rioting might be red herrings?
Just who are these New Bosses everyone is so anxious to enthrone? Does anyone really know? Is a healthy, creative and nurturing spirit of leadership being born? Or something else?
1. For some, the removal of statues may be "mindless destruction of symbols". For others -- as demonstrated by this thread -- it is something well thought out.
2. The deaths of minorities by police in the South...is the South some hotbed of liberal thinking that we have not previously recognized?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Christopher Columbus statues: keep them up or take them down?
