Staredit Network

Staredit Network -> Serious Discussion -> Christopher Columbus
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Shapechanger on 2005-12-16 at 19:18:50
Certain tribes, he's right.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2005-12-16 at 19:36:58
OMFG WHAT THE FARK CHRIS MADE A TYPO OMGZ LETS FLAME HIM

Kell, if you would have actually understood my post and did not have a prejudice on me, then you would have realized I ment good.........................................

he wasn't just sent to find a trade route, columbus killed native americans and DID WANT TO FIND GOLD, when he saw the tiny gold/silver primal jewals (not very nice looking treasures) he thought there must be gold near by, in which he then forced the native people to help him find it. He found little to none. Columbus did capture natives.

QUOTE
Before he left on his second voyage he had been directed by Ferdinand and Isabella to maintain friendly, even loving relations with the natives. However, during his second voyage he sent a letter to the monarchs proposing to enslave some of the native peoples, specifically the Caribs, on the grounds of their aggressiveness. Although his petition was refused by the Crown, in February, 1495 Columbus took 1600 Arawak as slaves. 550 slaves were shipped back to Spain; two hundred died en route, probably of disease, and of the remainder half were ill when they arrived.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus

QUOTE
The main objective of Columbus's journey had been gold


Mmm so yes I do believe I was mistaken that he was under orders to find slaves. But when he did get to the new world he did enslave natives to find gold for him and also he captured many slaves. I knew I was correct about the slave thing.

The people who disagree with me should also read: A People's History of the United States by howard zinn, in which he discusses, with proof, about what Im talking about (Columbus etc)
Report, edit, etc...Posted by KrAzY on 2005-12-16 at 19:54:56
Those stuff are not always true.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by PwnPirate on 2005-12-16 at 20:48:17
QUOTE
and Jet, we WOULD of been born even if he didn't come here. Stop using retarded and completely absurd reasons. We would just not have been born in North America.
No, you aren't certain, coming to America may have been salvation for your ancestors, as it was for many people who came. But I have to give you credit for throwing a pissy fit. smile.gif
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Sie_Sayoka on 2005-12-17 at 01:10:44
salvation for his ancestors?! from what....?

Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kow on 2005-12-17 at 01:13:48
QUOTE(Doodan @ Dec 16 2005, 07:14 PM)
I hope you're not talking about Native Americans...
[right][snapback]380436[/snapback][/right]

Certain Tribes*
Report, edit, etc...Posted by PwnPirate on 2005-12-17 at 23:24:12
QUOTE
salvation for his ancestors?! from what....?

Crime, Slavery, etc.

By the way, that piece of my post wasn't even my main argument.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by (DI)Yulla on 2005-12-18 at 12:11:11
no new ideas are coming uo here, but remember how he ordered his people to kill and capture Native Americans if possible. He RAPED women slaves and sold men in European market.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Ninebreaker on 2005-12-18 at 22:51:42
Hero? Yes.
Villian? Yes.
But because of him, i enjoy many things i take for granted.
And without him, i most likely would not have been born.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathawk on 2005-12-18 at 23:11:48
I'd just like to point out you can't answer the question "Is Christopher Columbus a Hero or a villian" with "yes" or "no"
That was directed to whoever made the poll.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Shapechanger on 2005-12-19 at 00:27:24
Wouldn't it be 'Hero' and 'Villian'?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathawk on 2005-12-19 at 14:21:02
My comment wasn't related to the discussion, if thats what you're talking about.
It was just a side note.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Caboose on 2005-12-19 at 15:09:03
QUOTE(Kow @ Dec 16 2005, 07:12 PM)
So did the natives. They were savages. They filleted people alive, smashed skulls in, and other brutal stuff. Stop trying to make them the nice ones.
[right][snapback]380433[/snapback][/right]


I wonder WHY they did that... Hmm... ermm.gif
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Pyro_Maniak14 on 2005-12-20 at 01:13:00
Even if he killed hundreds of indians... whoopdi-doo... Look at the europeans who killed even more to gain land and look at the southern white people who enslaved every black person that set foot on american soil... Even if he was a villain WHO cares... it may have changed some events but America still would've had a civil war... revolutionary war.. WWI and WWII... The past is the past... we cant change it... who cares...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Doodan on 2005-12-20 at 03:03:18
The killing of Native Americans was genocide, pure and simple. Several MILLIONS of Indians were killed through violence and the spread of European diseases. I can't take that lightly.

Also... would anyone mind telling me WHICH tribes were cannibalistic? There were a few pacific island tribes that would engage in cannibalism, as well as a few in South America and Africa (even then, it was not their primary susitinence), but to my knowledge there were NOT any North American cannibalistic tribes. That's a rather outlandish and offensive claim, and I'd like to know where you get your information (you history teacher doesn't count).

Oh, and they were savages? They were very clean and respectful of nature. Unwasteful, highly spiritual, and moral people. The spirit dances that they perform take years to master, as do their hunting strategies. As a boy, I was told by my grandfather that a young man's right of passage was often to survive in the woods alone for a while with only a single arrow to shoot with. Imagine the intenisty and concentration it would take to accomplish that. If you define savage as a people who lacked knowledge in European technology, then I guess they were savages. But we all know that definition is not true.

This takes me back to an evolution argument I made earlier. Native Americans were not a primitive people, they had just done what worked for them. When comparing any species of animal, you can see that they don't evolve in a single direction, but they evolve in the way that best suits their needs. That's why you can't compare differences in technology and belief systems in people that evolved seperately from eachother.

This is to all the white people who say that we need to get these illegal immigrants out of the country: "We'll help you pack." Hehehe, that was in a newspaper comic that cracked me up. tongue.gif
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Sie_Sayoka on 2005-12-20 at 03:09:25
you tell em doodan :0

anyway wasnt the tribe called the caribs? thats what the carribians were named after.
Next Page (3)