Seattle lawmakers vote to change name of Columbus Day holiday
212 replies, posted
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46170655]Marriage laws do protect children. They didn't so much in the middle ages. But they certainly do now. There were still people marrying children in the United States less than two hundred years ago.
As for the alternate/future realities. We have examples to look at. Liberia is a good one. Why are they such a shithole nation? Europeans did not colonize Liberia.[/QUOTE]
So not only do your arguments break down from traditionalism to nothing at all, you use limited instances of "what ifs" to prove you're right
That's a joke
[QUOTE=T553412;46170652]So you claim that the deaths of millions was necessary to achieve progress? That there wasn't an alternative to military conquest at the hands of criminals?
(Yes, the spanish [B]did[/B] send criminals on their early ships)[/QUOTE]
I'd like to point out that the majority of South American conquest was done by natives led by those very same criminals. I mean Cortez had what? 1500 men against an empire. They mostly used locals who joined them.
The fact the flu came and knocked out a lot of people was a different issue. For which you can't really blame Europeans. They had no idea it could happen.
[QUOTE=T553412;46170652]So you claim that the deaths of millions was necessary to achieve progress? That there wasn't an alternative to military conquest at the hands of criminals?
(Yes, the spanish [B]did[/B] send criminals on their early ships)[/QUOTE]
The millions of deaths were not necessary. But I don't believe that without some unifying force, the Africans could have gotten together to effectively use anything given to them by the Europeans.
[QUOTE=Vasili;46170668]What are you referring to?[/QUOTE]
Many of the spanish conquerors were, at best, common people recruited to colonize the New World by force. At worst, they were criminals. Many fought among themselves to claim the best mining sites or the most important territories for themselves.
At least in peru, there wasn't any order until viceroy Toledo took control of the situation, took the privileges away from the remaining conquerors, and officially established the Viceroyalty.
[B]- Edit -[/B]
[QUOTE=wraithcat;46170686]I'd like to point out that the majority of South American conquest was done by natives led by those very same criminals. I mean Cortez had what? 1500 men against an empire. They mostly used locals who joined them.
The fact the flu came and knocked out a lot of people was a different issue. For which you can't really blame Europeans. They had no idea it could happen.[/QUOTE]
The spanish had the luck to arrive at a time when there were many factions fighting against their oppressors. The Incan empire was recovering from a civil war, in fact. No wonder Pizarro and less than 750 men were able to conquer it.
However, there weren't any independent authorities to keep the soldiers in check. They weren't professional soldiers, either. A lot of abuses were made before any order could be established. Then they brought the forced works, the slavery, etc etc etc...
As for the disease factor, nobody expected it, that's true. But coupled with everything else that was happening at the same time...
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46170682]So not only do your arguments break down from traditionalism to nothing at all, you use limited instances of "what ifs" to prove you're right
That's a joke[/QUOTE]
If anything you're interpretation is a joke. The concept was that all laws regarding marriage were becoming meaningless. Their establishment was the only thing protecting children.
Edit: You were referring to the liberia thing. Why is that a what if scenario? That did happen and if what everyone else says is true then they should be doing better than the rest of Africa. But they're doing worse! Perhaps it was never a nice place to begin with.
Colonization brings industrialization, education and real government. These things were missing from most of Africa. How do you not see their benefits?
[QUOTE=T553412;46170692]Many of the spanish conquerors were, at best, common people recruited to colonize the New World by force. At worst, they were criminals. Many fought among themselves to claim the best mining sites or the most important territories for themselves.
At least in peru, there wasn't any order until viceroy Toledo took control of the situation, took the privileges away from the remaining conquerors, and officially established the Viceroyalty.[/QUOTE]
A war over resources? Shocking, say have you seen world history over the past two thousand years?
[QUOTE=wraithcat;46170686]I'd like to point out that the majority of South American conquest was done by natives led by those very same criminals. I mean Cortez had what? 1500 men against an empire. They mostly used locals who joined them.
The fact the flu came and knocked out a lot of people was a different issue. For which you can't really blame Europeans. They had no idea it could happen.[/QUOTE]
Poor oppressed Aztecs, all they wanted to do was carry on with human sacrifice, slavery and eating eachother.
[QUOTE=Vasili;46170731]A war over resources? Shocking, say have you seen world history over the past two thousand years?[/QUOTE]
War over resources? What resources? They were all looking for gold and silver to carry back to Spain. and most of it wasn't going to end in the royalty's pockets, either.
they were also instructed to spread catholicism among the natives. There were barely any priests, however, and many traditions were lost in the process.
[QUOTE=Vasili;46170731]A war over resources? Shocking, say have you seen world history over the past two thousand years?
Poor oppressed Aztecs, all they wanted to do was carry on with human sacrifice, slavery and eating eachother.[/QUOTE]
yeah personally i think although columbus & that dude that fucked up the incans were pieces of shit, cortez wsn't so bad. he married a native woman and actively tried to protect native rights AND the aztecs were pretty fucked up they had a month that was specifically dedicated to child sacrifice
[editline]7th October 2014[/editline]
not really liking your tone here though vasili. i think it's possible to acknowledge the very fucked up things that europeans have done to indigineous populations without getting defensive and acting like people are calling all europeans evil
[QUOTE=T553412;46170692]
The spanish had the luck to arrive at a time when there were many factions fighting against their oppressors. The Incan empire was recovering from a civil war, in fact. No wonder Pizarro and less than 750 men were able to conquer it.
However, there weren't any independent authorities to keep the soldiers in check. They weren't professional soldiers, either. A lot of abuses were made before any order could be established. Then they brought the forced works, the slavery, etc etc etc...
As for the disease factor, nobody expected it, that's true. But coupled with everything else that was happening at the same time...[/QUOTE]
Oh please, let's be honest here - slavery, forced works and many things we see as human rights abuses were common across cultures back in the day. Slavery was endemic to the aztec empire and was in no means brought in by Europeans.
When you think about it, the first nations to oppose similar practices were highly industrialised European nations. Though that did happen later.
As to an army pillaging a land. Remember we're looking at the 18th century where similar behaviour was in more ways than one, once again standard.
You're doing the mistake of comparing past behaviour trough modern eyes as opposed to comparing it against the standard of the time.\
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;46170788]yeah personally i think although columbus & that dude that fucked up the incans were pieces of shit, cortez wsn't so bad. he married a native woman and actively tried to protect native rights AND the aztecs were pretty fucked up they had a month that was specifically dedicated to child sacrifice
[editline]7th October 2014[/editline]
not really liking your tone here though vasili. i think it's possible to acknowledge the very fucked up things that europeans have done to indigineous populations without getting defensive and acting like people are calling all europeans evil[/QUOTE]
I don't think, anyone is saying that Europeans didn't come in, took over and often used very brutal means to achieve power and to maintain this power. The problem is that a lot of posts do seem to apply, that the European occupators were the source of all evil. While completely disregarding the situation as it was beforehand, often disregarding history. Yes colonialism was mired by what we today would consider human rights abuses. The issue is, that for cultures back then, many of those things were standard practice. Ethnic cleansing, widespread slavery, culture destruction were endemic to pretty much all societies in the past. As those societies very often lived on a might makes right credo.
People forget that we live in the most peaceful time right now. The amount of conflicts has been steadily decreasing for decades.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;46170788]yeah personally i think although columbus & that dude that fucked up the incans were pieces of shit, cortez wsn't so bad. he married a native woman and actively tried to protect native rights AND the aztecs were pretty fucked up they had a month that was specifically dedicated to child sacrifice[/QUOTE]
I don't know much about Cortez, that's mexican history. I mean, we do learn about him, but we don't go into as much detail as Pizarro and company.
He was much better than Pizarro and Almagro, that's for sure.
[QUOTE=T553412;46170815]I don't know much about Cortez, that's mexican history. I mean, we do learn about him, but we don't go into as much detail as Pizarro and company.
He was much better than Pizarro and Almagro, that's for sure.[/QUOTE]
i think in some ways you could actually see cortez as helping many of the mexican people overthrow the oppression of the aztecs who kept them in a state of perpetual war so they could capture slaves & sacrifices. pizzarro though was a scumbag
[QUOTE=T553412;46170772]War over resources? What resources? They were all looking for gold and silver to carry back to Spain. and most of it wasn't going to end in the royalty's pockets, either.
they were also instructed to spread catholicism among the natives. There were barely any priests, however, and many traditions were lost in the process.[/QUOTE]
Gold is a resource, something the Spanish wanted.
The natives accepted Christianity and the cultures died out to something obviously superior for a number of reasons, but mainly because the natives made the choice to abandon it.
Now, what is the point you are making here? That death of one civilization was wrong?
[QUOTE=wraithcat;46170804]Oh please, let's be honest here - slavery, forced works and many things we see as human rights abuses were common across cultures back in the day. Slavery was endemic to the aztec empire and was in no means brought in by Europeans.
When you think about it, the first nations to oppose similar practices were highly industrialised European nations. Though that did happen later.
As to an army pillaging a land. Remember we're looking at the 18th century where similar behaviour was in more ways than one, once again standard.
You're doing the mistake of comparing past behaviour trough modern eyes as opposed to comparing it against the standard of the time.[/QUOTE]
I know I'm somewhat biased about all of this, but please don't mix incas with aztecs. The latter are not my strong point, either, 'cause that's mexican history.
Incan society was based around reciprocity. Slavery was only reserved to prisoners of war. And there were different grades of slavery, depending on which pre-incan society happened to take you prisoner.
Also, we're talking about the late 15th century, not the 18th.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;46170804]I don't think, anyone is saying that Europeans didn't come in, took over and often used very brutal means to achieve power and to maintain this power. The problem is that a lot of posts do seem to apply, that the European occupators were the source of all evil. While completely disregarding the situation as it was beforehand, often disregarding history. Yes colonialism was mired by what we today would consider human rights abuses. The issue is, that for cultures back then, many of those things were standard practice. Ethnic cleansing, widespread slavery, culture destruction were endemic to pretty much all societies in the past. As those societies very often lived on a might makes right credo.
People forget that we live in the most peaceful time right now. The amount of conflicts has been steadily decreasing for decades.[/QUOTE]
people also seem to forget that many indigenous peoples are still fucked nowadays due to the ways they were colonized by europeans
[QUOTE=Vasili;46170856]Gold is a resource, something the Spanish wanted.
The natives accepted Christianity and the cultures died out to something obviously superior for a number of reasons, but mainly because the natives made the choice to abandon it.
Now, what is the point you are making here? That death of one civilization was wrong?[/QUOTE]
Some native elements were mixed with christian elements, though said practices were officially sanctioned and forbidden. In the long run it did helped to create our own identity, though that came much later
And I, personally, wouldn't call spanish culture "superior", considering how much stuff they broke when they conquered us. As I said, reciprocity. When the spanish conquered us, the fields were left to rot, the techniques used to keep those fields working was lost.
A culture that kills another, instead of searching cooperation and integration, is by no means superior. So yes, the death of a civilization [B]is[/B] wrong.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;46170870]people also seem to forget that many indigenous peoples are still fucked nowadays due to the ways they were colonized by europeans[/QUOTE]
Tbh, I've often seen the argument that it was not how they were colonised, but due to how decolonisation happened.
Which does hold some merit.
[QUOTE=T553412;46170881]Some native elements were mixed with christian elements, though said practices were officially sanctioned and forbidden. In the long run it did helped to create our own identity, though that came much later
And I, personally, wouldn't call spanish culture "superior", considering how much stuff they broke when they conquered us. As I said, reciprocity. When the spanish conquered us, the fields were left to rot, the techniques used to keep those fields working was lost.
A culture that kills another, instead of searching cooperation and integration, is by no means superior. So yes, the death of a civilization [B]is[/B] wrong.[/QUOTE]
Similar mingling of cultures is standard. Just look at Christian practices in Central or Northern Europe compared to those from the middle east or italy and the surrounding areas. The sheer amount of Pagan rituals which were absorbed and changed is just staggering. As to the fields being left to rot, technologies being lost. That is kinda what happens in a war.
I'm not saying Pizzaro wasn't a dick, but what happened due to his actions weren't utterly unique. Those things happened elsewhere and were committed across multiple continents and cultures. Just consider the mongols, the ottomans, aztecs. And one could go on and on.
so can we talk about how vasco da gama is infinitely superior to colombus?
[QUOTE=wraithcat;46170882]Tbh, I've often seen the argument that it was not how they were colonised, but due to how decolonisation happened.
Which does hold some merit.[/QUOTE]
Decolonization was another huge clusterfuck. Caudillos making a coup every couple of minutes and being in power for another couple of minutes
(Unless you're Chile, they got the decolonization business right, and that's why they kicked Peru and Bolivia's asses in 1879)
Both events helped to fuck the remaining indigenous population, one way or another
[QUOTE=EmperorKabuto;46170020]The Chinese had gunpowder when Europeans were still poking each other with metal sticks and inbreeding.[/QUOTE]
Well at least they've moved beyond the metal sticks.
[sp]this is a joke[/sp]
[QUOTE=T553412;46170857]I know I'm somewhat biased about all of this, but please don't mix incas with aztecs. The latter are not my strong point, either, 'cause that's mexican history.
Incan society was based around reciprocity. Slavery was only reserved to prisoners of war. And there were different grades of slavery, depending on which pre-incan society happened to take you prisoner.
Also, we're talking about the late 15th century, not the 18th.[/QUOTE]
What about all the child sacrificing that was preformed.
Now you're just arguing that slavery is relative? So slavery for criminals in a supposedly 'reciprocity' society is okay, but the idea of some guys across the sea isn't. There was no moral superior here, one side won the war and its losers were absorbed and brought into something new.
[QUOTE=T553412;46170881]
And I, personally, wouldn't call spanish culture "superior".
[/QUOTE]
Must be, the Inca culture died.
[QUOTE=Vasili;46170952]What about all the child sacrificing that was preformed.[/quote]
We are not talking about the aztecs. Human sacrificies weren't an everyday ocurrence. That's what llamas were for, anyway.
[quote]Now you're just arguing that slavery is relative? So slavery for criminals in a supposedly 'reciprocity' society is okay, but the idea of some guys across the sea isn't. There was no moral superior here, one side won the war and its losers were absorbed and brought into something new.[/quote]
From our modern point of view, slavery is wrong, no question about it. But between enslaving prisoners of war, a fairly humane thing to do considering the era and way of thinking we're talking about, or enslaving an entire population, I wonder who are the lesser devils here.
As for the reciprocity, this has more to do with the civilian population. The way of life was designed so that everyone supported everyone. Sure, it had problems and issues like any society, but compared to the way of life the spaniards brought, which favored anyone [B]not[/B] born in the american continent, it was heaven.
Not [I]all[/I] europeans supported these conditions, however. Many fought for the well being of many natives.
Thing is, this model worked [I]so well[/I] that when the independence happened, the local aristocracy not only kept it running, it also [I]expanded it[/I] towards inmigrants from Asia.
[quote]Must be, the Inca culture died.[/QUOTE]
It shouldn't have died the way it did.
[QUOTE=CheeseMan;46170888]so can we talk about how vasco da gama is infinitely superior to colombus?[/QUOTE]
[video=youtube;y2kObw63scg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2kObw63scg[/video]
Oh man Milly got banned while I was sleeping? Thank god
[QUOTE=T553412;46171118]We are not talking about the aztecs. Human sacrificies weren't an everyday ocurrence. That's what llamas were for, anyway.[/quote]
Inca Empire preformed human sacrifice, specifically on children; you support a society that not only found this acceptable but did it routinely.
[quote]From our modern point of view, slavery is wrong, no question about it. But between enslaving prisoners of war, a fairly humane thing to do considering the era and way of thinking we're talking about, or enslaving an entire population, I wonder who are the lesser devils here.[/quote]
I don't understand why you condemn the Spanish for crimes when the Inca's practices were largely similar. The Inca Empire got beat by technologically superior invaders, clever enough to use the natives of the land against the empire willingly.
[quote]As for the reciprocity, this has more to do with the civilian population. The way of life was designed so that everyone supported everyone. Sure, it had problems and issues like any society, but compared to the way of life the spaniards brought, which favored anyone [B]not[/B] born in the american continent, it was heaven.[/quote]
The civilian population lived as serfs (corvée) that the chieftains used as bodies for their own projects, which as discussed earlier is pretty much a form of slavery. The Inca royal family practically fell over one another to gain the favour of the Spanish, the caste system, tribes and feuding sold the empire out and its people de-constructed themselves to a pathetically small Spanish force.
The Incas had no issue with using slaves in the new Spanish controlled region either.
[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;46169094]I've been a proponent of changing the holiday for a long time. Columbus made a historic landing in Caribbean, but that shouldn't exempt him from modern moral examination. He was a brutal slave driver and plunderer who had his crews cut the hands off women and children for failing to scavenge enough gold for him.[/QUOTE]
wtf that's so badass
I'd give him 2 holidays
[editline]7th October 2014[/editline]
[sp]ummmm jk[/sp]
[QUOTE=Grimhound;46170385][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leif_Erikson_Day[/url][/QUOTE]
Seriously did people not know that didn't originate from Spongebob?
I can see celebrating the voyages themselves as they were a huge step in exploration, but it did seem that he was sort of an ass-hat once he settled there, haha
[editline]7th October 2014[/editline]
also we all deserve to die for what our ancestors did RIP us
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.