I
- Status
R
RolandThompsonGunner
Guest
“Hence, Christopher Columbus belongs to the Church, and any affront to him is directed at the Church, which has the duty to defend his memory”
LOL, what? If someone has a negative opinion of Columbus, they are by definition insulting the Church?
This is the most bananas thing I’ve read on the internet today.
LOL, what? If someone has a negative opinion of Columbus, they are by definition insulting the Church?
This is the most bananas thing I’ve read on the internet today.
S
Salibi
Guest
This identification of Columbus with Christianity, in light of the anti-racism protests taking place around the globe, is ridiculous and inappropriate. It gives a false impression of the Church, is alienating to black Catholics and to Catholics of Native American heritage, and reinforces a negative image of Catholicism already prevalent amongst many non-Christians of color.
I am genuinely shocked at the sheer amount of people on here who seem to equate whiteness and white colonialism with Christianity. This defensiveness in the face of legitimate anti-racism protests is truly sickening to behold.
All Catholics should condemn racism, slavery, colonialism, and their propagators, and reject any attempt by the few to use Catholicism as a cover for such things.
May our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ comfort the victims of racism and forgive those who refuse to acknowledge their pain.
I am genuinely shocked at the sheer amount of people on here who seem to equate whiteness and white colonialism with Christianity. This defensiveness in the face of legitimate anti-racism protests is truly sickening to behold.
All Catholics should condemn racism, slavery, colonialism, and their propagators, and reject any attempt by the few to use Catholicism as a cover for such things.
May our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ comfort the victims of racism and forgive those who refuse to acknowledge their pain.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
Columbus is not worth it.
C
commenter
Guest
Before Columbus, no known Christianity in the Western hemisphere. Since Columbus Christianity is an undeniable factor.
One result of Christianity here is that we have concepts like racism and other evils as “bad” - as sin. The fact that Columbus, like you and I, was imperfect and fell short of that standard does not negate that standard, or the Christopher who brought it.
The anti Columbus movement really wants to repeal the Christian influence in America. Rolling America back to pre Christianity would not eliminate sin of racism it would eliminate the standard by which we know sin is bad.
One result of Christianity here is that we have concepts like racism and other evils as “bad” - as sin. The fact that Columbus, like you and I, was imperfect and fell short of that standard does not negate that standard, or the Christopher who brought it.
The anti Columbus movement really wants to repeal the Christian influence in America. Rolling America back to pre Christianity would not eliminate sin of racism it would eliminate the standard by which we know sin is bad.
T
twf
Guest
That’s factually not true. There were Catholics in medieval Greenland, and possibly even what now Newfoundland (we’re taking pre-reformation- Nordic Christians).
S
Salibi
Guest
But as you know, the one defence of these people is “yeah, he killed, he raped, he committed genocide, he enslaved, and he wiped put entire nations of natives, but he also brought Christianity” while also throwing in once again the ridiculous “Christianity=whiteness” mentality and claiming that criticism of white colonialist figures is “anti-Christianity”. Utterly absurd.
I thank God devoutly that these people are in the minority, and that we are finally living in a post-colonial world where the majority of whites are not shy to admitting and working on resolving the evils of the past.
The Apostles evangelised entire communities without feeling the need to try to raise armies and kill or rape anyone, by the way. This quite frankly renders the argument that “Columbus was ultimately good because he brought Christianity despite genocide” completely meaningless from a Catholic perspective. You can evangelise without killing people. Unless the primary goal wasn’t the spread of Christianity (like the Apostles).
I thank God devoutly that these people are in the minority, and that we are finally living in a post-colonial world where the majority of whites are not shy to admitting and working on resolving the evils of the past.
The Apostles evangelised entire communities without feeling the need to try to raise armies and kill or rape anyone, by the way. This quite frankly renders the argument that “Columbus was ultimately good because he brought Christianity despite genocide” completely meaningless from a Catholic perspective. You can evangelise without killing people. Unless the primary goal wasn’t the spread of Christianity (like the Apostles).
Last edited:
V
Victoria33
Guest
A lot of this is Cultural Marxism, very related to Godless Communism. The leftists pushing some of these ideas are also comfortable with “reproductive rights” to the detriment of minorities they profess to defend, do not be fooled. They support laws and planned parenthood clinics exterminating half of the unborn for some minorities, if the left wants to jeer and mock others for so-called racism, they should start with themselves.
. . . .
. . . .
Last edited:
F
Funvod
Guest
…how is this related to Columbus exactly?
S
Salibi
Guest
And you see here, class, yet another tactic of the ultra-right. Tie in anything you dislike with Marxism, and ultimately, abortion.
Marxism-a convenient excuse to defend racism and do absolutely nothing to help its victims while still professing Christianity.
By the way, your analysis is faulty. Nothing in anti-racism is Marxism. Kindly stop consuming whatever media is telling you so.
Good day.
Last edited:
So, because someone thinks genocide and forced conversions are a poor witness to the Christian faith, that makes them pro-choice ? It doesn’t make sense.
FYI, @Salibi’s POV on Columbus is about the same as the Church’s official stance on Charlemagne, who, even if he is still officially “Blessed” and his veneration still tolerated, was pulled out of the Saints’ calendar because he used violence to convert – and is, accessorily, suspected of having been a serial rapist.
Last time I checked, the Catholic Church wasn’t a pro-choice, culturally Marxist organisation.
S
silentwitness
Guest
Yes this is an uncomfortable truth for some.
People who see race everywhere are generally the ones to assert racism.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
Surely there must be some balance between those who cling to his white-washed image without acknowledging how this is offensive in this day and age; and those who through ignorance refuse to view him and his actions in the historical context, but cling to a Twenty-first Century sensibility and judge him evil. He was a product of his time. He lack a Berkeley education and never was able to attend sensitivity training. Even the basics of all human beings being the same species was unknown, as no one ever thought of it, at that time.
It should be noted though that the racism associated with him is somewhat unfair. He was also harsh toward his own men, as per the discipline at the time. Also, a lot of what we think we know comes from English propaganda aimed at both Catholicism and Spain. He is no saint, and the Church never said he was, but he did want to spread Christianity, and in the end of his life, became more of a spiritual contemplative. Best to leave his judgement to God.
It should be noted though that the racism associated with him is somewhat unfair. He was also harsh toward his own men, as per the discipline at the time. Also, a lot of what we think we know comes from English propaganda aimed at both Catholicism and Spain. He is no saint, and the Church never said he was, but he did want to spread Christianity, and in the end of his life, became more of a spiritual contemplative. Best to leave his judgement to God.
Last edited:
Columbus was not a missionary. He came west looking for India and it’s wealth. He found a new continent.
And what isn’t?
P
pnewton
Guest
One more thing. The wider question is what the image of Christopher Columbus is today, and that is most definitely a mixed bag. Naming places after the historical figure that was influential in its history is universal, as in the District of Colombia. Perhaps it should be enough that we just keep that which is named, but not erect any more statues in his honor, or move those where people find it offensive to a museum of history.
P
pnewton
Guest
That is my point exactly. If one cannot understand the offensiveness, then there is not chance to defend the historicity of Columbus. Understanding others is the first, best step toward healing. Blowing it off with this sort of statement does nothing but entrench all sides.pnewton:
And what isn’t?
Applying the standards of “today’s day and age” to past history is sheer folly. No honest historian would judge a historic figure by today’s standards. It is apples and oranges. It would be like asking which version of the Iphone did Columbus use. The world was a different place 600 years ago.
There is nothing ethical or moral about the movement that today is toppling the statuse of Columbus, Thomas Jefferson or Churchill. This is re-inventing history.
R
RolandThompsonGunner
Guest
Columbus was awful applying the standards of his own age.
- Status