“Columbus noster est!” “Christopher Columbus is ours!”

[meltzerboy2]

Even inside my book club. We all have certain racist tendencies toward certain groups of people, including myself. None of us is perfect. Some of these attitudes are expressed more often than others. Some are acted upon. We try to hold our racist attitudes in check most of the time. But in times of crisis, such as now, they come out more than in normal times. I have friends who have racist attitudes but they have other features that are endearing.

 

[MiserereMei]

n the 2007 revision of his book The Great Terror, Robert Conquest estimates that while exact numbers will never be certain, the communist leaders of the Soviet Union were responsible for no fewer than 15 million deaths

If we are counting deaths, according to Mr. Shashi Tharoor, the [mercantilist-turned-capitalist] UK is responsible for the death of approximately 35 million Indian deaths during British rule of India. They also ravished the Indian economy, with effects that India still struggles with.

Don’t get me started on civilians killed by the US military in the past few decades of illegitimate war.

Certainly not the current iteration of the “left” which is spewing racism; the ani-white variety, on a daily basis. Or, do you believe that anti-white bigotry is…justified?

Curious: Just how is the current left anti-white? There is no leftist policy that I am aware of that actually discriminates against white people. Seeking to make right the generational economic impact of long-standing discrimination does not an anti-white policy make.

 

[Adamek]

If we are counting deaths,

WE are not counting deaths. Columbus can be held responsible for a few dozen, maybe few hundred deaths. but not the entire history of the European conquest of the Americas. His statues are offnsive and must come down.
Several million deaths can be attributed to Lenin, but his statue offends no one in the US.
You really don’t see the irony?

 

[StudentMI]

The death rate for the Soviet Union is considerably lower than the estimates available during the cold war. Stalin, for instance, was responsible for about 7 million.

 

[MiserereMei]

WE are not counting deaths.

I’m fairly certain that part of your argument can be summarized as “Columbus didn’t kill that many, but Lenin killed so many, so why aren’t Lenin statues taken down too?” That seems to me to be comparing death counts by definition.

Several million deaths can be attributed to Lenin, but his statue offends no one in the US.
You really don’t see the irony?

What irony? What longstanding systemic problem in this country is linked to Lenin’s human rights violations? What people group of this land did Lenin or those who followed after him displace, murder, and subjugate?

Columbus can be held responsible for a few dozen, maybe few hundred deaths.

Not quite. According to Bartolome de las Casas around the 1540s, the Spanish (lured there by Columbus and his claims) were responsible for the deaths of about 12-15 million indigenous people. This does not include deaths centuries after this which were a continuation of such policy, nor does it include the deaths caused by the French, British, Dutch, etc, who also joined in in competition for the wealth they heard of. Columbus may not have personally executed those innocents, but his actions directly led to their deaths and the subjugation of those peoples.

As I said, I am a pacifist. I would that all statues and honors of murderers and war criminals torn down and, if historically significant, transported to museums where they can be put to some good use.

Understanding the effects of Columbus’ actions surely illustrates why there is just a bit more of an impetus to stop honoring him than others within our cultural context, yes?

It ultimately isn’t about being avoiding offense. It is about not honoring or glorifying that which should not be honored or glorified.

 

[StudentMI]

As I said, I am a pacifist.

I would recommend the book Pacifism as Pathology.

 

[silentwitness]

the current right, in general, has no such ideals with regard to racism.

The current right (Republican Party) are proud that they historically stood against slavery, the KKK and Jim Crow laws and never succumbed to identity politics to repress a section of the population based on race.

The current right sees every citizen having equal access before the law, independent of race.

The current right takes pride in having achieved the lowest unemployment rate for minorities and the largest uptick in first time black business owners under the current administration and celebrated those achievements despite emotional denialism and irrational racist charges made by political opponents.

The current right detests the idea of splitting people into categories of race in order to pursue victim politics.

The current right have got it absolutely correct on race.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

The current right sees every citizen having equal access before the law, independent of race.

The current right detests the idea of splitting people into categories of race in order to pursue victim politics.

The current right have got it absolutely correct on race.

But in practice things are lacking.

 

[blackforest]

Of course. But I’m not here claiming that those carrying out this genocide bore any “Christian influence.” Such a claim would be absurd . . . . as absurd as the claim in this thread that Columbus and his men, responsible for their own genocide, were of “Christian influence.”

 

[esieffe]

He was an immoral person and quite frankly an idiot.

And you know this how?

 

[esieffe]

I guess someone is going to have to break it to Ohio State that they might have to change their letterhead.

 

[TheBomb.Com]

Columbus was responsible for the extinction of the Taino people he encountered during his first voyage to the Americas. He miscalculated the distance between Europe and Asia, and believed he could sail to Asia in a matter of days. He literally enslaved indigenous peoples, as the first slave trader in the Americas. When the native slaves died off, he replaced them with Africans.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Are you talking about the same current right that wants to end DACA for the children of immigrants who were born in the United States, that is not concerned about giving LGBT people federal protection under the law in the workplace, that tries to limit Blacks from voting by means of imposing obstacles including voter identification and shortened voting hours, that practices redlining in minority neighborhoods, which results in the decrease of adequate health care and financial services to the people in those neighborhoods, that is indifferent at best to police officers having killed a disproportionate number of Black men and women, that pushed for the oil pipeline on the tribal land of indigenous people? That right? No thanks.

 

[TheBomb.Com]

You put into words what I’ve been feeling for so long!

 

[silentwitness]

Are you talking about the same current right that wants to end DACA for the children of immigrants who were born in the United States, that is not concerned about giving LGBT people federal protection under the law in the workplace, that tries to limit Blacks from voting by means of imposing obstacles including voter identification and shortened voting hours, that practices redlining in minority neighborhoods, which results in the decrease of adequate health care and financial services to the people in those neighborhoods, that is indifferent at best to police officers having killed a disproportionate number of Black men and women, that pushed for the oil pipeline on the tribal land of indigenous people? That right? No thanks.

No i am not.

I am speaking about the right that actually exists.

Not an imaginary creation by the likes of CNN and the Democratic Party for malevolent political purposes.

By the way i notice that your second example that misrepresents the right’s motives has nothing to so with race. Pretty thin argument when your second biased example has nothing to do with race. But it is a very weak argument.

It is an argument of projection to emotionalise people against others by lying about principles and motives. That is on the Left. They lie regarding just about everything whether it be an opposing Presidents links to Russia or an opponents view on race.

The Left just don’t have it wrong on race, they are flat out horrendous as the current violence on the streets attest and as also their racist past attests that the education system tries to blame on anyone else but themselves.

The Left’s very philosophy is to divide people into categories and blame one group for society’s ills so as to create the false morality of stealing from them in the name of justice. Whether those categories are class structures or race or both, this is the very philosophy and history of the Left.

As a Jew I am sure you know just how horrendous those false attributions followed by violent state confiscation and redistribution can be.

 

[TheBomb.Com]

It is definitely not imaginary. The right is definitely just as bad as we lefties make them out to be. Even worse sometimes. It’s a home for racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

 

[MiserereMei]

I would recommend the book Pacifism as Pathology.

Thank you for the recommendation.

Mr. Churchill’s work seems to have substantial problems from my quick read of it. For one, he paints pacifists with far too broad a brush, and doesn’t seem to allow for any nuance in a pacifist position. In other words, he puts up a strawman representing all pacifists and proceeds to tear that down. His premises are flawed.

Are there some moralistic pacifists out there that fit his descriptor? Sure. Does it describe all who take on the mantle of pacifism? By no means.

 

[MiserereMei]

I am speaking about the right that actually exists.

I happen to like to learn about others from their own side. What are some sources of news and commentary from the “right that actually exists” would you recommend?

Not an imaginary creation by the likes of CNN and the Democratic Party for malevolent political purposes.

By the way i notice that your second example that skews the right’s motives has nothing to so with race. Pretty thin argument when your second biased example has nothing to do with race. But it is a very weak argument because it is an argument of projection to emotionalise people against others by lying about principles and motives. That is on the Left. They lie regarding just about everything whether it be an opposing Presidents links to Russia or an opponents view on race.

The Left just don’t have it wrong on race, they are flat out horrendous as the current violence on the streets attest and as also their racist past attests that the education system tries to blame on anyone else but themselves.

Hoooooo boy. Where do I begin to untangle this? 1) Both sides “emotionalise people”. That’s politics. 2) General rule: honest politicians are a rare breed, regardless of the team. 3) This is actually a good example of some of the general attitude that has helped to produce the polarization and breakdown of civil political discourse in the US. Thank you for illustrating it.

Remember:
Democratic party ≠ the Left.
(Psst, they are actually quite a bit on the right, just a bit less so than the Republicans.)

The Left’s very philosophy is to divide people into categories and blame one category for society’s ills so as to create the false morality of stealing from them in the name of justice.

Nah. Let this lefty tell you what our philosophy fundamentally is. There is widespread inequality and economic injustice. We want to give everyone healthcare and the opportunity to live a decent life. Because right now, that opportunity does not exist. Nothing more nefarious than that. Ooooooo healthcare and economic opportunity for everyone … sooooo scary!

 

[silentwitness]

I happen to like to learn about others from their own side. What are some sources of news and commentary from the “right that actually exists” would you recommend?
Hoooooo boy. Where do I begin to untangle this? 1) Both sides “emotionalise people”. That’s politics. 2) General rule: honest politicians are a rare breed, regardless of the team. 3) This is actually a good example of some of the general attitude that has helped to produce the polarization and breakdown of civil political discourse in the US. Thank you for illustrating it.

Remember:
Democratic party ≠ the Left.
(Psst, they are actually quite a bit on the right, just a bit less so than the Republicans.)

Nah. Let this lefty tell you what our philosophy fundamentally is. There is widespread inequality and economic injustice. We want to give everyone healthcare and the opportunity to live a decent life. Because right now, that opportunity does not exist. Nothing more nefarious than that. Ooooooo healthcare and economic opportunity for everyone … sooooo scary!

This is my last post today before i give you the floor.

Firstly i am in favour of national healthcare so i am unsure why i am supposed to be scared with that. It is a big issue and certainly there can be nationalised health which is more in line with the destructive philosophies of the Left. I certainly oppose those.

Secondly you say the Left is not the Democratic Party. I agree but the Left are in the moral driving seat of the Democratic Party and have been there for at least a couple of decades. They have gradually and purposefully replaced other voices that used to dominate including the Catholic voice.

Thirdly the polarisation you speak of is a direct and purposeful consequence of the Left’s take over of education and media over the preceding decades which go back to the cold war.

Lastly, today we only say ‘right’ as opposed to the Left which is a definite group referring to the Left side of the French Parliament at the time of the revolution.

They believe themselves to be for Liberty, Equality, Fraternity and the belief in a big state as a modern force of reason and rationality with a civic identification replacing religion. Of course you have the identity politics routed in ‘historic injustice’ that i mentioned above.

So there are ‘many ‘rights’’. Anyone who opposes the Left are called right.

If you want to know about alternate news services i recommend The Duran in Europe (based in Athens, London and Moscow) and Bill Whittle and Daily Wire in the USA.

There are also many groups who like myself come out of the Left and are now critical of it including in Britain, atheists such as Sargon of Akkad and Brendan O’Neil’s ‘Spiked’.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

And you know this how?

I find replies like this confusing, and there are several of them in this thread. It’s not like Columbus is a figure from 10,000 BC on which almost nothing is known. He’s a relatively recent figure with a good amount written on him by contemporaries and historians. There’s plenty in the record to form an opinion.

Of course, this “oh yeah, how would you know?” question can be deployed equally well against those who maintain he was a great guy.