Christopher Columbus - how can Catholics admire him and name organisations after him?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FiveLinden
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FiveLinden

Guest
I have started this thread because my attempt to discuss it in another thread about membership of the KoC was unwelcome. My specific allegation was that Columbus was responsible for genocide caused only in part by ideas but also by his acts of war, enslavement, oppression, murder and execution of indigenous people. I accept that the elimination of an entire people was not his aim but it was certainly the consequence of his actions. Now I accept that he was a person of his time. But I understand Catholic teaching to that Jesus Christ and his Church on matters of faith and morals are ‘the same yesterday, today and tomorrow’. In the modern world Columbus would have been prosecuted and convicted. If the trial was at Nuremberg, before mercian judges, in 1946, he would have been executed. He also did brave and remarkable things. So did many other mass murderers, some in our own time, such as Kim Jong Un. Surely it cannot be right to name Catholic organisations for this man? And even if it is somehow acceptable in principle surely the scandal occasioned by this among indigenous people around the world would make such an action unwise and harmful to the faith?
 
I see you are still convinced that those articles about him are 100% truth.

Many question that.
 
To which group of people are you refering as being wiped out by Christopher Columbus?
The Taino? The Arawak? The Carib? (These are the groups of indigenous peoples that Christopher Columbus met.)
I suggest you do a little bit more research. Because you see my friend those groups have not died out. They intermarried with Spanish and African Slaves. Their descendants live on, to this day. Furthermore it was disease that nearly wiped them out.
 
Last edited:
If you check your world history, the Pope himself threw the weight of the Catholic Church against the abuses of the colonizers.
 
When you’re building western civilization sometimes things don’t go perfect. Admire the good, condemn the bad, move on.
 
I agree with the other posters that at least some of Columbus’ bad rap is undeserved. Even aside from that, Knights of Columbus has been around so long that it has a reputation of its own completely separate and apart from a historical man named Columbus. Anyone who gets all wound up over names rather than looking at what an organization is actually doing has got a hangup and needs to get over it.

I don’t see the city of Columbus, Ohio changing its name or people moving out of it because they’ve decided Columbus was a creep.
 
pianistclare said:
I see you are still convinced that those articles about him are 100% truth.

Many question that.
Click to expand...
No I always assume that articles will contain errors. But there is a preponderance of evidence that reasonable people should accept. Are there any historians with a record of publication in peer-review journals or other recognised publications who believe Columbus did not participate in genocide? If so, who are they?
 
stuartbrianhenlis said:
If you check your world history, the Pope himself threw the weight of the Catholic Church against the abuses of the colonizers
Click to expand...
And well done the Pope. What has that to do with whether Columbus was part of a genocidal series of actions?
 
Kathleen18 said:
To which group of people are you refering as being wiped out by Christopher Columbus?

The Taino? The Arawak? The Carib? (These are the groups of indigenous peoples that Christopher Columbus met.)

I suggest you do a little bit more research. Because you see my friend those groups have not died out. They intermarried with Spanish and African Slaves. Their descendants live on, to this day. Furthermore it was disease that nearly wiped them out
Click to expand...
I am quite sure you are right. But ‘genocide’ does not require complete elimination of a people. That is why the holocaust is described as a genocide despite the continued existence of Jews. Holocaust deniers like David Irving make this argument all the time.
 
Well, he was a very strong Catholic who opened up the whole new world up to Europe. So thats why
 
FiveLinden said:
I am quite sure you are right. But ‘genocide’ does not require complete elimination of a people. That is why the holocaust is described as a genocide despite the continued existence of Jews. Holocaust deniers like David Irving make this argument all the time.
Click to expand...
Genocide is the killing of a mass group of people of the same ethnic group, culture, or beliefs, on purpose. Did Columbus mean to nearly wipe out an entire civilization? When the explorers brought European diseases to the native tribes, did they do it simply to kill the natives off, knowing they did not have the immunity Europeans did? When making them slaves, does anyone know exactly why he did it, what his way of thinking was? Did he think they needed to be destroyed, as Hitler thought of the Jews? if so, what proof is there?
 
FiveLinden said:
In the modern world Columbus would have been prosecuted and convicted.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it is not proper to project our modern developments into the past. We understand things very differently. That being said, I do agree that the murderous consequences not only of Columbus, but those who followed. I find it egregious that we should have “Columbus Day” at all! We should have “Indiginous Peoples’” day and Americans should be taught about how the European conquest of the continent slaughtered the inhabitants.
 
De las Casas was a great man. Just goes to show not all Spaniards were jerks. Some were, some weren’t.
 
AmericanRose said:
Genocide is the killing of a mass group of people of the same ethnic group, culture, or beliefs, on purpose. Did Columbus mean to nearly wipe out an entire civilization? When the explorers brought European diseases to the native tribes, did they do it simply to kill the natives off, knowing they did not have the immunity Europeans did? When making them slaves, does anyone know exactly why he did it, what his way of thinking was? Did he think they needed to be destroyed, as Hitler thought of the Jews? if so, what proof is there?
Click to expand...
Is it? Where do you get ‘on purpose’?
 
guanophore said:
Yes, but it is not proper to project our modern developments into the past. We understand things very differently. That being said, I do agree that the murderous consequences not only of Columbus, but those who followed. I find it egregious that we should have “Columbus Day” at all! We should have “Indiginous Peoples’” day and Americans should be taught about how the European conquest of the continent slaughtered the inhabitants
Click to expand...
I am with you on that. But is Jesus and his Church not the same ‘yesterday, today and forever’? Can we not hold people in the past accountable for failure to love their neighbours and not treating them as they would wish themselves to be treated?
 
FiveLinden said:
Are there any historians with a record of publication in peer-review journals or other recognised publications who believe Columbus did not participate in genocide? If so, who are they?
Click to expand...
That is a fallacious statement. There are zero articles about how I never participated in genocide, yet I have not done so.

I understand where you are attempting to go with this post, but use accurate research and non-biased sources to make claims. If I can claim anything is true because no one has disproved it, that must mean I’m the shortest man alive because no one has written an ariticle stating that I’m not. By the way, I’m 6’3
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top