The "Protocols" is a literary forgery and debunked as such nearly a century ago.. This isn't the first time I've pointed it out on GTV, either.

When did you join Mattsixteen24's Church of the Anti-Semite?

The Protocols, apparently, were first published in Russia in 1903 and is a master plan for an alleged great conspiracy to destroy Christianity. One of the four or more theories about the protocols is that is was sold by a Jew to Justine Glinka, the daughter of a Russian General and diplomat. judeo-masonic.blogspot.com/…/9-protocols-of-…
The Talmud, too, is full of hateful rabbinical teachings concerning Christians;
catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/judaism/talmud.htm

As is evident as it is happening right in front of our eyes, the evil that is in power is erasing him and also the likes of Winston Churchill.

Btw, Freemasonry, by their own admission, is the successor of the ancient mystery religions, going all the way back to Nimrod [or even before], therefore “official Freemasonry registration” immaterial.

PS RE ‘... for that he deserves to be honored.’

They have mastered “divide and conquer”, a classic military tactic. It reminds me yesterday reading of “conservatives massacred by ‘fake conservatives’”. So keep dividing and subdividing ad infinitum? They go marching right in between.

"nor did he rape, enslave, or murder any Indians." @philosopher Oh? That depends primarily on how you choose to define the terms.

Columbus imposed Spain's encomienda system on the Indians which in practice served the same purpose as slavery, despite any technical differences between the two.

In terms of their daily life before and after his arrival, yeah.. Columbus DID enslave the Indians.

--In the New World, the Crown granted conquistadores as encomendero, which is the right to extract labor and tribute from natives who were under Spanish rule. Christopher Columbus established the encomienda system after his arrival and settlement on the island of Hispaniola requiring them to pay tributes or face brutal punishments. Tributes were required to be paid in gold however during this time gold was scarce--

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encomienda

Columbus' exploitations of the Indians using "encomienda" has been extensively researched and discussed in numerous books.
www.google.com/search

If any of those Indians died as the result of their mistreatment, Columbus is both directly and morally responsible for their death. True, that's not "murder" according to a precise legal definition of the term today.

It's also fair to say those who focus on such distinctions wouldn't do so if their own loved ones were the victims.

Whether Columbus personally raped any Indians is moot. His own letters show he clearly condoned the practice, even against children, in addition to selling them into slavery..

-- “A hundred castellanoes are as easily obtained for a woman as for a farm, and it is very general and there are plenty of dealers who go about looking for girls; those from nine to ten are now in demand.”--

That's a direct quote from a letter Columbus sent in 1500 to Doña Juana de la Torre, the sister of one of his head crew members detailing his second voyage to the Americas.

It gets worse. Queen Isabella was opposed to seeing baptized Indians (who were both Catholic and her subjects) sold into slavery.

Columbus' solution was simply not to have them baptized --something even the Catholic Church criticized.

What is this? Deconstruct Columbus day?

I never said he was a saint but is honored for exploration.

History as explicated through public art is not for us to like or dislike but to learn. And from what you stated, it seems we can learn profound moral lessons from his life and times, which is exactly why his statues should remain in the public square.

"I never said he was a saint but is honored for exploration."

I didn't say that you did, nor did I imply it. I quoted you verbatim, btw.

To answer your semi-rhetorical question, today isn't Deconstruct Columbus Day. It's Get Your Facts Straight Day.

Better to get corrected by an inherently suportive reader than the humiliating drubbing you'll take from a hostile one in a larger venue. I'm opposed to revisionism -regardless of the source, or the motive.

...and you should be too. Not simply out of a principled dedication to the truth, but also a purely cynical appreciation of how public debate works.

If your opposition can show you're wrong in terms of history (and they can, just as I did), they can argue your support for Columbus is based on error or, worse, a racist's deliberate disregard for indigenous people and their suffering at the hands of Europeans.

If your opposition can show you're engaging in historical revisionism, they can use the proof of that to aid them in their own cultural revisionism.

" it's not historical revisionism to say that Columbus was an intrepid explorer, which is factual." - philosopher

It darn well IS historical revisionism to say, as you did, "nor did he rape, enslave, or murder any Indians." The facts show otherwise.

This kind of silly side-stepping of what you orignally said is beneath you.

You can be as grateful as you like, but that doesn't change what he did when he found the New World or his entirely mercenary motivations for doing so.

@Ultraviolet before you respond, please Google and read an article 2003 by Dr. John A. Hard on, S.J. archives, and Christopher Columbus and Fake History 9-1-2017, and Crimes of Christopher Columbus by Dinesh D'Souza These articles offer a refutation of your charges.

Next, please provide us with primary source historical proofs that Columbus personally ( not as an administrator) committed the crimes of rape, murder, genocide, and personally enslaved? If personally had a slave, what was their name and how many?

First hand vidence please. Again no secondary sources.

Let's get real about Columbus and stop perpetuating the post modern anti-Catholic version of the new la legends negra!

"These articles offer a refutation of your charges."

Then the burden of proof is on YOU to show where they do so, @philosopher You haven't.

Why can't YOU link the articles, quote them, and show, point by point, where they supposedly counter the extensively documented evidence I already linked up directly?

If you want to "get real" about Columbus, it's time you start defending him in a scholarly manner. This ain't it.

You also need to "get real" when it comes to recognizing acceptable standards of culpability and proof of it.

"that Columbus personally ( not as an administrator) committed the crimes of rape, murder, genocide, and personally enslaved? If personally had a slave, what was their name and how many?"

Moving the goal-posts much? Why not ask for their birth certificates as well? :D

We're discussing Columbus'impact on the New World. As for his -personal- involvement, an administrator is directly responsible for setting policy and supervising his subordinates.

In legal terms, Columbus has command responsibility.which is an internationally recognized concept when judging the criminality of a leader's actions. It also impart direct responsibility for those under his command when establishing culpability for war-crimes and crimes against humanity..

An administrator doesn't have to personally murder someone to be directly responsible for their death.

An administrator doesn't have to personally beat a slave to work to have them enslaved.

An adminsitrator doesn't have to personally hold a child down when his subordinates do so.

He's still responsible for the system he introduces (encomienda, in this case), how he administrates it, and responsible when he condones the actions of his subordinates while they do so on his behalf.

You're also adding in additional requirements, such as showing "genocide" which you never discussed to begin with. I've seen your style of debating. It's isn't clever, it isn't honest, and all it will do is prolong the inevitable. ;-)

"First hand evidence please. Again no secondary sources."

...and who are YOU to decide what sources are or are not acceptable proof?

If you feel a scholarly work, including a secondary one, is inaccurate the burden of proof is on YOU to show the error. This is a bad-faith demand on your part, as evidenced by your own refusal to adhere to it.

Is Fr. Hardon "first hand evidence"? No. Then why did you cite him? ;-)

Is Christopher Columbus and Fake History 9-1-2017 a primary source? No. It's a "secondary source" , exactly the kind you won't accept. Fancy that. Double-standards much? ;-)

"First hand evidence please. Again no secondary sources."

Apply your standards evenly Philosopher. According to the ones YOU set, you still have yet to refute any evidence I've already presented thus far.

Did you even quote your secondary sources? No. Did you even link them? No. You couldn't even do that. A cynical mind would speculate you just wanted to present a factual-looking "refutation source" without showing any proof that it actually DOES refute the information I've presented. ;-)

What you HAVE done is keep piling on additional demands for proof even though you're already unable to refute what's already on the table.

Will it make a difference? Probably not. After all, you're ignoring "first hand evidence" I already supplied.

In the case of Columbus condoning both rape and slavery I already HAVE supplied first-hand evidence in the form of his own letter. You obviously didn't read it.

-- "A hundred castellanoes are as easily obtained for a woman as for a farm, and it is very general and there are plenty of dealers who go about looking for girls; those from nine to ten are now in demand."--

That's a direct quote from a letter Columbus sent in 1500 to Doña Juana de la Torre, the sister of one of his head crew members detailing his second voyage to the Americas. Cited here and here

Columbus even bragged to the Spanish crown on his ability to supply slaves, using that term.

--"I make this promise to our most invincible Sovereigns, that, if I am supported by some little assistance from them, I will give them as much gold as they have need of, and in addition spices, cotton, and mastic, which is found only in Chios, and as much aloes-wood, and as many heathen slaves as their Majesties may choose to demand."--

Cited here and here

Columbus' enslavement and murder of the Indians was extensively documented by someone who witnessed them first-hand, Fr. Bartolome de las Casas, the first priest ordained of the Americas

--"In three or four months, when I was there, more than seventy thousand children, whose fathers and mothers had been sent to the mines, died of hunger."--

--"Where had been a flourishing population, it is now a shame and pity to see the island laid waste and turned into a desert."--

--"There are two main ways in which those who have travelled to this part of the world pretending to be Christians have uprooted these pitiful peoples and wiped them from the face of the earth. First, they have waged war on them: unjust, cruel, bloody and tyrannical war. Second, they have murdered anyone and everyone who has shown the slightest sign of resistance, or even of wishing to escape the torment to which they have subjected him.

This latter policy has been instrumental in suppressing the native leaders, and, indeed, given that the Spaniards normally spare only women and children, it has led to the annihilation of all adult males, whom they habitually subject to the harshest and most iniquitous and brutal slavery that man has ever devised for his fellow-men, treating them, in fact, worse than animals. "--

That's from "The Devastation of the Indies: A Brief Account" Bartolomé de Las Casas. There's plenty more in the work. Cited here

So even your newly-added demands for "first-hand" evidence and proof of "genocide" are met as well.

"Let's get real about Columbus and stop perpetuating the post modern anti-Catholic version..."

You should get real about how scholarly debates are conducted, how to refute a counter-example, and what standards of proof are academically acceptable for factually supporting a claim.

In this case, there's nothing "post modern anti-Catholic" about the horrifiying eye-witness accounts from a Catholic priest, the first from the New World Columbus discovered and enslaved.

Father de Las Casas beats Father Hardon. :D De Las Casas was there Hardon was not.

First, this isn't a haughty symposium or scholarly journal but a comment platform.

No, I merely, in an informal conversational manner discussed the virtue and vices of Columbus.

No, when one is charged with the grave crimes of rape, murder (mass murder of whole ethnic groups is also genocide, that's not moving the goal posts), the burden is on the prosecutor and not the defense. Again, how do you know that he was guilty on a personal way? You don't know that, and you have no primary source evidence nor any forensic archaeological evidence, which is why you launched a diatribe attempting to cover your rei ignorantiam.

The secondary source of Dr Las Cases that you cited, was that an eye witness account of Columbus' exploration? No it was not. La Cases did not travel with Columbus on his voyages. He did not see what Columbus wrote about in his diary, first hand. Moreover, that Columbus was willing to provide the Spanish monarchy with slaves, which they declined and later recognized the Indians as subjects and outlawed it, does not prove that Columbus did personally own any slaves.

But since you trust the writings of Bartoleme De Las Cases as authoritatitive on the matter. Hmm, let us see what he actually said about Columbus' character that you have so maliciously Maligned.

De la Cases noted in book 1 ch 2: A Portrait of Columbus (Obras Escogidas I, 20- 22), "The time of God's merciful wonders having now arrived, when in these parts of the earth there was to be gathered the abundant harvest of the predestined..., the Divine master chose among the sons of Adam...that great and illustrious Columbus...to be entrusted with one of the eminent achievements which He brought to bring about in this century. He was called then Christopher Christum ferens, which means the bearer of Christ...he was worthy to give tidings of Christ and to bring these countless races, forgotten for so many centuries to worship Him."

"He was gracious and cheerful, a good speaker, eloquent and boastful in his business affairs. He was serious but not too serious, affable with strangers, kindly and pleasant with those in his own household and thus easily stir affection for himself easily from those who knew him."

"In short in his bearing and countenance he presented the image of a person worthy of reverence. He was sober and temperate in eating and drinking, in clothing and footwear."

"In matters of the Christian religion he was a Catholic and very devout. In almost every thing he did or said, or wished to begin, he began, I'm the name of the Holy Trinity I will do This, or this will come or I hope this will be'. He kept the fasts of the Church most faithfully. He confessed and received communion often. He read all of canonical offices like a churchman or religious. He strongly opposed blasphemy and oaths and was very devoted to our lady and to our seraphic father, St. Francis."

"He begged the most serene queen Donna Isabella to make a vow to spend all riches which came to the sovereign through his discoveries to win the land and the Holy House of Jerusalem."

"He was a man of great courage, of high spirits, of lofty thoughts -inclined naturally from what can be gathered of his life, deeds, writings and conversation to undertake worthy feats and enterprises. He was patient and long suffering, a pardoned of injuries, and one who sought nothing... He was most constant and endowed with forebearence in labors and adversities which were incedible and infinite, aalways having great confidence in Divine Providence."

Thus according to the good father de Las Cases' own words, Columbus was not a saint but a heroic and noble Catholic gentleman.

@Ultraviolet On administration, a high ranking general, to use your military analogy, or admiral as was the case with Columbus has a culpability based on the knowledge and intentionality of orders given. Again, show us in his diary or letters where Columbus gave direct orders for the lower level-direct administrators and subordinates to rape, murder, or enslave the Indians. At best he was guilty of incompetence and negligence but certainly not any direct war crimes.

A great but flawed explorer and certainly no monster that the left tries to make him out to be, but a man worthy of admiration and for his honorable statue to stand in the public square.

"First, this isn't a haughty symposium or scholarly journal but a comment platform."

How nice of you to remember that only when I hold you to the very standards you introduced.

"No, I merely,in an informal conversational manner discussed the virtue and vices of Columbus."

Your historical revisionism apparently extends even to what is said here.

"No, when one is charged with the grave crimes of rape, murder (mass murder of whole ethnic groups is also genocide, that's not moving the goal posts),"

You introduced those points, attempting to defend Columbus. You also added "genocide" when you (mistakenly) believed that charge was unprovable. I was replying to YOUR claim.

"the burden is on the prosecutor and not the defense."

...and when YOU claim an article YOU supply offers a refutation YOU are assuming that role. The burden of proof for showing where the evidence YOU introduced disproves what has been presented.

You made the claim, you did not provide any examples proving the claim correct.

As for Columbus' actions, the "prosecution" has already presented numerous expert witnesses (whom you choose to ignore as 'secondary sources'), the writings of an eye-witness, and intriduced the defendant's own letter where he admits knowledge of the crimes as well.

"Again, how do you know that he was guilty on a personal way? You don't know that,"

I've quoted Columbus himself. That's as "personal" as it gets. "A personal way"??? How many more arbitrary classifications of guilt are you going to invent?

"and you have no primary source evidence nor any forensic archaeological evidence"

LOLWUT? A direct quote from Columbus' own writings IS a "primary source" so are the writings of someone who witnessed the events, Fr. De Las Casas.

Nice to see you've abandoned your claim "this isn't a haughty symposium or scholarly journal but a comment platform"

"which is why you launched a diatribe attempting to cover your rei ignorantiam."

...said the guy who's been point by point, even after he demanded MORE proof, stipulated the sort of proof that he'd accept, and it was provided.

Now it's "forensic archeological evidence" and after that you'll demand something else. Maybe it's time you start supplying some evidence equal to that which you're demanding. Or are you going to go back to hiding behind how this isn't a haughty symposium or scholarly journal"?

"The secondary source of Dr Las Cases that you cited"

You don't know what a primary source is vs. secondary source. Actually, you being you, I think you do know and you're hoping I don't. Pity.

"Primary sources provide a first-hand account of an event or time period and are considered to be authoritative. "
www.library.unsw.edu.au/…/primary-and-sec…

Fr. De Las Casas was there, his writings even during the time were meticulous and you have shown no evidence of factual error.

Meaning he IS a primary source. Columbus' own writings are too.

"was that an eye witness account of Columbus' exploration? No it was not."

It was an eye witness account of Columbus' abuse against the Indians. Since that's what's being debated, shifting the subject to Columbus' "exploration" isn't going to happen.

"La Casas did not travel with Columbus on his voyages. He did not see what Columbus wrote about in his diary, first hand."

Wrong. Again. You just make these claims up, invent new ever-more-demanding standards of what you'll accept as "proof" and you're still falling flat.

"De Las Casas copied Columbus' diary from his 1492 voyage to modern-day Haiti. His copy is notable because Columbus' diary itself was lost."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolomé_de_las_Casas%27_Journal

De Las Casas DID see what Columbus wrote about, "first hand". He copied Columbus' diary word for word.

"Moreover, that Columbus was willing to provide the Spanish monarchy with slaves, which they declined and later recognized the Indians as subjects and outlawed it

[Tons of citations needed]

Also faulty reasoning. Refusing an offer does not disprove the person tendering the offer does not own the goods. ;-)

"does not prove that Columbus did personally own any slaves."

Your orignal claim was that Columbus did not enslave the Indians. Once again, you're moving the goalposts to what he personally owned.

The system he introduced was, in practice, slavery. As such, his personal ownership is irrelevant to what he did, which is enslave the Indians via "encomienda".

"Hmm, let us see what he actually said about Columbus' character that you have so maliciously Maligned.

We're discussing Columbus' actions, what he knew, what he condoned, the effects of the system he introduced, and not his personality.

However, since you're willing to cite Fr. De Las Casas as source for Columbus' nature, therefore his record of the abuse Indians suffered under the system Columbus introduced is irrefutable.

They were raped, they were murdered and they were enslaved. All claims supported by Fr. De Las Casas. Columbus knew of it and he condoned it. Both claims supported by Columbus himself.

"On administration, a high ranking general, to use your military analogy, or admiral as was the case with Columbus has a culpability based on the knowledge and intentionality of orders given."

Command reponsibility also states a that a commander can be held accountable before the law for the crimes committed by his troops even if he did not order them.

It's known as the Yamashita Standard.

www.britain-at-war.org.uk/…/yamashita_stand…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomoyuki_Yamashita

In Columbus' case, his own writings show he DID know what was happening and did nothing to stop it. A man offering slaves to the Spanish Crown, clearly approves of slavery and is willing to make good when he offers them.

Likewise, he approves of rape of children when he's writing to somebody's sister (no less).

-- "A hundred castellanoes are as easily obtained for a woman as for a farm, and it is very general and there are plenty of dealers who go about looking for girls; those from nine to ten are now in demand."--

That's a direct quote from a letter Columbus sent in 1500 to Doña Juana de la Torre, the sister of one of his head crew members detailing his second voyage to the Americas.

I've cited it several times now and you keep ignoring it along with all the scholarly evidence surrounding encomienda.

"At best he was guilty of incompetence and negligence but certainly not any direct war crimes."

Wrong. He is guilty of introducing a system that was in practice slavery, it was practiced against women for sexual slavery (i.e. rape), and resulted in the deaths of thousands.

His own writings show he was aware of such abuses which transcends mere negligence or incompetence. Hiis offer of slaves to the Crown shows he both knew and wished to profit from the abuses under his command.

Each of these claims has been factually supported either by Columbus' own writings or those of an eye-witness Catholic priest. Whether or not those would count as "war crimes", they undoubtedly DO count as crimes against humanity.

He discovered America, that's why he's got a nice statue. What he did afterwards is why a lot of people are objecting to the statue remaining.

My point about de las Casas was that he did not accompany Columbus sailing on the Nina, Pinta, or Santa Maria. Las Casas arrived later as a Franciscan missionary. He was born in 1484 so he was only 8 years old when Columbus made his initial discovery. He did not know him personally, but documented as a historian Columbus' character and personality mostly taken from interviews with his surviving 2 sons and 2 brothers whom Las Cases did seem to know very well. See "Witness: Writings of Bartolome de las Casas" edited and translated by Gustavo Gutierrez, Orbis books 1971, p. 29. So, no I'm not just making things up.

I actually find de las Casas a more interesting character since he helped to bring an end to Indian slavery and the encomienda system, which I concede was initiated by Columbus.

After all of your points it seems we agree that 1. Columbus was the European explorer who discovered the New World and 2. He failed in his duties as an administrator for the first colonies of the Spanish Empire. I agree, from his own letters, he was aware of the encomienda and slavery system, but there is still quite a lot of hermeneutics involved in interpreting the passages from the historians that you cited, but there is also much that we don't know to the specifics -details and intentionality behind the actions, when making our historical judgements. Post WW2 War criminals were much easier cases, since we had living eye witness accounts, film and military documentation.

I'll leave it at that, but the historical problems with Columbus have been known for much of the 20th century by historians and there was little outcry to tear down his statues. What has changed is the culture. The leftist mobs who topple and behead statues don't give one iota about the Indians or any perceived inhumanties committed. The late great British philosopher, Roger Scruton best describes the lefts idealism as Oikophobia. They have a fear and hatred of their own Western civilization and they will not stop until they burn it to the ground.

Columbus Ohio is capitulating to the mob and removing the statue to the sounds of cheering fools, firebrand, and frauds in academia.

If the mob comes to Columbus Texas and tried that it will not go well for them.

"My point about de las Casas was that he did not accompany Columbus sailing on the Nina, Pinta, or Santa Maria."

That doesn't have any bearing on him witnessing the system Columbus introduced or its effects.

"He was born in 1484 so he was only 8 years old when Columbus made his initial discovery."

That's nice. Unfortunately, we're not discussing the chronology of Columbus' discovery. We're debating the validity of your initial claim.

"nor did he (Columbus) rape, enslave, or murder any Indians."

As I've already said, whether Columbus personally committed those crimes (notably rape), is moot. Columbus a.) knew these acts were happening b.) allowed them to happen and c.) apparently tolerated them happening with an interest in profitting by them.

You've chosen to ignore the literally staggering body of "secondary sources" demonstrating this while, paradoxically, simply mentioning a secondary source that claims otherwise. I say "mention" because you certainly haven't quoted that source much less linked it directly. Not even once.

So let's stick with primary sources since those are the ones you originally insisted upon.

Rape:

Columbus explicity mentioned the selective targeting of nine and ten year old girls by slave "dealers" and explicitly mentioned their use "for a woman as for a farm".

Primary Source: Columbus' own letter to the sister of one of his crewmen.
Primary Source: Fr. De Las Casas' corroborating description of slavers killing men and reserving the women.

Slavery:

Columbus offered slaves to the Spanish Crown, thus showing his full support for the practice. Direct Quote: "Let us in the name of the Holy Trinity go on sending all the slaves that can be sold."

Primary Source: Columbus' own letters to the crown. Columbus' own writing.
Primary Source: Fr. De Las Casa's corroborating and very graphic descriptions of slavery in the New World.

"I actually find de las Casas a more interesting character since he helped to bring an end to Indian slavery and the encomienda system, which I concede was initiated by Columbus."

I -do- appreciate the conession. As I've noted, in practice, what Columbus instituted was slavery, regardless of the fine distinctions separating the two. Therefore he enslaved the Indians.

Murder/ Genocide:

Entire islands depopulated. "There were 60,000 people living on this island, including the Indians; so that from 1494 to 1508, over 3,000,000 people had perished from war, slavery, and the mines. Who in future generations will believe this? I myself writing it as a knowledgeable eyewitness can hardly believe it."

Primary Source: Fr. De Las Casa's writings.

This made smile, I'll admit.

"He did not know him personally, but documented as a historian...."

So you quoted De Las Casas when praising Columbus' character and now claim "He did not know him personally". The latter admission undermines your former claim, yes? No matter. De Las Casas' descriptions of the brutal effects of Columbus' rule are what matter.

"but there is still quite a lot of hermeneutics involved in interpreting the passages from the historians that you cited."

No there isn't.

Columbus and Des Casas were brutally clear about what was happening. There isn't any way to "interpret" atrocity into anything except what it was.

In my opinion, it's despicable even to suggest otherwise. I know that might rankle, as I said, I have little tolerance for historical revisionism, regardless of the source.

Columbus was a brave explorer and he discovered America. He was also a greedy, barbaric slaver. Both statements are equally true.

"I agree, from his own letters, he was aware of the encomienda and slavery system,"

...then you've just conceded Columbus enslaved and murdered the Indians.

" but there is also much that we don't know to the specifics -details and intentionality behind the actions, when making our historical judgements. "

Yes we do. Columbus was greedy and fixated on securing wealth for the Crown and, by extension, wealth/ favour for himself.

"Post WW2 War criminals were much easier cases, since we had living eye witness accounts, film and military documentation."

...depends on how you choose to define "easy". You insisted only on primary source documents and it seems they contradict each of the claims made in Columbus' defense.

"Atrocity is recognized as such by victim and perpetrator alike, by all who learn about it at whatever remove. Atrocity has no excuses, no mitigating argument." -Frank Herbert.

I fully agree with you the Left's motivations for vilifying Columbus have absolutely nothing to do with preserving historical accuracy. However, as I said, and hope you'll indulge my copy-pasta...

--If your opposition can show you're wrong in terms of history (and they can, just as I did), they can argue your support for Columbus is based on error or, worse, a racist's deliberate disregard for indigenous people and their suffering at the hands of Europeans.

If your opposition can show you're engaging in historical revisionism, they can use the proof of that to aid them in their own cultural revisionism.--

There -are- strategies for defening Columbus' positive contribution as the discoverer of America (and thus justifying his place in American history). In my own experience defending your position has shown trying to whitewash his shortcomings only undermines that objective.

@Ultraviolet I think we can both also agree that Columbus got lost b/c his directions were just not that pacific

We seem to be on the same side of the culture war, So, I appreciate pointing out many of the historical criticisms made by anti-Western haters but the debate is far from over or settled in academia. While I'm not a historian the subject does occasionally come up in teaching my sociology and philosophy classes.

On de las Casas, it seems he interviewed people who knew Columbus personally, when reporting on his character and personality but yes, never actually met him. The quotes I gave you were mere annotations but Las Casas continues for a few pages lauding his praises upon him.

He also noted that the last thing Columbus said to his men before getting on the ship was, "Ok men, get on that ship", - o.k., so I actually made that one up;-)

Facts are facts but a fact must be interpreted. Not to regurgitate verbatim here, but in this video (I'll save you the boring first section and go to 13:12 to 28:17) where the problems with interpretations are pointed out from translating Italian to English where there are distortions that occur in meaning. Also, the issues of slavery and genocide are challenged and dealt with (mostly from small pox and diseases). See www.youtube.com

Lastly, here's a hypothetical: Columbus has been charged with crimes against humanity in the Hague and you have been chosen to be his international defense attorney. What would be your argument and strategy?

Rest assured, philosopher, we are.

As I said earlier, the historical validity of these accusaions aren't under "debate" in academia. Ultimately, Columbus damned himself through his own writings. Even when a partisan supporters raises the requirement for acceptable evidence to entirely primary source documents, there is still ample evidence supplied by his own pen.

The real debate focuses on "where do we go from here", how history is going to be revised, how it will be taught, and which political agendas will be furthered by those revisions/ teaching points, and so on.

Fr. De Las Casas... he might not be Christopher Columbus but he's undoubtedly a primary source and an eye-witness. I share your opinion he's a more interesting character than Columbus. One of the more curious facets of his character was a very deep crisis of conscience. If memory serves, initially he and his family took advantage of the "encomienda" system. Then he discrened a vocation and he saw wha was happening in the New World with new eyes.

I don't mind you "regurgitating" your video in print form. I'd prefer it, in fact. When it comes to contentious politically charged issuse, YouTube just isnt' good enough. .

"Facts are facts but a fact must be interpreted."

Facts either prove or disprove a claim. If someone says Mr. C did not do "x" when, in fact, Mr. C's own writing shows he even tried to make a business out of doing "x", no amount of interpretation is going to change that fact.

"translating Italian to English where there are distortions that occur in meaning."

If you're going to proceed from that line of defense, we're going to need scholars who can translate from the orignal Italian and Spanish in use at the time.

I'm certain, when everyone is all done, sooner or later, the word "slave" as used to describe the goods offered to the Spanish Crown isn't going to change. Nor will Fr. De Las Casa's disturbingly detailed accounts.

Yes, differences in translation can occur. One author may transcribe a passage describing an encomienda punishment as "chopping an Indian's hand off" and another might favor "cutting an Indian's hand off" but the action itself remains clearly understandable regardless of the choice of verb. ;-)

"Columbus has been charged with crimes against humanity in the Hague and you have been chosen to be his international defense attorney. What would be your argument and strategy?"

I'm not a professional attorney and international law is a field unto itself -that much I know.

Speaking in very general terms, the defense arguement/ strategy would depend on what evidence the proesecution plans to present and how much can be ruled inadmissable on various grounds during pre-trial hearings.

A prosecutor can have a video recording of the defendant freely admitting to and even bragging about the crime. If the defense can show it's "prejudicial" to a fair trial, then it's inadmissable. Copies of the video could be all over You-Tube, but in terms of the trial, and -in the eyes of the law- that evidence simply doesn't exist.

What I said earlier wasn't an empty boast. There -are- strategies for defening Columbus' positive contribution as the discoverer of America (and thus justifying his place in American history). But I was alluding to the "court of public opinion". Debates on venues like here on GTV.

There are two basic strategies.

1.) The positive defense:
Columbus was a great explorer and good came from his discovery. America honours people with statues for no greater achievement than being an educator or a sports figure in this country. Surely the man who discovered the country itself deserves equal recognition.

The critics usually flip out and reiterate all of Columbus' terrible deeds. This leads naturally to...

2.) the negative defense:
Other holidays and their founders must be held to an equal standard as Columubs. Oh dear. :D This is where the Left throws a tantrum. So many of their "icons" have all sorts of sordid criminal backgrounds. The holiday of Kwanzaa was created by a rapist. The Post Office shouldn't issue stamps for a rapist-created holiday.

Martin Luther King took money from Communist sources and sympathized with Communism. There's credible evidence he was also present at a rape and laughed during the attack. By all rights, applying the "Columbus Standard" all of his statues must get pulled down, all the streets and schools and buildings named in his honour changed, and his holiday cancelled.

Never going to happen.

His supporters would argue, "but King was a great man! Even if he did those things, he deserves recognition for his accomplishments". ...and in doing so, they've just conceded Columbus Day.

@Ultraviolet Please see my final points. It was fun debating you.

Pax et bonum

@Alex A For what they reveal. He - transwoman - is an Illuminati priest. Lucifer speaks to his priests and his priests to his rulers. System set up by God, Satan apes.

It is not that I listen to her, like a fav artist, I also am shown by the side I serve what I should watch and listen to, to expose.