[ARCHIVED THREAD] - 1492 (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 1/3/2010 6:22:58 PM EDT
|
|
I wonder if he was thinking "Well, it was good while it lasted"? |
|
Quoted: In fourteen hundred ninety two Columbus sailed the ocean blue And proceeded to fuck the natives world forever  Columbus could have been the nicest, most touchy-feely multiculturalist liberal ever and they still would have died. Someone else would have come, and eventually smallpox and measles would have arrived on the continent. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: In fourteen hundred ninety two Columbus sailed the ocean blue And proceeded to fuck the natives world forever Columbus could have been the nicest, most touchy-feely multiculturalist liberal ever and they still would have died. Someone else would have come, and eventually smallpox and measles would have arrived on the continent. Exactly. Sharing is caring, right? |
|
Don't get me started:
The 'New World' was no idyllic paradise. They had wars, famine, disease (TB found in 4000 year old 'mummies'), human sacrifice, genocide and cannibalism (in a big way). What Columbus 'discovered' were human atrocities beyond his comprehension and that of later explorers, as well. No, they were not saints and they were on an agenda but the new world had people, lots of people, and they were very good at doing all the bad people do without Westerners bringing it from Europe. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
In fourteen hundred ninety two Columbus sailed the ocean blue And proceeded to fuck the natives world forever Columbus could have been the nicest, most touchy-feely multiculturalist liberal ever and they still would have died. Someone else would have come, and eventually smallpox and measles would have arrived on the continent. Exactly. Personally I'm glad for his arrival. |
|
Quoted: You mean, they weren't the earth versions of the Navi from Avatar, perfect in every way and unblighted by the evil white mans greed and grotesque ideas? Don't get me started: The 'New World' was no idyllic paradise. They had wars, famine, disease (TB found in 4000 year old 'mummies'), human sacrifice, genocide and cannibalism (in a big way). What Columbus 'discovered' were human atrocities beyond his comprehension and that of later explorers, as well. No, they were not saints and they were on an agenda but the new world had people, lots of people, and they were very good at doing all the bad people do without Westerners bringing it from Europe. I think some socialist ideologues visions have just been crushed. |
|
Quoted:
Well, I'm sorry to say it, but that day, fucked this land forever 
If I recall Columbus died broke, and in prison I think  
Care to elaborate? Columbus' situation when he died has little or nothing to do with whether his arrival in the Americas was good or bad. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, I'm sorry to say it, but that day, fucked this land forever
If I recall Columbus died broke, and in prison I think
Care to elaborate? Columbus' situation when he died has little or nothing to do with whether his arrival in the Americas was good or bad. Well, it didn't get him anywhere did it?? Didn't bring him a damn dime, or fame....... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, I'm sorry to say it, but that day, fucked this land forever
If I recall Columbus died broke, and in prison I think
Care to elaborate? Columbus' situation when he died has little or nothing to do with whether his arrival in the Americas was good or bad. Well, it didn't get him anywhere did it?? Didn't bring him a damn dime, or fame.......
Generation upon generation of people all over the American continents know who Colombus is. I've visited a town named after him and I've seen many more with monuments to him in the town square. A day of the calendar is named after him. How much more fame can you get than that? |
|
"There goes the neighborhood." |
|
Quoted:
Just imagine what that would be like in modern times. You look up and see a ship with technology that is visibly more advanced than your own. Scary as hell They made a movie about that. It was called The Day The Earth Stood Still. Not the recent one, though. The original in black and white was far superior. |
|
Quoted:
Don't get me started: The 'New World' was no idyllic paradise. They had wars, famine, disease (TB found in 4000 year old 'mummies'), human sacrifice, genocide and cannibalism (in a big way). What Columbus 'discovered' were human atrocities beyond his comprehension and that of later explorers, as well. No, they were not saints and they were on an agenda but the new world had people, lots of people, and they were very good at doing all the bad people do without Westerners bringing it from Europe. We don't need you destroying the delusion of a Garden of Eden in North America before a far more advanced civilization landed on it. |
|
Quoted:
Don't get me started: The 'New World' was no idyllic paradise. They had wars, famine, disease (TB found in 4000 year old 'mummies'), human sacrifice, genocide and cannibalism (in a big way). What Columbus 'discovered' were human atrocities beyond his comprehension and that of later explorers, as well. No, they were not saints and they were on an agenda but the new world had people, lots of people, and they were very good at doing all the bad people do without Westerners bringing it from Europe. In before someone claims that the Natives were a perfect people, and that America was a perfect place before the Europeans arrived. |
|
You don't stay, you don't count. |
|
Quoted:
You don't stay, you don't count. Many reports state that the Vikings had American settlements from 800ad to 1300ad. Thats a pretty good bit of staying. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
You don't stay, you don't count. Many reports state that the Vikings had American settlements from 800ad to 1300ad. Thats a pretty good bit of staying. Andthey deserve their credit. However, the effects of their stay was ultimately limited, especially compared to that of Columbus. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
You don't stay, you don't count. Many reports state that the Vikings had American settlements from 800ad to 1300ad. Thats a pretty good bit of staying. first i've heard of those dates. so what your saying is they were here 500 years. and then left and the only thing around is one small site in Newfoundland. seems odd some other stuff wasn't found. I'm by no means saying that what they(vikings) did wasn't amazing but, they didn't settle and stay in North America for more than a few years. if they had a lot more stuff would have showed up by now. they didn't exactly travel light and leave a small footprint. 
|
|
Quoted:
Finally someone who knows history.. Quoted:
The funniest part is that Columbus never landed on this continent. His land fall was in the Bahamas. IIRC, other than Vikings, the first european arrival was Amerigo Vespuchi. He never landed in North America. from what i just read neither did Amerigo Vespucci, |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You don't stay, you don't count. Many reports state that the Vikings had American settlements from 800ad to 1300ad. Thats a pretty good bit of staying. first i've heard of those dates. so what your saying is they were here 500 years. and then left and the only thing around is one small site in Newfoundland. seems odd some other stuff wasn't found. I'm by no means saying that what they(vikings) did wasn't amazing but, they didn't settle and stay in North America for more than a few years. if they had a lot more stuff would have showed up by now. they didn't exactly travel light and leave a small footprint.
The settlement at Vinnland(which may be as far south as Mass) only lasted that long. There were also settlements in Northern Canada, Greenland, and Iceland. The Northeastern Canadian settlements were maintained for quite some time as trading posts. I'll have to dig up the citation. Want to say it is in either -A History of the Vikings- by Gwyn Jones- Oxford University Press 1968- or - Viking America; The First Millennium- by Geraldine Barnes- St Edmundsbury Press 2001. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You don't stay, you don't count. Many reports state that the Vikings had American settlements from 800ad to 1300ad. Thats a pretty good bit of staying. first i've heard of those dates. so what your saying is they were here 500 years. and then left and the only thing around is one small site in Newfoundland. seems odd some other stuff wasn't found. I'm by no means saying that what they(vikings) did wasn't amazing but, they didn't settle and stay in North America for more than a few years. if they had a lot more stuff would have showed up by now. they didn't exactly travel light and leave a small footprint.
The settlement at Vinnland(which may be as far south as Mass) only lasted that long. There were also settlements in Northern Canada, Greenland, and Iceland. The Northeastern Canadian settlements were maintained for quite some time as trading posts. I'll have to dig up the citation. Want to say it is in either -A History of the Vikings- by Gwyn Jones- Oxford University Press 1968- or - Viking America; The First Millennium- by Geraldine Barnes- St Edmundsbury Press 2001. i wonder what kept them from moving further south. the land and vegetation would be better. maybe it proves that they wernt intent on staying, just looking to something "similar" to home. and thats the reason they didnt stay. dunno, just thinking out loud here as it sounds like you all know a lot better than I |
|
Yes because the new world was not full of its own Conquers (Aztecs, Mayans, Inca's, ect...) Remember La Navidad where 40 of Christopher Columbus's men where murdered by a tribe that killed them for no apparent reason. I also find it interesting that western culture is to blame for Native American Alcoholism but you don't hear people say that Native Americans are responsible for The effects tobacco has had on our culture. Their is plenty to blame on all parties involved. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You don't stay, you don't count. Many reports state that the Vikings had American settlements from 800ad to 1300ad. Thats a pretty good bit of staying. first i've heard of those dates. so what your saying is they were here 500 years. and then left and the only thing around is one small site in Newfoundland. seems odd some other stuff wasn't found. I'm by no means saying that what they(vikings) did wasn't amazing but, they didn't settle and stay in North America for more than a few years. if they had a lot more stuff would have showed up by now. they didn't exactly travel light and leave a small footprint.
The settlement at Vinnland(which may be as far south as Mass) only lasted that long. There were also settlements in Northern Canada, Greenland, and Iceland. The Northeastern Canadian settlements were maintained for quite some time as trading posts. I'll have to dig up the citation. Want to say it is in either -A History of the Vikings- by Gwyn Jones- Oxford University Press 1968- or - Viking America; The First Millennium- by Geraldine Barnes- St Edmundsbury Press 2001. i wonder what kept them from moving further south. the land and vegetation would be better. maybe it proves that they wernt intent on staying, just looking to something "similar" to home. and thats the reason they didnt stay. dunno, just thinking out loud here as it sounds like you all know a lot better than I http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse_colonization_of_the_Americas seems to be a translation problem, between "Vin" with a short "i" and "Vin" with a long "i" seems it means two different things, one wine IE: grapes the other with the long sound "i" pasture. |
| Every Columbus Day I learn more things that contradict my grammer school textbooks. He never called the natives "Indians", but "In Dios"; meaning "People of God", which would mean primal-type folks. He was the LAST person to discover the "New" world, because of the innovations in printing and cartography, so the written records survived, and were reprinted and distributed. The people that crossed the Bering Strait didn't sent letters back to Siberia... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, I'm sorry to say it, but that day, fucked this land forever
If I recall Columbus died broke, and in prison I think
Care to elaborate? Columbus' situation when he died has little or nothing to do with whether his arrival in the Americas was good or bad. Well, it didn't get him anywhere did it?? Didn't bring him a damn dime, or fame....... It brought him a great deal of fame, a fair amount of wealth, though not as much as he thought he deserved, and ennoblement for his family. He did spend some time in jail, which was almost de rigeur for explorers in the service of the Spanish crown, but not long. He died frustrated, in the sense that the Spanish monarchs refused to honor his exorbitant demands, but for the most part, he did quite well for himself. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just imagine what that would be like in modern times. You look up and see a ship with technology that is visibly more advanced than your own. Scary as hell They made a movie about that. It was called The Day The Earth Stood Still. Not the recent one, though. The original in black and white was far superior. The original was a great movie, BTW. A movie made in a time where they couldn't rely on special effects, but had to have good acting and story telling. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Don't get me started: The 'New World' was no idyllic paradise. They had wars, famine, disease (TB found in 4000 year old 'mummies'), human sacrifice, genocide and cannibalism (in a big way). What Columbus 'discovered' were human atrocities beyond his comprehension and that of later explorers, as well. No, they were not saints and they were on an agenda but the new world had people, lots of people, and they were very good at doing all the bad people do without Westerners bringing it from Europe. In before someone claims that the Natives were a perfect people, and that America was a perfect place before the Europeans arrived. Well I don't think the tens of thousand of people being enslaved, murdered, and eaten by the Aztec each year found it all that perfect... that might be why they allied with the Spanish to destroy the Aztec. Contrary to the modern revisionist baloney Native American populations made a habit of practices that the Spanish Inquisition at its worst would have found horrifying and unacceptable. Human sacrifice, cannibalism, unbreakable torture, etc. And Europeans did not bring the practice of slavery to the New World it was already here. The Natives did not get fair treatment from Europeans but then they were not in a habit of giving fair treatment to each other. |
|
Quoted:
I once heard a history professor state that the natives may not have even seen the ships, simply because they were so far out of their experiences that they couldn't comprehend. Interesting thought. I got something of that feeling when I watched the most powerful tornado ever recorded, and its aftermath. But back to the experience of the people on shore witnessing the ships: They had small boats, so they could concieve of large boats. They had fabric, so they could concieve of sails. The event would have been stunning in its enormity, but not inconcievable. Shocking, but not beyond the power of the brain to percieve. Yes, I know what the professor is getting at, the inablilty of the brain to comprehend the seemingly inconcievable, but it is really condescending to assert that the native Americans' brains did not draw the parellells between small boat (canoe) ––-> huge boat, and small piece of fabric ––-> huge piece of fabric It was a matter of scale, not of technology. A shock of totally unknown –– and "incomprehensible" –– technology would be more like a backwoodsman, perhaps from the swamps of Louisiana with no exposure to news accounts, witnessing an automobile or telephone for the first time. |
|
Quoted: I wonder if he was thinking "Well, it was good while it lasted"? No different than any other tribe coming onto their land. Its been that way for centuries. That time it was a more advanced tribe so to speak. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I once heard a history professor state that the natives may not have even seen the ships, simply because they were so far out of their experiences that they couldn't comprehend. Interesting thought. I got something of that feeling when I watched the most powerful tornado ever recorded, and its aftermath. But back to the experience of the people on shore witnessing the ships: They had small boats, so they could concieve of large boats. They had fabric, so they could concieve of sails. The event would have been stunning in its enormity, but not inconcievable. Shocking, but not beyond the power of the brain to percieve. Yes, I know what the professor is getting at, the inablilty of the brain to comprehend the seemingly inconcievable, but it is really condescending to assert that the native Americans' brains did not draw the parellells between small boat (canoe) ––-> huge boat, and small piece of fabric ––-> huge piece of fabric It was a matter of scale, not of technology. A shock of totally unknown –– and "incomprehensible" –– technology would be more like a backwoodsman, perhaps from the swamps of Louisiana with no exposure to news accounts, witnessing an automobile or telephone for the first time. The indians knew what sails were, they used them on coastal fishing boats. It was not always two guys paddling a canoe. 
|