Quote Originally Posted by Don Corleone
I'm not sure I follow your intent, except to besmirch any historical figure of European descent.
Simple answer my final question, because I think that this discussion started wrong from the begining...
You do realize that at the time Columbus landed, the Sioux and the Pawnee fought some horrible wars that included genocides of entire villages visited upon the other side?
Yes, here it happened too, in all America.
There were no 'noble innocents' living over here. You also realize that in many ways, Columbus and the subsequent European colonization was a de facto result of the over population pressures renaissance Europe was experiencing.
Yes...
I cannot argue that one can blindly assign the role of hero to Columbus.
Neither, nor I want to, I just want to point out that this is not about Colombus.
But your lablelling him a 'killer' as you say shows an equal bias, in this case against him and the Euro-centric view.
You want me to call him a Conqueror (an "Adelantado" like the Spanish kings called them) following the classic sentence it's the same.
Perhaps you could make an effort to remain objective and view European colonialism as part of the human tapestry.
I'm remaining objective you were the one to take sarcasm and call him a "vile bastard". I don't care if Caesar of Columbus were bastards or not, but it surprises me that the discussion over their personalities, of wich we don't know nothing about, always take place, and we can say who was the bastard and who not.
I'm sure the countless civilizations that had the misfortune to encounter the Aztecs, the Incas and the Sioux, all of whom practiced the same sort of genocide the Europeans practiced upon them, would tell you there's not much difference between a Cortez and a Montezuma.
No there isn't and it was never my point, you misunderstood me, however my final question remains still unasnwered...