School project proving Columbus is not responsible for millions of deaths in America.

Gsus_Rawks · 03-22-2007, 09:03 PM

I need to have a three point paper. I'm thinking talking about:
1) Columbus found the Americas during the exploration age, therefore if he wouldn't have found it, someone would have not to long later.
2) Columbus didn't intentionally spread diseases - he didn't know he had them - therefore he cannot be held responsible
3) Columbus didn't start wars or kill and enslave large portions of the populations, later explorers did. Just because he discovered America doesn't mean he should be held responsible for what others have done there.

Do you think those are effective? I haven't researched much yet, what do you think I should look for while I am researching? How can I more effectively prove that Christopher Columbus is not responsible for millions of deaths from war and disease?

bobthecockroach · 03-22-2007, 09:36 PM

I didn't know anyone was trying to hold him responsible.

Peatrical · 03-22-2007, 10:04 PM

Mercantilism and imperialism killed the natives and destroyed cultures, first it was Spain, and to a lesser extent Portugal in South America, and the initial European colonies on the east coast drove westand spread disease... but it was the US westward expansion that was the smoking gun/nail in the coffin. Columbus can only be held responsible for the ones he purposely took captive.

Wolvrin704 · 03-23-2007, 02:52 AM

History revisionists try to spin it that Columbus is responsible since he "discovered" the America's.
Columbus can only be held responsible for those he personally did anything too or his men. If anything the island of Hispanola would be the only one he would be responsible for. But at the same time he was a creature of the customs and habits of European culture of the time.

Peatrical · 03-23-2007, 08:02 PM

Quote:

But at the same time he was a creature of the customs and habits of European culture of the time.

This is no excuse.. by that logic one could argue the Nazi commanders were creatures to their society's customs. They still were part of the death camps.

Jaymze13 · 03-23-2007, 08:59 PM

What I want to know is why we waste out time on things like this. Let the past stay in the past and just learn from it and quit punishing people today for things that happened hundreds of years ago.

Insane Drummer · 03-24-2007, 06:58 PM

The only issue here I can see is the definition of the word "responsable." True, Colombus did not magically set a new precedent for killing and enslaving natives although he did both. True Colombus did not intentionally bring diseases but is intentionality necessary for responsability?

I generally agree with Peatrical on this.

Colombus did enslave and kill native Americans, but to say he is responsible to me says that all future acts of enslavement and war were directly caused by Colombus. I disagree. I seriously doubt Cortes was thinking "hey, Colombus did though, so maybe I should to!"

But then if you define responsablity as he "discovered" America so what ever resulted from that discovery he is responible for. I find that an obsurd notion.

Wolvrin704 · 03-24-2007, 07:58 PM

Since the dawn of time up until recent "civilized" history, whenever a nation conquered another they would generally enslave the population. To say Columbus was so horrible would in the same breath be the same to condemn people like Gaius Julius Ceaser, Alexander the Great, genghis Khan, David, Solomon or any other ancient personage. They were also men of their own times who enslaved others.
So why is that Columbus is the one who is singled out above all others?

**DaGeek** · 03-24-2007, 11:37 PM

To be honest, I have never, ever heard of Columbus getting blamed for slavery. Just thought I'd throw that in there, but I have no clue where these notions come from.

Insane Drummer · 03-24-2007, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolvrin704

Since the dawn of time up until recent "civilized" history, whenever a nation conquered another they would generally enslave the population. To say Columbus was so horrible would in the same breath be the same to condemn people like Gaius Julius Ceaser, Alexander the Great, genghis Khan, David, Solomon or any other ancient personage. They were also men of their own times who enslaved others.
So why is that Columbus is the one who is singled out above all others?

I really don't think he was/is. And Wolvrin, I can't think of the last time I have heard Caesar or Genghis Khan talked of in a highly positive light...

Wolvrin704 · 03-25-2007, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insane Drummer

I really don't think he was/is. And Wolvrin, I can't think of the last time I have heard Caesar or Genghis Khan talked of in a highly positive light...

Genghis perhaps not, but he did build a huge empire out of nothing so in some regards is highly admired. Last I knew Caeser was still regarded as one of the greatest generals in history. Compared to his contemporaries he was very lenient toward his enemies but still it was the culture of the day.
Imagine if you will in our present day there is probably something our cultures do that in 100+ years people will look on with disgust and wonder how we could have done that. Applying modern ideals to history far in the past does not work because such ideals did not exist. What to us appears as common sense to them would have seemed as foreign or alien concepts.

JerryLove · 03-26-2007, 07:24 AM

And Columbus is still regarded as a great explorer (well, a decent one at least.. he's no Marco Polo).

Though I've also never hear him singled out. It seems to me we get far worse with CabaDeVaca or Cortez... and then the Puritans came.

Qingu · 03-28-2007, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gsus_Rawks

How can I more effectively prove that Christopher Columbus is not responsible for millions of deaths from war and disease?

You can't prove a negative. The burden of proof would be on the person asserting he is responsible, who would have to provide a causal link.

As far as I know there isn't any for the deaths of "millions." Disease, maybe, but that was unintentional and he can't be held "responsible."

To be honest, this doesn't sound like a very good essay topic, becuase you're essentially trying to prove a negative. Why don't you study his attitudes towards Native Americans? I read his journal a while ago—it was filled with a sense of wonder, he thought the Native Americans were "beautiful" and seemed genuinely excited because they would make fine Christians. The dark side to this, obviously, is the assumption of Christian superiority, which you could also address.

Gsus_Rawks · 04-09-2007, 03:06 PM

I got assigned this topic, it wasn't my choice. Someone else has the topic of proving that he was.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qingu

I read his journal a while ago—it was filled with a sense of wonder, he thought the Native Americans were "beautiful" and seemed genuinely excited because they would make fine Christians. The dark side to this, obviously, is the assumption of Christian superiority, which you could also address.

Was this a book? Do you have the title or Translator/"Author figure"?