[Insane Drummer]

I am reminded on an anecdote my history professor told, but since it is vulgar I will not post it.

[bobthecockroach]

Oh, and what part of LA are you from? I'm a student at Loyola University.

[Gsus_Rawks]

Christopher Columbus was an influential and inspirational explorer whose somewhat unintentional discovery has sparked controversy on the sensitive issue of whom to place the responsibility for the death of millions of Native Americans upon. Some think that Columbus is responsible for the genocide of millions of Native Americans. Their arguments are incorrect for the following three reasons: Columbus did not directly kill millions of Native Americans or lead American exploration in a violent way; his discovery did not make him responsible for what happened there and he treated the Native Americans in a friendly and non-hostile way.
The Native American population decline was largely the result of two factors, warfare and disease. Columbus rejected warfare and his spread of disease was accidental. Columbus should be held responsible solely for his own, intentional actions. What other explorers did with Columbus's discovery is their responsibility, just as the inventor of the automobile would never be reasonably charged with all of the deaths as a result of car accidents. Columbus and his crew did not even come in contact with millions of people, therefore they could have not possibly have spread disease or physically killed millions. Likewise, Columbus's spread of disease was not deliberate, in the late fifteenth century, Europe did universally understand how Columbus could carry a disease that he did not show symptoms for - especially one that would be fatal to a different demographic. Columbus cannot be held responsible for the unintentional spread of the diseases that he unknowingly carried.
Additionally, Columbus has been accused of starting warfare and being a conquerer. Columbus did no such thing. Other than enslaving the Americans for economic and financial reasons. History does not support the idea that slavery started bloodshed or wars. Slavery was on such a small scale that it had no measurable, negative effect. It can also be noted that American slavery was morally and ethically acceptable in the fifteenth ad early sixteenth century, as Europeans were unsure of the humanity of them. "Natives were considered subhuman. In fact, not until 45 years later did the Vatican under Pope Paul II issued an Papal Encyclical positing that the natives were rational beings with a soul." (Tirado) Columbus didn't even treat the Natives in a hostile way.
Columbus did not massacre the Indigenous peoples or kill them for an unjust reason - the Americans always started the bloodshed. When Columbus first landed in America, the Natives attempted to kill him, "'While we were approaching [the canoe] the Caribs began shooting at us with their bows in such a manner that, had it not been for the shields, half of us would have been wounded' Cuneo said"(Wilford pg.178) This violent event shows that the Native Americans were violent even before they met Columbus. The first European settlement in America was called "La Navidad", this was a startling example of the Native's violence:
"[Columbus] discovered that the entire settlement of La Navidad had been massacred and the site burned to the ground. As they searched for any trace of their compatriots, the newcomers discovered a mass grave in which several Spaniards were buried. They discovered also that the village of Columbus’ good friend, Chief Guacanagarí, was burned and destroyed. No one will ever know for sure what happened at La Navidad".
The Natives, in many cases, treated the Europeans with more hostility than the Europeans treated them.
Placing Columbus in a place of responsibility for simply discovering the Americas would also be a faulty argument. During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Europe - and the rest of the world - was in a time of rapid Geographical advancement, the Americas would have been discovered soon thereafter if not for Columbus. Columbus may have been among the least violent of fifteenth century explorers and the best suited to discover the Americas. His fairly passive and non-violence set a healthy start to American exploration. It is entirely possible that if another explorer was to find the Americas, he would have been a much stronger advocate of conquering the Indigenous peoples.
No historians have placed Columbus as the first explorer to pursue the idea of sailing west over what is now called the Atlantic Ocean. "In 1487, under a license from the king of Portugal, [Fernão Dulmo and João Estreito] presumably set sail to find the legendary Antilla ... said to be settled by Christian Bishops 'opposite' Portugal. Dulmo and Estreito were never heard from again." (Wilford, pg.7) Also Lorenzo Buonincontri theorized of the possibility of another continent.
The last reason that Columbus should not be put in a place of responsibility for American fatalities as a result of further exploration, is that Columbus and his crew have writings of generosity and kindness towards the American People. It has been written that Columbus, on more than one occasion, welcomed native traders and civilians on his ship for the sole purpose of giving gifts and showing kindness. This was to create trust between the Locals and Europeans for reasons of future conversion. Columbus was very just in his trading methods with the natives. He would not allow his crew to accept large amounts of crops and goods for their cheap manufactured goods. Columbus wrote in his journal, "I saw in this manner sixteen balls of cotton thread which weighed above twenty-five pounds, given for three Portuguese ceutis. This traffic I forbade, and suffered no one to take their cotton from them."(Columbus: Saturday, 13 October) Columbus also recorded this story his journal: "A small canoe with a single man, who came to barter some cotton arrived; some of the sailors finding him unwilling to go on board the vessel, jumped into the sea and took him. I was upon the quarter deck of my ship, and seeing the whole, sent for him, and gave him a red cap, put some glass beads upon his arms, and two hawk's bells upon his ears. I then ordered his canoe to be returned to him, and despatched him back to land." (Columbus: Monday, 15 October) Columbus said several times that he wanted to be friends with the Natives. He obviously cared for them in that he said he wanted them to become Christians.
The previous examples show that Columbus was an honest, godly man who wanted the best for European society and did a remarkable job of bettering American society in the meanwhile. To charge him with millions of deaths would be ignorant - taking history out of context and not looking honestly at what factually happened. Columbus led American exploration in a non-violent way, acted as a positive example during the Age of Discovery. By refusing to conquer the natives, Columbus proved himself to be a revolutionary, a truly remarkable historical figure. Columbus was clearly not responsible for millions of deaths in the Americas.

----
I'm lost as for a catchy intro sentence and a good concluding sentence.
It is still a bit rough, Ill have my parents edit it tomorrow as it is 11:30PM where I am at. They got good grades as Children.
------

I get to turn this paper into both English and World History classes. I think all that editing you helped me with gave me an extra three-ish percent along with some great tips to helping me write Research papers in the future.

If I turn this in on Monday, I get 5% extra credit. I want to polish it up real nice before then.

[Lou#1RelientKfn]

Thanks for the tips Bob (Is Bob really your name? My name is Laura.) I'm convinced that all of the "in my opinions" are really lame. I did think about the last sentence after it was posted. I definately agree with your comment. Thanks again

Are you from or just living in Louisiana? I'm from Lafayette, but have been living in Columbus, Ohio for nearly ten years. How long have you been at Loyola? What degree are you pursuing? When I am finished with high school, I want to attend college, but I am facing the big dilemma: what should I go for????

[bobthecockroach]

Ok, time for mundane proofreading. Edits shown in bold for things to add and/or strike-through for things to remove.

Christopher Columbus was an influential and inspirational explorer whose somewhat unintentional discovery has sparked controversy on the sensitive issue of whom to place the responsibility for the death of millions of Native Americans upon. Some think that Columbus is responsible for the genocide of millions of Native Americans. Their arguments are incorrect for the following three reasons: Columbus did not directly kill millions of Native Americans or lead American exploration in a violent way; his discovery did not make him responsible for what happened there, and he treated the Native Americans in a friendly and non-hostile way.
The Native American population decline was largely the result of two factors, warfare and disease. Columbus rejected warfare, and his spread of disease was accidental. Columbus should be held responsible solely for his own, intentional actions. What other explorers did with Columbus's discovery is their responsibility, just as the inventor of the automobile would never reasonably be reasonably charged with all of the deaths as a result of car accidents. Columbus and his crew did not even come in contact with millions of people,; therefore, they could not have not possibly have spread disease or physically killed millions. Likewise, Columbus's spread of disease was not deliberate,. In the late fifteenth century, Europeans did universally understand how Columbus could carry a disease for which that he did not show symptoms for -- especially one that would be fatal to a different demographic. Columbus cannot be held responsible for the unintentional spread of the diseases that he unknowingly carried.
Additionally, Columbus has been accused of starting warfare and being a conquerer. Columbus did no such thing, other than enslaving the Americans for economic and financial reasons. History does not support the idea that slavery started bloodshed or wars. This kind of slavery did not start bloodshed or wars. (Note: Passive voice, slight inaccuracy in saying that slavery does cause bloodshed or wars, because it certainly has at points in history.) Slavery was on such a small scale that it had no measurable, negative effect. It can also be noted that American slavery was morally and ethically acceptable in the fifteenth and early sixteenth century, as Europeans were unsure of the humanity of them those they enslaved. "Natives were considered subhuman. In fact, not until 45 years later did the Vatican under Pope Paul II issued an Papal Encyclical positing that the natives were rational beings with a soul." (Tirado) Columbus didn't did not even treat the Natives in a hostile way.
Columbus did not massacre the Indigenous peoples or kill them for an unjust reason - the Americans always started the bloodshed. When Columbus first landed in America, the Natives attempted to kill him,: "'While we were approaching [the canoe,] the Caribs began shooting at us with their bows in such a manner that, had it not been for the shields, half of us would have been wounded,' Cuneo said."(Wilford pg.178) This violent event shows that the Native Americans were violent even before they met Columbus. The first European settlement in America was called "La Navidad.", This was a startling example of the Native's violence:
"[Columbus] discovered that the entire settlement of La Navidad had been massacred and the site burned to the ground. As they searched for any trace of their compatriots, the newcomers discovered a mass grave in which several Spaniards were buried. They discovered also that the village of Columbus’ good friend, Chief Guacanagarí, was burned and destroyed. No one will ever know for sure what happened at La Navidad.".
The Natives, in many cases, treated the Europeans with more hostility than the Europeans treated them.
Placing Columbus in a place of responsibility for simply discovering the Americas would also be a faulty argument. During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Europe - and the rest of the world - was in a time of rapid geographical advancement,. The Americas would have been discovered soon thereafter if not for Columbus. Columbus may have been among the least violent of fifteenth century explorers and the best suited to discover the Americas. His fairly passive passiveness and non-violence set a healthy start to American exploration. It is entirely possible that if another explorer was to find the Americas, he would have been a much stronger advocate of conquering the indigenous peoples.
No historians have placed Columbus as the first explorer to pursue the idea of sailing west over what is now called the Atlantic Ocean. "In 1487, under a license from the king of Portugal, [Fernão Dulmo and João Estreito] presumably set sail to find the legendary Antilla ... said to be settled by Christian Bishops 'opposite' Portugal. Dulmo and Estreito were never heard from again." (Wilford, pg.7) Also, Lorenzo Buonincontri theorized of the possibility of another continent.
The last reason that Columbus should not be put in a place of responsibility for American fatalities as a result of further exploration, is that Columbus and his crew have writings of generosity and kindness towards the American people. It has been written that Columbus, on more than one occasion, welcomed native traders and civilians on his ship for the sole purpose of giving gifts and showing kindness. This was to create trust between the locals and Europeans for reasons of future conversion. Columbus was very just in his trading methods with the natives. He would not allow his crew to accept large amounts of crops and goods for their cheap manufactured goods. Columbus wrote in his journal, "I saw in this manner sixteen balls of cotton thread which weighed above twenty-five pounds, given for three Portuguese ceutis. This traffic I forbade, and suffered no one to take their cotton from them."(Columbus: Saturday, 13 October) Columbus also recorded this story his journal: "A small canoe with a single man, who came to barter some cotton arrived; some of the sailors finding him unwilling to go on board the vessel, jumped into the sea and took him. I was upon the quarter deck of my ship, and seeing the whole, sent for him, and gave him a red cap, put some glass beads upon his arms, and two hawk's bells upon his ears. I then ordered his canoe to be returned to him, and despatched him back to land." (Columbus: Monday, 15 October) Columbus said several times that he wanted to be friends with the natives. He obviously cared for them in that he said he wanted them to become Christians.
The previous examples show that Columbus was an honest, godly man who wanted the best for European society and did a remarkable job of bettering American society in the meanwhile. To charge him with millions of deaths would be ignorant - taking history out of context and not looking honestly at what factually happened. Columbus led American exploration in a non-violent way, and acted as a positive example during the Age of Discovery. By refusing to conquer the natives, Columbus proved himself to be a revolutionary, a truly remarkable historical figure. Columbus was clearly not responsible for millions of deaths in the Americas.

[Insane Drummer]

This is a very useful page for how to do good historical writing.

http://personal2.stthomas.edu/gwschl...s/10commnd.htm

[Gsus_Rawks]

Thanks everyone for all your help. I really appreciate it. I turned the paper in and am awaiting my grade. Thanks again!

[Gsus_Rawks]

My history teacher approached me and told me he liked it. We haven't gotten them scored yet but I believe this is a good sign.

[bobthecockroach]

w00t

[Gsus_Rawks]

I finally got my paper back. My history teacher gave me a 88% and by turning it in early, I got a 93%.

[Gsus_Rawks]

I got a 97% on the English portion (This pulled my English grade up to an "A").