Happy indigenous peoples Day!

RM was getting angry that someone of Indian ethnicity dared to be pro Columbus day.

@RM

Who else was it named after?  I thought it was named after Ghengis Khan.

different people with different backgrounds are going to fight

and its wrong

pie being indian has absolutely nothing to do with what he said bro. 

Stop with your bullshit he criticising everyone for being pro columbus day.

no one gives a shit what you though it was named after.

A mere search on a search engine would have cured you of the ignorance you had before saying that, just as it would cure you of your ignorance of what a psychopath Columbus was. When it's that easy to solve ignorance, only yourself is to blame.

It is named after Salman Khan, the founder of it.

What have I said that is wrong?

You do understand that is inside Spain right? The Spanish colonists were brutal abroad, in fact most European colonists did their worst sins outside of the country.

Happy indigenous peoples day!

christopher columbus was awesome

bait.

how so? Columbus is a huge story for America

he never set foot in america.

He was a genocidal maniac.

May be so.  Was just a quick search on the topic.  Here another link that is more of the overall perpsepctive what occurred.

..." When Christopher Columbus landed on the island of Hispaniola in 1492, he met natives there. When this was reported to Queen Isabella of Spain, she immediately decreed that the natives (Indians as the Spanish would call them) were her subjects and were morally equal to all her other subjects including the Spaniards themselves.

....Columbus violated these decrees from the beginning and thus he created a tension between Crown policy and behavior in the field that endured throughout the colonial period. Columbus' first illegal act was to ship five hundred Indians back to Spain as slaves. "

but Columbus worked closely with the Spaniards. There is no way for them to plead ignorance, they participated in the pillaging.

Part 2:....." and the English, who came in families, did not inter-marry with the Indians as frequently as the Spaniards. Like the Spanish priests who were appalled at the treatment of the Indians, some English observers also spoke out. Roger Williams, a Separatist Puritan who came to Massachusetts Bay in 1631, charged that the English had no right to occupy land that the Indians were already living on... "

At least we agree on Columbus.

Part 3:..." However, the overall relationship between the British and Indians was a bad one. The two elements which it was based upon could not sustain cordiality: trade and land occupancy. In most cases the trade relation was based upon an exchange of furs for trinkets, firearms, and blankets. When the furbearing animals were depleted the Indians had nothing to exchange and they became embittered. As for land, the British frequently attempted to buy land from the natives, but the Indian concept of ownership and exchange of title was nothing like that of the Europeans. This difference led to misunderstandings which often resulted in conflict. "....

The English mainly focused on Canada and North of US, they didn't clash as heavily with the natives but it's true, they also interacted less and married them less.

If you'd observe nativesin Canada (which dealt only with the British and French colonists) there was much more humaneness towards them.

This isn't me being blinkered, the British were very cunning and tore cultures apart in order to secure themselves powerful within the places they colonised but they were not as far in their ruthlessness as the crew of Columbus was. Especially not with things like rape and extremely torturing those they took over. The British style of colonising was much more about appearing to be good while actually being corrupt.

Also, the British didn't force Christianity on those they colonised, which is an aspect you are admitting almost every other colonist did (the Islamic forced Islam instead etc). The Brits were more gradual and tempered in their colonising. They'd introduce the religion but wouldn't blackmail, this is also why places in Africa where the British colonised have far more in-tact native tribes and subcultures such as the Masai in Kenya. 

Your source is 100% biased, I am not interested in what it says. If you analyse it, the British were in fact the only one who tried to genuinely buy and negotiate land with natives. The other colonists were brutalising and blackmailing. Your source is simply whitewashing the sins of the Spanish colonists.

Absolutely, based on this last web-site, it is obvious he was morally deficit, in regards to indians.   Again, the program I saw made statements that Spaniards were more humane in their treatment of the indians than British.  I still believe that was true, and that certainly appears to be the Spanish Queens intention, irrespective of what boots on the ground --out in the field did--...

Again, Spaniards were there fro 100 years before British.  Saint Agustine is oldest city in N.America of the white priviledged society.

Part 4:    '" The Spanish attitude toward the Indians was that they saw themselves as guardians of the Indians basic rights. The Spanish goal was for the peaceful submission of the Indians. The laws of Spain controlled the conduct of soldiers during wars, even when the tribes were hostile. The missionary’s role was to convert the Indians to Christianity. This would be followed by the Indians being accepted as members of the Spanish civilization. However, the exploitation of the Indian occurred constantly. "

do you understand that your source is a Santa Fe Motel?

My understanding, from the program I mentioned, is that overall, the Spanish were more humane towards the N American indians than were the British.

On that point we disagree.

One point you have to firstly absolutely concede was that the Spaniards blackmailed their colonised into Christianity in a way that the Brits opted out of doing.

The reason for this, to be fair to the Spanish, is that the agenda of the British was very rarely 'dedicated' to any one land they colonised. They knew if that particular land happened to oust them later on, they had more than enough other colonised areas that were colonised to make us of and maintain good relations with for many decades or even centuries to come.

This plan ultimately failed to factor in wars in Europe tiring out their armed forces and capacity to maintain their empire but even then the fallback of alliance with said nations remains overall. 

This agenda meant that not for reasons of morality but of expedience, it was suboptimal to overly bully the culture that was in place and instead what they'd do was find rivalries where they could help one side that wasn't currently 'winning' to win the power struggle and then say 'now you owe us, help us stay in control here'.

This tactic worked most places but the native tribes had zero interest in ruling over the area such as Canada or the US, they just kept to themselves. This meant that the British (who, as you said, came after the Italians, Spanish and Portuguese had already begun a lot of colonising in the Carribean and everywhere South of Us and in South America and what the Brits did was use their expertise to negotiate and 'tame' the Natives working out which tribes were more open to peaceful resolution and selectively being violent with the ones who were beyond negotiation.

The natives has a lot of reason to be brutal and beyond negotiation, given how Columbus' crew and the Spanish+Portuguese had been treating them. The Spanish and Portuguese style of colonising was to blackmail into their religion and language, totaly and utterly redefining the culture. They had to wipe out many tribes before the others caved in out of fear.

You can say whatever you want, these are the facts. This style of colonising was by no means at all more merciful than the British style, it was just more bare and honest. The British colonists were very good at appearing to be reasonable while actually being dictatorial but the Spanish colonists were just plain dictatorial. In fact, the only reason elections and democracy got introduced to Latin America is because they saw the success that the British and French had inspired in Canada as well as what both them and the Italians and Irish (as well as some Germans and Scandinavians who joined later) had inspired in the US. When people can 'vote' (back then only white land owners could), it makes people less likely to rebel. Latin America had much less of a proportion of Caucasians (and caucasians who are portuguese and Spanish especially if they reproduced with natives, don't necessarily look entirely Caucasian) so they realised that in their cultures they couldn't limit democracy just to rich white land owners and had to open it up further, however bribery and blackmail were again far more commonplace and 'bare/honest' in Latin American 'democracy' than it was in the US.

There is a consistent pattern here, if you haven't noticed. I am not saying that if you caved in and agreed to be Christians and speak their language that they abused you, I'm saying they relentlessly abused you until you did so. Even then, you had to 'know your place' you never could rise anywhere near to the top as a true native but it is true to say that many natives don't like politics, they dislike the strict hierarchy in nations as their culture was much more egalitarian.

dont believe masonic lies about columbus, and he set foot in the AMERICAS, the continent

Or the unnamed continent Doc.

It was supposedly, sometime later in the early 1500's that it was named after Amerigo Vespucci.

They'd forgotten about old Chris by then.

And I think that D C was named after Peter Falk.....Though correct me if I am wrong.

look up columbia, it was a symbol of America

I've looked it up Doc.

Just pointing out the obvious inaccuracies within your previous statement.