Poll of the Day > It's shocking to me that people still don't know the real history of Christopher

(+) Yeah! (+)

Pop quiz: is the purpose of studying history to

A. learn from it

B. Rewrite it in such a way that makes me feel good about society and prevents me from having to confront systemic injustices that persist even today

---

Blightzkrieg posted...

Pop quiz: is the purpose of studying history to

A. learn from it

B. Rewrite it in such a way that makes me feel good about society and prevents me from having to confront systemic injustices that persist even today

Neither. History is what it is. You can't change what happened because it's in the past. You uncover more to learn more about the world and the journey that life took to get to the present day, to uncover the past, discover what really happened and what life was really like.

But let's say I WAS to play your stupid little game. Why would I rewrite history to focus exclusively on the negative aspects of a person and frame the world as a series of systematic injustices that can be absolved by knocking down some statues instead of learning from it both the drive to explore as well as some of the bad things that can happen when a more-advanced civilization comes into contact with a less-advanced one especially if they see things such as slavery acceptable?

---

Blightzkrieg posted...

Pop quiz: is the purpose of studying history to

A. learn from it

B. Rewrite it in such a way that makes me feel good about society and prevents me from having to confront systemic injustices that persist even today

i get what you're trying to say, but this post also drips with a certain level of irony.

how dare anybody in [current year] acknowledge the accomplishments of an imperfect man that was a complete and total product of the times he lived in? What he did then is not OK now, and he must therefore be erased from history!, or only used as an example of pure, colonialist evil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Olds


---

And there were no negative effects at all and that's why America is the perfect country it is today

---

Blightzkrieg posted...

And there were no negative effects at all and that's why America is the perfect country it is today

nice strawman you've got there. it would be a shame if it burned.

---

Do the "American slavery was a net positive", that's always a classic

---

Blightzkrieg posted...

Do the "American slavery was a net positive", that's always a classic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

---

Blightzkrieg posted...

And there were no negative effects at all and that's why America is the perfect country it is today

Did anybody say this?

---

Unbridled9 posted...

Did anybody say this?

I'm just focusing on the positive dude

I can't believe you would dare SHIT ON OUR HISTORY by suggesting otherwise

---

Blightzkrieg posted...

I'm just focusing on the positive dude

I can't believe you would dare SHIT ON OUR HISTORY by suggesting otherwise

The ends justify the means, remember?

---

Colombus is heritage not hate

---

WhiskeyDisk posted...

how dare anybody in [current year] acknowledge the accomplishments of an imperfect man that was a complete and total product of the times he lived in? What he did then is not OK now, and he must therefore be erased from history!, or only used as an example of pure, colonialist evil.

WhiskeyDisk posted...

nice strawman you've got there. it would be a shame if it burned.

WhiskeyDisk posted...

i get what you're trying to say, but this post also drips with a certain level of irony.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Have you always been such a tool Mead, and I'm just late to the party, or is this a new thing?

---

Many people know, they just don't all virtue signal about it.

If you actually feel terrible about it go give a Native American your property.

Or you could be the Fate series and write a storyline about him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJE8VpBVTkU

---

Blightzkrieg posted...

I'm just focusing on the positive dude

I can't believe you would dare SHIT ON OUR HISTORY by suggesting otherwise

...

You're crazy.

---

I represent more than craziness, I am a symbol of inspiration

---

Unbridled9 posted...

Blightzkrieg posted...
And there were no negative effects at all and that's why America is the perfect country it is today

Did anybody say this?

well, wanded seems to think we couldn't possibly be better off if development of America happened some other way, because America and all of our lives owe their entire existence to it

---

agesboy posted...

well, wanded seems to think we couldn't possibly be better off if development of America happened some other way, because America and all of our lives owe their entire existence to it

This is why learning history is important. Because the reality is that it's impossible to know what would or would not have happened. In another topic I pointed out how a lack of slavery would have lead to an economically weaker south which, in turn, could have potentially lead to either the revolution failing and North America ending up as a sparsely-populated smattering of colonial nations or a weaker U.S. that may not have survived. There's reasons for that (for example, if slavery didn't exist the south would not likely have revolted because it wouldn't have an economic base that would have been at risk. This in turn would mean the U.S. government would not have become centralized like we saw happen with the Civil War.) but you could ALSO argue that other things would have happened (EX: Due to the lack of the plantations and a weaker economy the south can't resist efforts to form a more centralized government and it happens both sooner and without a war is a possibility).

---

There were other powers through the 19th century that managed well without slavery in the rawest sense. Most of Europe worked to abolish slavery after the Congress of Vienna if I remember rightly. That didn't stop colonial abuses, it just changed the face of it. You didn't need slavery as an institution to remain and economic power, if you played your cards right. The United States however tended to be the exception due to its isolation though, so I doubt with or without slavery you would have seen too much difference in impact, save where the balance of power lay in the country, assuming the union lasted.


---

BlackJackCat posted...

There were other powers through the 19th century that managed well without slavery in the rawest sense. Most of Europe worked to abolish slavery after the Congress of Vienna if I remember rightly. That didn't stop colonial abuses, it just changed the face of it. You didn't need slavery as an institution to remain and economic power, if you played your cards right. The United States however tended to be the exception due to its isolation though, so I doubt with or without slavery you would have seen too much difference in impact, save where the balance of power lay in the country, assuming the union lasted.

Well, here's the thing. In the U.S. slavery was really only something that was big in the south. This was because of Tobacco and Cotton. Thing is that these crops aren't actually worth a lot of money in the grand scheme of things. They might sell for a pretty penny but they take a lot of hours and man-power to produce. If you have to pay your workers it's just not really worth it to grow either. But the thing about slavery is that you DON'T have to pay your workers which is why it became viable.

This is part of why the South joined in the revolution. Because they were afraid England would make it illegal and felt they had a better chance with the revolutionaries than with the king. However even post-revolution the fact is that the North both had a larger population and would get more states (especially following the Louisiana Purchase) meaning that it was only a matter of time until slavery became illegal. The South fought this tooth and nail with things like the compromise; especially as America expanded increasingly westwards, but everyone knew the writing was on the wall.

---

All it really is is an extra day off from school.
---

WhiskeyDisk posted...

how dare anybody in [current year] acknowledge the accomplishments of an imperfect man that was a complete and total product of the times he lived in? What he did then is not OK now, and he must therefore be erased from history!, or only used as an example of pure, colonialist evil.

I mean there are plenty of people who did dubious things they don't put statues up for, and yet they haven't been expunged from history. Maybe the issue isn't as hyperbolic as you make it out to be?

Unbridled9 posted...

Well, here's the thing. In the U.S. slavery was really only something that was big in the south. This was because of Tobacco and Cotton. Thing is that these crops aren't actually worth a lot of money in the grand scheme of things. They might sell for a pretty penny but they take a lot of hours and man-power to produce. If you have to pay your workers it's just not really worth it to grow either. But the thing about slavery is that you DON'T have to pay your workers which is why it became viable.

One could argue cash crops were a source of economic power, in turn spurring the industrial revolution to new heights. You might not have had one without the other, if the need for the innovation wasn't there. But yeah slavery was an integral part of making it largely profitable, especially to the standards of Southern "aristocracy."


---

LinkPizza posted...

I mean, that already happens. I'm in the military. I don't really care much about it. People are going to think what they want to regardless... And tbh, I could understand it more if I was actually doing something shitty...

A yellow ribbon instead of a Swastika.

Meaning, the other side might feel like youre doing something shitty. A lot of people dont like the US because they invade and then force their ways on other countries.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

Neither.

Really? So you're saying people shouldn't learn from history? Personally, I disagree. I think learning from history is good. But to each their own, I guess...

zebatov posted...

A yellow ribbon instead of a Swastika.

Meaning, the other side might feel like youre doing something shitty. A lot of people dont like the US because they invade and then force their ways on other countries.

Yeah. Sure. And like I said, some people don't like me because of my job, even when they don't know what I actually do. And I don't care. So, why should it matter that he was just doing his job. That's like saying you should get mad at a burglar because they were just doing their job. So, I think it fine to still not like him just because he was paid to do shitty things...
---

Really? So you're saying people shouldn't learn from history? Personally, I disagree. I think learning from history is good. But to each their own, I guess...

Oh. People certainly should learn from history; but that's not the POINT of history either. There's a lot of things about history we simply don't know and will never know and a lot of things we do know that aren't 100% directly relevant. For example we know that some cultures made pottery in the shape of various male genitalia that wouldn't look too out of place in a Spencers Gifts. In terms of historical value that's actually pretty important because it helps paint a richer and fuller view of what the people who came before us were like. But in terms of 'educational value' that's pretty low. My first digsite was little more than a place where some guy stopped for the night to rest and made a few things like arrowheads. Not exactly 'earth-shattering knowledge' there. But it does help us understand more about what our ancestors were really like.

Plus I'm not going to fall into that stupid trap he tried to set. If I said 'learn from it' he'd retaliate that we should be learning to not be a horrible person like Columbus which is not what history is about in the slightest. History can teach us what Columbus did, not the morality of his actions. The reality is that he's asking that people rewrite history to focus exclusively on the negatives of a person to frame it as a political talking point and justification so he can feel good about his actions and hatred. Like, if he's going to set a trap, the least he could do is make it a mouse trap with cheese so I'd get a small snack when I avoid it.

Edit: I do want to point out that one of the major uses of history is to define who we are as a people. Americans have historically held Columbus in a massively positive light due to him being a massive representation of the explorers spirit. As such the narrative-reframing he's suggesting is a serious threat to American culture and would certainly qualify as an attempt to both re-write history and force a massive cultural shift and is EXTREMELY dangerous as a result. You're free to argue we should have better heroes but he is suggesting the very sort of historical rewriting that is extremely dangerous and destructive to history.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

Really? So you're saying people shouldn't learn from history? Personally, I disagree. I think learning from history is good. But to each their own, I guess...

Oh. People certainly should learn from history; but that's not the POINT of history either. There's a lot of things about history we simply don't know and will never know and a lot of things we do know that aren't 100% directly relevant. For example we know that some cultures made pottery in the shape of various male genitalia that wouldn't look too out of place in a Spencers Gifts. In terms of historical value that's actually pretty important because it helps paint a richer and fuller view of what the people who came before us were like. But in terms of 'educational value' that's pretty low. My first digsite was little more than a place where some guy stopped for the night to rest and made a few things like arrowheads. Not exactly 'earth-shattering knowledge' there. But it does help us understand more about what our ancestors were really like.

Plus I'm not going to fall into that stupid trap he tried to set. If I said 'learn from it' he'd retaliate that we should be learning to not be a horrible person like Columbus which is not what history is about in the slightest. History can teach us what Columbus did, not the morality of his actions. The reality is that he's asking that people rewrite history to focus exclusively on the negatives of a person to frame it as a political talking point and justification so he can feel good about his actions and hatred. Like, if he's going to set a trap, the least he could do is make it a mouse trap with cheese so I'd get a small snack when I avoid it.

Edit: I do want to point out that one of the major uses of history is to define who we are as a people. Americans have historically held Columbus in a massively positive light due to him being a massive representation of the explorers spirit. As such the narrative-reframing he's suggesting is a serious threat to American culture and would certainly qualify as an attempt to both re-write history and force a massive cultural shift and is EXTREMELY dangerous as a result. You're free to argue we should have better heroes but he is suggesting the very sort of historical rewriting that is extremely dangerous and destructive to history.

That sounds like learning to me. Its doesnt matter how much 'educational value' is has. Learning is learning. What you said makes it sound like the point of history is still learning.

And tbh, I dont see why it would be such a bad thing to learn how to not be like Columbus. I mean, I personally wouldnt want to be a slave trader or whatever just to be an explorer. If you want to learn how to be an explorer, Im sure you could probably find one who is better, even if not perfect...

Also, hes not asking people to rewrite history. The history is already there. But he wants to put the bad there with the good. And I dont see a problem with that.
---

And tbh, I dont see why it would be such a bad thing to learn how to not be like Columbus. I mean, I personally wouldnt want to be a slave trader or whatever just to be an explorer. If you want to learn how to be an explorer, Im sure you could probably find one who is better, even if not perfect...

If you choose not to idolize Columbus because of the terrible things he did that's your choice. There is a massive world of difference, however, between 'I don't see this man as being worthy of respect' and 'no one should see this man as being worthy of respect'. And I listed several choices for other explorers who could be idolized (Leif/Erik the Red, Amerigo Vespucci, the moon-landing astronauts) but no discussion has come from that.

Also, hes not asking people to rewrite history. The history is already there. But he wants to put the bad there with the good. And I dont see a problem with that.

The problem is that's not what he's asking. He's asking for the bad instead of the good. In his own question he attempts to frame any attempt to not focus exclusively on the negative as an attempt to re-write history in order to avoid dealing with injustices. That's not historical talk. That's rewriting history to serve a political point.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

If you choose not to idolize Columbus because of the terrible things he did that's your choice. There is a massive world of difference, however, between 'I don't see this man as being worthy of respect' and 'no one should see this man as being worthy of respect'. And I listed several choices for other explorers who could be idolized (Leif/Erik the Red, Amerigo Vespucci, the moon-landing astronauts) but no discussion has come from that.

Tbh, I could care less of what other people think of him. I personally don't really see a reason to idolize him. But even if he wasn't in the slave trade business, I still probably wouldn't see a reason for me to idolize him. I'm sure people who do idolize certain people have their reasons. And would hope they know more than just a few things about them... Especially since the schools don't really go over certain people extensively...

Unbridled9 posted...

The problem is that's not what he's asking. He's asking for the bad instead of the good. In his own question he attempts to frame any attempt to not focus exclusively on the negative as an attempt to re-write history in order to avoid dealing with injustices. That's not historical talk. That's rewriting history to serve a political point.

Ok. But that' still not rewriting history. Schools only teaching about the good is closer to rewriting history that he was. Especially when they act like he was the first to find land here when many explorers came before. As I said, the history is already there. He's not adding anything that didn't happen already. it happened, but people just gloss over it. And they shouldn't. You can still put the good up there. Just make sure to talk about the bad, too. And to probably teach kids that their were explorers that found land first. Or were more likely to.
---

LinkPizza posted...

Schools only teaching about the good is closer to rewriting history that he was

say it louder for the people in the back

---

Ok. But that' still not rewriting history. Schools only teaching about the good is closer to rewriting history that he was. Especially when they act like he was the first to find land here when many explorers came before. As I said, the history is already there. He's not adding anything that didn't happen already. it happened, but people just gloss over it. And they shouldn't. You can still put the good up there. Just make sure to talk about the bad, too. And to probably teach kids that their were explorers that found land first. Or were more likely to.

Sorry, but no. Columbus is still extremely important. He's the first documented contact between the old world and the new. The only people prior were the Vikings (And hey, look who I suggested earlier as a possible replacement!) and not only were they not confirmed to have arrived in America until relatively recently (1970's IIRC) their encounter was relatively minor at best. Not saying it wasn't important; just saying that 'a few viking explorers tried to settle for a few years before giving up' is very different from 'established a functioning colony and kicked off an entire revolution in how effectively everything functioned'. While there is some scattered evidence for chinese, japanese, and even roman encounters it is, at best, highly circumstantial and calling it even 'inconclusive' would be a leap.

However, I would counter that your argument is more an issue with the poor education provided by public schools and a failure to properly teach history in general, regulating it more to a series of names and dates. I mean most people remember Columbus purely from 'In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue' and you yourself say classes don't cover people extensively. I'm assuming you are referring to people actually relevant to the history of America as opposed to, say, Shaka Zulu who, while important and the like in african history, didn't really impact U.S.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

Sorry, but no. Columbus is still extremely important. He's the first documented contact between the old world and the new.

When did I say he wasnt important at all? So, I dont know what youre talking about. I did say they shouldnt only teach the good. And Ill stand by that.

Unbridled9 posted...

The only people prior were the Vikings (And hey, look who I suggested earlier as a possible replacement!) and not only were they not confirmed to have arrived in America until relatively recently (1970's IIRC) their encounter was relatively minor at best.

If youre talking about Leif Erikson, then you might want to check post #24 where I mentioned my friend/co-worker had basically already renamed that day for everybody. Also, it may be a recent discovery that they found it first. But it doesnt mean it should be left out of history in school and such.

Unbridled9 posted...

While there is some scattered evidence for chinese, japanese, and even roman encounters it is, at best, highly circumstantial and calling it even 'inconclusive' would be a leap.

And even without too much evidence, it should be taught in school. I mean, even seeing that video in the articles shadowsword87 posted, it was interesting to learn of the others that probably found this land before Columbus...

Unbridled9 posted...

However, I would counter that your argument is more an issue with the poor education provided by public schools and a failure to properly teach history in general, regulating it more to a series of names and dates. I mean most people remember Columbus purely from 'In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue' and you yourself say classes don't cover people extensively. I'm assuming you are referring to people actually relevant to the history of America as opposed to, say, Shaka Zulu who, while important and the like in african history, didn't really impact U.S.

What each school studied more and when they talked about it depended on the school. But many just taught the basics. Enough to know a little. For Columbus, I dont remember much. What I do remember was mostly him finding America. But they pretty much paint a pretty picture rather then talk about him bringing slaves back with him when he went home. Which seems like it would be something we should talk about. As for what we learned, it depended on grade and the person. Some people, we learned the bare minimum. Others, we went into a little more extensively...

And while the education system is bad here, it doesnt change what I said. The good and bad should both be talked about. Its bad in the schools if they only teach about the good and leave out what they dont want to talk about.
---

Jen0125 posted...

Columbus. And they really go to bat for him to continue to have a holiday.

agreed,

Columbus was a dirty rat who stole credit for landing on America from bugs bunny!
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2xunls


---

Atsamatta for you!

---

When did I say he wasnt important at all? So, I dont know what youre talking about. I did say they shouldnt only teach the good. And Ill stand by that.

So long as you agree that they shouldn't only teach the bad as well I think we can agree on that.

If youre talking about Leif Erikson, then you might want to check post #24 where I mentioned my friend/co-worker had basically already renamed that day for everybody. Also, it may be a recent discovery that they found it first. But it doesnt mean it should be left out of history in school and such.

A quick brush-up on Columbus Day points out a problem with this. Namely that the day has been around since 1892. Appearently it exists as a response to a mob lynching 11 Italian immigrants. I will admit I didn't realize this about it's history and will need to learn more. However my point here is that the day has been a federal holiday for over 100 years by now. Even if they wanted to I doubt they'd get much headway in regards to a name change considering it's basically got legacy value at this point. Now that I know that little bit of Columbus day I feel like changing or getting rid of it would be disrespectful. I mean, imagine if 100 years from now people were calling Black History Month horribly racist and discrimintory because in 2070 the United Africian Techlords engaged in a racial purge in Nigeria 2.0. I'll have to process this information and determine how I feel about it.

And even without too much evidence, it should be taught in school. I mean, even seeing that video in the articles shadowsword87 posted, it was interesting to learn of the others that probably found this land before Columbus...

Assuming we're talking about the same bits of evidence, a few random petroglyphs in Arizona, a native tribe with a language suspiciously similar to Japanese, and a ship sunk off the Brazilian coast that might contain roman statues but is under government quarentine is not enough to qualify as 'worthy of teaching in school'. Like I said, calling it 'inconclusive' would be a leap considering it might just simply be, say, some native in 1300 making some doodles that happened to look like chinese, some tribe just having a funny way of speaking, or a ship from after the discovery that was carrying statues to Brazil for some reason that got sunk.

And while the education system is bad here, it doesnt change what I said. The good and bad should both be talked about. Its bad in the schools if they only teach about the good and leave out what they dont want to talk about.

Let's keep in mind that this is also school we're talking about. Children and teens just trying to learn the basics to survive in life. Not a bunch of college students in a dedicated class who can devote an entire class section to a lengthy discussion about the morality of Columbus's actions and if he should be respected or not. I firmly believe education is handled poorly in America and its terrible handling of history being a prime example of said shortcomings. I also think it may be a wee bit over-reaching to expect them to engage in lengthy discussions on a person.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

So long as you agree that they shouldn't only teach the bad as well I think we can agree on that.

I never said that should only teach the bad. I just think they should teach both instead of cherry picking certain things to teach them...

Unbridled9 posted...

A quick brush-up on Columbus Day points out a problem with this. Namely that the day has been around since 1892. Appearently it exists as a response to a mob lynching 11 Italian immigrants. I will admit I didn't realize this about it's history and will need to learn more. However my point here is that the day has been a federal holiday for over 100 years by now. Even if they wanted to I doubt they'd get much headway in regards to a name change considering it's basically got legacy value at this point. Now that I know that little bit of Columbus day I feel like changing or getting rid of it would be disrespectful. I mean, imagine if 100 years from now people were calling Black History Month horribly racist and discrimintory because in 2070 the United Africian Techlords engaged in a racial purge in Nigeria 2.0. I'll have to process this information and determine how I feel about it.

Yeah. I dont think that actually could get it changed. But I know people who call it something else. It wouldnt matter anyway as Leif Erikson day would most likely be a different day, anyway. And most people dont care about Columbus at all. They just like the day off from school/work... Or sales at certain stores. But most dont care about the person, nor do I really see people celebrating him...

Unbridled9 posted...

Assuming we're talking about the same bits of evidence, a few random petroglyphs in Arizona, a native tribe with a language suspiciously similar to Japanese, and a ship sunk off the Brazilian coast that might contain roman statues but is under government quarentine is not enough to qualify as 'worthy of teaching in school'. Like I said, calling it 'inconclusive' would be a leap considering it might just simply be, say, some native in 1300 making some doodles that happened to look like chinese, some tribe just having a funny way of speaking, or a ship from after the discovery that was carrying statues to Brazil for some reason that got sunk.

I dont know which evidence it was. You could check the link somewhere in this topic. And even in the video, they only showed a little bit of evidence (There were multiple short videos along with written text). Im sure they could find more maybe written somewhere else. I personally dont like history, so I havent looked deeper than the evidence he posted, and a little information on the people responsible for it. Though, I would call it inconclusive. If the historians find specific evidence to base their claims off of, I have no reason to really doubts them like that. Id probably listen to them and see what they data says. See what the probabilities are... More than a random person I know nothing about on the internet, and especially a gaming website, no offense...

Unbridled9 posted...

Let's keep in mind that this is also school we're talking about. Children and teens just trying to learn the basics to survive in life. Not a bunch of college students in a dedicated class who can devote an entire class section to a lengthy discussion about the morality of Columbus's actions and if he should be respected or not. I firmly believe education is handled poorly in America and its terrible handling of history being a prime example of said shortcomings. I also think it may be a wee bit over-reaching to expect them to engage in lengthy discussions on a person.

Im not saying they have to discuss the morality of it. Though they could easily do that in high school. But they do teach about slavery in school. It wouldnt be hard to also talk about slavery for Columbus, as well... Id understand not mentioning it if they also didnt talk about slavery in the US, but they do. So whats wrong with mentioning it for Columbus, too?

And like I said, they have had lengthy discussions of some people, depending on who they are. Seeing as this is a person people learned about young who has done bad things that people arent usually taught about, I dont see a problem with a lengthy discussion about them when they are a little older and can understand the things he did better...

And even without a lengthy discussion about him, it wouldnt be hard to also talk about the bad things hes done, alongside the good things...
---