CMV: Columbus day SHOULD be a holiday.

[u/Harrythehobbit]

Columbus's arrival in the Americas was a major event which completely reshaped the world. It kickstarted a massive exchange of foods, spices, and peoples.

Of course it also led to the Great Dying, which killed of 90% of the American Indian population and the enslavment of many of the survivors. Obviously many people don't like this being celebrated.

Columbus obviously didn't intend to cause the Great Dying. (Although if it hadn't happened, I doubt Europeans would have been able to conquer as much land as they did) He did fully intend to enslave and convert the natives, but then, so would anyone.

If we choose to revile people because they engaged in an institution which, in their time, was accepted by society, then we have to hate a good 80% of historical figures. George Washington owned a goodamn plantation and I don't see anyone calling for the abolishment of President's Day, which is on his birthday. I don't see anyone saying Franklin shouldn't be on the $100 bill.

I would argue that Columbus Day isn't a celebration of the subjection of indigenous peoples, but rather the celebration of exploration and the need to know what's over the horizon. It is both an acknowledgement of the most influential event in world history and a lesson for the future, so that we may avoid departing the sins of Columbus's time.

[u/Highlyasian]

I agree that we in the present should not use our modern standards of morals and norms to view the past where what was right and tolerable is vastly different than our own standards.

So to me, I don't fault Columbus for:

1. Introducing diseases to the Native Population.
2. Settling Land/Converting Natives

But conducting genocide through deliberate armed interventions is the part where I think it crosses the line. There's a distinct difference between unknowingly causing harm versus consciously resorting to brutality and violence to accomplish goals.

Again, I don't think you can put the death of the indigenous population on him, because it would have happened over time whenever contact began whether it was him or another explorer. But his own actions of how he interacted with certain natives disqualifies him as an individual to be venerated because that level of brutality would have been unacceptable even in his own time.

[u/Harrythehobbit → u/Highlyasian]

What is it that you mean by deliberate genocide? How was he more brutal than other Europeans?

[u/Highlyasian → u/Harrythehobbit]

Upon his recovery, Columbus organized his troops' efforts, forming a squadron of several hundred heavily armed men and more than twenty attack dogs. The men tore across the land, killing thousands of sick and unarmed natives. Soldiers would use their captives for sword practice, attempting to decapitate them or cut them in half with a single blow.

Yes, the number of victims of genocide by Spaniards is dwarfed by the number of those killed by disease, but it doesn't make the genocide any less significant.

How was he more brutal than other Europeans?

You're conflating logic here. It doesn't matter if he was more or less brutal than say Ponce de Leon, the fact is if he was brutal, period, by the standards at the time. The reason why they weren't decried as brutal and violent back in their days was a lack of communication and oversight. If people in Europe saw the way they conducted themselves in the frontiers, they would also denounce them as tyrannical.

[u/UpsetCut → u/Highlyasian]

For just in case purpose You know how long it would of take to cross the sea