Historical or political correctness?

[DinoDoc]

This thread is now mercifully moot.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Tingkai
If they put up a completely realistic statue of the three white guys then the wrong message would be sent. The statue would be seen as honoring the three guys raising a flag rather then all firefigthers - those who died, those who tried to dig through the rubble to save people and the three men.

So, the wrong message was sent with the worldwide publication of the picture of the flag being raised at Iwo Jima? I never, ever remember reading, thinking, or being taught that the photograph was famous because it somehow "honored" 3 flag bearers. Honestly, Tingkai, you oughtta know better than that. The only reason the 9-11 photo was famous to begin with was it's eerie similarity to the Iwo Jima photo... should that one be retouched too? Hey! I've got an idea! In the interests of racial co-operation and the need for historical apologies let's change one of the faces in the Iwo Jima photo to a Japanese face... that'll show them that all is forgiven (or "we're sorry", or whatever it is that historical revisionists desire).

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Ramo
Frankly, Columbus astonishes me in terms of his duplicity, praising the Arawaks one moment, slaughtering them the next. He wasn't simply a man of his times.

Best look at those times again, dynastic wars, the end of the reconquesta, the beginings of colonization...
He most certainly was a man of his times.

But the SS of the Third Reich were men of their times, right? They weren't murderers, just a little misguided. Their morality was different from ours, therefore, their actions should be trivialized.

Spare me your histronics and moralizing.
The Nazis built nothing, onlt killed.
To equate that to the Spanish is an insult, and also incorrect.

Only after his men roamed the island looking for gold, women to rape, and slaves, were they slaughtered in battle! You call theft, rape, and enslaving "peaceful" behavior?!

Yes, they were wildmen.
You are read on the participents, as I am, so you know this is bull, so we will move on.

Whatever. Columbus' atrocities, sure as hell, shouldn't be belittled or forgotten.

I love how you love to call anything a white man does "atrocities", but then you claim the natives were peaceful little sweetharts, happily living in nature untill the evil whites arrive.
What your doing is called revisionist history, with a healthy dose of racism, and I'll have no part of either.

Colonialism implies subjagation. Trying to find clean hands among colonial powers is an exercise in futility.

Good answer, but you forgot (conviently) to mention that the subject peoples lack clean hands as well.

AFAIK, most Arawak tribes had relatively clean hands, for instance.

Funny you mention them, while ignoring the canibalistic Caribs, which hurts your picture of peaceful natives.
Yes, they wern't much for fighting, they were far more interested in class structure and slavery.
Clean hands, indeed.

Most hunter-gatherer groups had clean hands.

Non-sense.
This answer shows a clear lack of understanding of pre-history human behavior.
Tribal and clan warfare were rife in hunter-gatherer societies, and it just moved foward with time.
The "nobel savage" is a myth.

But you certainly won't find many American cultures that were as atrocious as the the colonial powers.

In sheer brutality, and evil intent, MOST Anerican cultures far surpass anything the Europeans were up to.
Attempting to whitewash cultures that practiced canalbalism, human sacrifice, constant tribal warfare, scalping, murder of innocents, and many other matters is ridiculous and ultimetly futile.
This doesn't mean that the Europeans are free of guilt, but give up this crap that the natives were somehow morally superior, cause theu wern't.
They just wern't up to the technical challenge, or they would have killed and enslaved the whites from accross the sea.
They wern't, so they lost.

See Ramo, that's the problem you have with history, you are one-sided, always looking at the "poor oppressed', instead of attempting to see the whole picture.

Spain was on the other end (vs the Moors) for centuries, they were the backward and oppressed, and when they triumped, they moved foward through the world, with the lessons they had been taught by their own foriegn invaders, that strength prevails in this world, not words.

And whether we like it or not, it is still that way.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
This thread is now mercifully moot.

Woohoo! That is great news... PC dies under the outrage of a country

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Woohoo! That is great news... PC dies under the outrage of a country

Isn't it great when our system works, Imran?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh yes... see, the foes of PC can make some noise too .

[Ramo]

Best look at those times again, dynastic wars, the end of the reconquesta, the beginings of colonization...
He most certainly was a man of his times.

Again, few people can give genuine praise to a people one moment, and slaughter them the next. It takes a special type of person to do that.

Spare me your histronics and moralizing.
The Nazis built nothing, onlt killed.

The Nazis built plenty of stuff with slave labor by "subhumans," just like Columbus.

To equate that to the Spanish is an insult, and also incorrect.

Spare me your petty rationalizations. Genocide is genocide.

Yes, they were wildmen.
You are read on the participents, as I am, so you know this is bull, so we will move on.

What's bull? That the destruction of Fort Navidad was in response to a raid by the Spanish, raping and enslaving women and children? Do you want a source?

I love how you love to call anything a white man does "atrocities", but then you claim the natives were peaceful little sweetharts, happily living in nature untill the evil whites arrive.
What your doing is called revisionist history, with a healthy dose of racism, and I'll have no part of either.

Obviously, my posts are full of subliminal messages praising the Aztecs and Incas, and condemning every single European.

You really are full of it, aren't you?

I don't know where you're getting this from. On second thought, I do know - your ass.

but you forgot (conviently) to mention that the subject peoples lack clean hands as well.

Because it's difficult to make generalizations with so many groups of people, and to determine the criteria for clean hands. Do infrequent conflicts and little coercion make clean hands? It's completely subjective.

Yes, they wern't much for fighting, they were far more interested in class structure and slavery.
Clean hands, indeed.

Relative to genocide, absolutely!

Non-sense.
This answer shows a clear lack of understanding of pre-history human behavior.

Your answer shows monumental arrogance.

Tribal and clan warfare were rife in hunter-gatherer societies, and it just moved foward with time.
The "nobel savage" is a myth.

But h-g warfare was far less frequent and total than the civilized counterparts. Since there is no excess food in such societies, most people are involved in food prodcution, hence no professional soldiers. Furthermore, with no agriculture, land is not inherently valuable, and nothing to fight over.

There were slave raids at times, sure, but not that often. The capacity for warfare within such societies simply was not that great.

In sheer brutality, and evil intent, MOST Anerican cultures far surpass anything the Europeans were up to.

Evil intent? Evil according to whose standards? Is an act more evil if the person thinks God ordered it or if the person wants to acquire gold? This "evil intent" assertion sounds like crap, either way, to me.

And give me one example that's more brutal than Columbus' aforementioned tribute system.

Attempting to whitewash cultures that practiced canalbalism, human sacrifice, constant tribal warfare, scalping, murder of innocents, and many other matters is ridiculous and ultimetly futile.

IIRC, "scalping" was introduced by the French, and I'm not "whitewashing" anything.

This doesn't mean that the Europeans are free of guilt, but give up this crap that the natives were somehow morally superior, cause theu wern't.

Don't give me this crap that because the Arawaks had a social structure not unlike the Europeans, the Arawak slaves and peasants that Columbus mass-murdered weren't morally superior to him.

They just wern't up to the technical challenge, or they would have killed and enslaved the whites from accross the sea.
They wern't, so they lost.

I never wrote otherwise, though I don't know if they would've de-populated Iberia of its natives.

See Ramo, that's the problem you have with history, you are one-sided, always looking at the "poor oppressed', instead of attempting to see the whole picture.

Uh huh...

Spain was on the other end (vs the Moors) for centuries,

Spain didn't exist for centuries before Columbus, and when it did come into existence, Granada had but a foothold in the penninsula.

they were the backward and oppressed,

Which makes the innocent Iberians that were killed under Moorish rule morally superior to their murderers.

Which makes and when they triumped, they moved foward through the world, with the lessons they had been taught by their own foriegn invaders, that strength prevails in this world, not words.

And whether we like it or not, it is still that way.

Unfortunately true.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Ramo
Again, few people can give genuine praise to a people one moment, and slaughter them the next. It takes a special type of person to do that.

Yes, I'm sure.

The Nazis built plenty of stuff with slave labor by "subhumans," just like Columbus.

Non-sense, your bull isn't gonna fly, no matter how much you push it.

Spare me your petty rationalizations. Genocide is genocide.

So say all leftists when their assinine comments are shot to sh1t.

What's bull? That the destruction of Fort Navidad was in response to a raid by the Spanish, raping and enslaving women and children? Do you want a source?

Could that source possibly from the faction that was attempting to usurp Clolumbus, and eventually did?
Like the way you turned his son's comments on taxation into mass murder, Goebels would have been proud.

Obviously, my posts are full of subliminal messages praising the Aztecs and Incas, and condemning every single European.

First honest thing you wrote.

You really are full of it, aren't you?

No, That's your department, O king of spin doctoring.

I don't know where you're getting this from. On second thought, I do know - your ass.

Sorry, I don't use your sources.

Because it's difficult to make generalizations with so many groups of people, and to determine the criteria for clean hands.

Yet you manage to do it every single time you talk history.
"Mass-murder" is your personal shock favorite, i see.
You tried this fairey story before, with the Phillipennes in 1900, and were proven wrong.
The facts are simple, Spain was brutal, but no more so them the people they defeated.
When you satart to grasp that, you will give up these kid games of attempting to destort history to suit a "cause".

Do infrequent conflicts and little coercion make clean hands? It's completely subjective.

So says a spin doctor.
Wern't you insisting murder is murder a few paragrapghs ago?
Oh, I forgot, that only goes for whites.

Relative to genocide, absolutely!

Again with the big lie.
At no time did Spain order the murder of the indiginous population, no matter how bad you want that or try to twist it, you will never prove it, simply because it never happened.

Your answer shows monumental arrogance.

Actually, I grow weary at your repeated attempts to throw your politics into history, and the little distortions you stick in to make your answers seem reasonable.

But h-g warfare was far less frequent and total than the civilized counterparts.

Again the rationalization in the face of facts.
According to your own statements, killing is killing.
Well, which is it?

Since there is no excess food in such societies, most people are involved in food prodcution, hence no professional soldiers.

Actually, the men form up yearly and kill to obtain what others have worked for, just kill and steal it.
What wonderful societies there were, to bad Spain had to exist.

Furthermore, with no agriculture, land is not inherently valuable, and nothing to fight over.

If that statement is taken as true, then they kill for the fun of it.
See?
Your not objective, this last part by you is another white wash.

There were slave raids at times, sure, but not that often. The capacity for warfare within such societies simply was not that great.

It grew as they grew, the fact that they were half-assed at it obsolves them of nothing.
See your own bias?
According to you, it's either small, no big deal, not often...
excuse after excuse.

Evil intent? Evil according to whose standards? Is an act more evil if the person thinks God ordered it or if the person wants to acquire gold?

That the gods require you kick another human's head about in a game, and the loser will have his living heart cut out, perhaps.

This "evil intent" assertion sounds like crap, either way, to me.

As you just saw, attempts to play semantics runs both ways, whatever you accuse the Spanish of, the natives easily match.

And give me one example that's more brutal than Columbus' aforementioned tribute system.

Raiding villages and consuming the flesh of the defeated.

IIRC, "scalping" was introduced by the French, and I'm not "whitewashing" anything.

I'm not 100% on scalping, so I'll hand that over, as for whitewashing, it's all you have done here.

Don't give me this crap that because the Arawaks had a social structure not unlike the Europeans, the Arawak slaves and peasants that Columbus mass-murdered weren't morally superior to him.

I thought we wern't using morality standards.
You just said "By whose standards", yet here we see your standards are being used to measure whether slavery equates to your interpretation of Columbus' actions.
And I'm still waiting for proff of mass murder, you yourself, when quoting the son, added your own intrepretation of what the younger Columbus wrote about tax collection.

I never wrote otherwise, though I don't know if they would've de-populated Iberia of its natives.

Islam's method is assiliation through taxation, IE if your want to be non-muslim, fine, you must pay heavy taxes.
More clever and subtle then the Christian "kill them all, let god sort them out" method, but not any less reprehensible.

Uh huh...

Your never going to get past this till you address it.
Every thing you write has an underlying political agenda, and it permiates all you say.
I don't have an axe to grind, except to smash the PC crowd before the true past is destroyed through well-wishing and destortion.

Spain didn't exist for centuries before Columbus, and when it did come into existence, Granada had but a foothold in the penninsula.

Spain has existed since better then 1500BC, not as a single country, no, but as an ideal.
Ask people today if Spain is one nation, and you will quickly see there are Basques, Castilains, ect.

Which makes the innocent Iberians that were killed under Moorish rule morally superior to their murderers.

The whole point, is nobody is, your only attempting to take bits and pieces of history and isolate them, saying "he's this", "he did that", so therefore all of Spain is evil and guilty of mass-murder.

Unfortunately true.

All to true.
And untill you start viewing history objectivly, without your own personal morality and political agenda attached, you will keep falling into this pattern.

Are you aware that many Spanish people feel the intense hatred and racism directed at them by your PC bull sh1t even today?

I surely doubt it, they don't count, they are whites, decendents of "mass-murderers", afterall.

[Caligastia]

Nice going Chris!

I look forward toyour response Ramo.

[Ramo]

Like the way you turned his son's comments on taxation into mass murder, Goebels would have been proud.

How is it not mass-murder?! IIRC, ~10000 Arawaks died in this manner in the relatively short period this system was in effect.

You tried this fairey story before, with the Phillipennes in 1900, and were proven wrong.

When did you "prove" me wrong, exactly?

When an army burns villages, reconcentrates people, and destroys food supplies, leaving innocent civilians to die from disease and starvation, which is what happened in the Abra province, that's murder, no two ways about.

The facts are simple, Spain was brutal, but no more so them the people they defeated.

The facts that the Arawaks and countless other Amerindian cultures didn't match the brutality of the Spanish gov't.

When you satart to grasp that, you will give up these kid games of attempting to destort history to suit a "cause".

Tell me, what "cause" does my argument support, exactly?

So says a spin doctor.
Wern't you insisting murder is murder a few paragrapghs ago?
Oh, I forgot, that only goes for whites.

Fecking rediculous!

You were honestly asking me to provide you a perfect culture that has never committed any act of violence?! OF COURSE one has never existed! I assumed you were trying to be somewhat reasonable.

Again with the big lie.
At no time did Spain order the murder of the indiginous population, no matter how bad you want that or try to twist it, you will never prove it, simply because it never happened.

Columbus, Governor of Hispaniola, with explicit authority over the land, ordered the tribute system! He was part of the Spanish gov't, whether you acknowledge it or not.

Actually, I grow weary at your repeated attempts to throw your politics into history, and the little distortions you stick in to make your answers seem reasonable.

And I grow weary of your repeated attempts at revealing racist/political/whatever biases when none exist.

Again the rationalization in the face of facts.
According to your own statements, killing is killing.
Well, which is it?

You were giving me a bull**** question, and accuse me of racism when I try to respond to it reasonably.

Actually, the men form up yearly and kill to obtain what others have worked for, just kill and steal it.

Which is true for all hunter-gatherer societies. That's an incredible generalization!

If that statement is taken as true, then they kill for the fun of it.
See?
Your not objective, this last part by you is another white wash.

No, they warred for rapine, as I pointed to in the next statement.

It grew as they grew, the fact that they were half-assed at it obsolves them of nothing.
See your own bias?

According to you, it's either small, no big deal, not often...
excuse after excuse.

I'm not absolving anyone of anything! I'm just saying that magnitude matters. It's a simple concept that most people agree with - two murders are worse than one!

That the gods require you kick another human's head about in a game, and the loser will have his living heart cut out, perhaps.

What's your point? Why is a more flashy murder more "evil" than a less flashy murder?

As you just saw, attempts to play semantics runs both ways, whatever you accuse the Spanish of, the natives easily match.

Again, the Amerindians cannot begin to match many Spanish acts of violence in magnitude.

Raiding villages and consuming the flesh of the defeated.

Murder is more brutal if the killed is consumed? Columbus' system certainly brought in more deaths in less time, so I would say it's quite a bit more brutal.

I thought we wern't using morality standards.

My criteria has to do with the magnitude of the act of coercion, much simpler than this "intent" and "brutality" criteria you've come up with.

You just said "By whose standards", yet here we see your standards are being used to measure whether slavery equates to your interpretation of Columbus' actions.

Both societies practiced slavery, although the Spanish colonial system was quite a bit more brutal (again, leading to the total elimination of natives in Hispaniola). But that's irrelevant; we're comparing Columbus and the people he killed, not their respective states.

And I'm still waiting for proff of mass murder, you yourself, when quoting the son, added your own intrepretation of what the younger Columbus wrote about tax collection.

What interpretation? The punishment? That's been stated by the younger Columbus (excluding the bleed to death part, obviously - that was from Las Casas).

Of course, "PC" "leftist" historians have rewritten Las Casas' works into something else, right?

Islam's method is assiliation through taxation, IE if your want to be non-muslim, fine, you must pay heavy taxes.
More clever and subtle then the Christian "kill them all, let god sort them out" method, but not any less reprehensible.

I think murder is more reprehensible than theft.

But I was referring to the Arawaks, not the Moors, in this context.

Your never going to get past this till you address it.
Every thing you write has an underlying political agenda, and it permiates all you say.
I don't have an axe to grind, except to smash the PC crowd before the true past is destroyed through well-wishing and destortion.

Your "PC" bull**** permeates everything you've written in response to me. Because I criticize Columbus, apparantly I'm criticizing every single Spaniard who has ever lived; every person with a white skin, in fact.

The whole point, is nobody is, your only attempting to take bits and pieces of history and isolate them, saying "he's this", "he did that", so therefore all of Spain is evil and guilty of mass-murder.

You sanctimonious *****!

I was only referring to Columbus, and his henchman. You have always been looping Spain into the argument!

All to true.
And untill you start viewing history objectivly, without your own personal morality and political agenda attached, you will keep falling into this pattern.

Are you aware that many Spanish people feel the intense hatred and racism directed at them by your PC bull sh1t even today?

I surely doubt it, they don't count, they are whites, decendents of "mass-murderers", afterall.

I really don't give a **** about you and your hypocritical "PC" crusade, but I'm sure that most Spaniards have enough brain cells to realize that sharing one's nationality with a murderer doesn't make one a murderer.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Ramo
How is it not mass-murder?! IIRC, ~10000 Arawaks died in this manner in the relatively short period this system was in effect.

So far, we have your word on that.

When did you "prove" me wrong, exactly?

When I told you to put up a source that was respected by historians, not a mouthpiece for leftist bullsh1t.

When an army burns villages, reconcentrates people, and destroys food supplies, leaving innocent civilians to die from disease and starvation, which is what happened in the Abra province, that's murder, no two ways about.

Non-sense.
Going to go back to your "Hundreds of thousands' quote?
Now we are in a single province.
Notice how your statements altered to fit you agenda again?

The facts that the Arawaks and countless other Amerindian cultures didn't match the brutality of the Spanish gov't.

Oh, so now it's the Spanish government.
Before it was Columbus.
Who will it be tomorrow, Goerge W?

Tell me, what "cause" does my argument support, exactly?

Your a self proclaimed anachist (unless you are claiming you have yet changed again), anything against organized government supports your tripe.

Fecking rediculous!
You were honestly asking me to provide you a perfect culture that has never committed any act of violence?! OF COURSE one has never existed! I assumed you were trying to be somewhat reasonable.

I am always resonable.
I have been trying to show you that applying your morality selectivly to past events is useless and ultimitly futile.

Columbus, Governor of Hispaniola, with explicit authority over the land, ordered the tribute system! He was part of the Spanish gov't, whether you acknowledge it or not.

He ordered taxes, and set forth a punishment for payment failure, as men have done since the first coin was made.
Attempting to inject your own morality again here.

And I grow weary of your repeated attempts at revealing racist/political/whatever biases when none exist.

So you say, and yet I see this pattern of yours over and over, yet it's my imagination.

You were giving me a bull**** question, and accuse me of racism when I try to respond to it reasonably.

I'm attempting to get you to end this seemingly endless quest to vilify people of the past, by telling you over and over, all humans are flawed, that selectivly attacking this or that is pointless.

Which is true for all hunter-gatherer societies. That's an incredible generalization!

And one which antropologists and historians both agree on, except for the lunitic fringe.

No, they warred for rapine, as I pointed to in the next statement.

I'm sure

I'm not absolving anyone of anything! I'm just saying that magnitude matters. It's a simple concept that most people agree with - two murders are worse than one!

So if i kill you, yet someone else kills my whole family, I'm OK because it's "the lesser of two evils".

What's your point? Why is a more flashy murder more "evil" than a less flashy murder?

You won't make the conection, the Spanish won't kill you if you pay taxes, but the inverse isn't true.

Again, the Amerindians cannot begin to match many Spanish acts of violence in magnitude.

Not for lack of trying, only because the Spanish had technical edges.
If the roles were reversed, the results would be the same, or worse.

Murder is more brutal if the killed is consumed? Columbus' system certainly brought in more deaths in less time, so I would say it's quite a bit more brutal.

Non-sense.
If you can't see where taxation vs cannibalism is not a equal, that consuming the flesh of humans isn't the most vile and reprehensible act possible, you are truly beyound hope moraly and intelectually.

My criteria has to do with the magnitude of the act of coercion, much simpler than this "intent" and "brutality" criteria you've come up with.

So to you, killing someone for a snack (them) is OK, just don't ask for gold.

Both societies practiced slavery, although the Spanish colonial system was quite a bit more brutal (again, leading to the total elimination of natives in Hispaniola). But that's irrelevant; we're comparing Columbus and the people he killed, not their respective states.

Again, a rationalization.
The natives did it, but it wasn't as bad...

Even today, people who don't pay taxes are criminals, plain and simple.
Your "murder" argument doesn't hold water.

What interpretation? The punishment? That's been stated by the younger Columbus (excluding the bleed to death part, obviously - that was from Las Casas).
Of course, "PC" "leftist" historians have rewritten Las Casas' works into something else, right?

He was writing of the punishment given to criminals who don't pay taxes.
Your equating that with your "mass murder" thesis.

I think murder is more reprehensible than theft.
But I was referring to the Arawaks, not the Moors, in this context.

I would tend to agree on that point.

Your "PC" bull**** permeates everything you've written in response to me. Because I criticize Columbus, apparantly I'm criticizing every single Spaniard who has ever lived; every person with a white skin, in fact.

Never have been, never will be.
The fact that you can't fool me disturbs you, doesn't it?
Look back at your own statements, you freely interchange Columbus and Spanish government throughout.

You sanctimonious *****!

Keep your head in debate, boy.
This serves no purpose.

I was only referring to Columbus, and his henchman. You have always been looping Spain into the argument!

Oh, those spinning wheels.
If this is the case, why did you say "Spanish government" throughout your posts?
Sure sounds like Spain to me.

I really don't give a **** about you and your hypocritical "PC" crusade, but I'm sure that most Spaniards have enough brain cells to realize that sharing one's nationality with a murderer doesn't make one a murderer.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Hypocritical.

What a laugh.

You should talk with people from Spain on occausion, as I was when posting parts of this, and we would see what they think of your so called "neutral" position.
Then, my lad, you would learn whom is viewed in a hypocritical fashion, and it's not yours truly.

They celebrate Columbus day because it is a great moment in history, as well as a matter of pride in an achievement carried out by an Italian navigator in their nation's behalf, by it's people, paid for in spanish coin and with spanish blood, and people like you would have then lower their heads in shame, because a modern man equates his morality on the actions of five centuries ago as unsatisfactory in his opinion.

What a boat load of politically correct Horsesh1t.

[kIndal]

Why are there people that when are bored just start to insult to Spanish? why not English, Mongols, French, Americans or every other nation??no one is free of murderers or exterminations,NO ONE!!!! but always Spanish, please the time of the Black Legend finished some time ago so dont think as a person from 500 years ago or just will become a fanatic.

I believe that this thread was about Twin Towers

[jasev]

I thing I'm going to write a book about english atrocities in America, including those in the discovery ages. Maybe then people outseas forget about black legend and stop judging our 16th century acts with 20th century criteria. Oh well, maybe not.

Columbus was just a man: not a monster. He was rapacious, nepotist and a lot of things... but he was also a great sailor, a visionary with a lot of bravery and a good leader. And not an indian exterminator. I must say that he wasn't a good polititian so his enemies spread a lot of lies (and many true things) about him that made him fall in disgrace, returning to spain charged of chains and dieing in the most extreme poverty.
I want to recommend you a book by Consuelo Varela, one of the biggest authorities about Columbus in the world (and a friend of mine ): "Columbus: portrait of a man". I don't know if it has been translated into english, but it can be found in spanish (the US congress library has it).

Originally posted by Ramo
Which makes the innocent Iberians that were killed under Moorish rule morally superior to their murderers.

This assert proves you don't know anything at all about spanish history.

The facts that the Arawaks and countless other Amerindian cultures didn't match the brutality of the Spanish gov't.

This one proves you don't know anything about Caribbean history. The Carib indians (not arawaks, as Chris seems to think) invaded the enemy villages, killed the men, ate their flesh (and yes, that was REALLY brutal) and took their women to make new peaceful Caribs born. And the end of many local sports were really interesting (killing the losers).

But the SS of the Third Reich were men of their times, right? They weren't murderers, just a little misguided. Their morality was different from ours, therefore, their actions should be trivialized.

I will say nothing about this (poor try of) sarcastic comment. Second thougnt, I'll say something: It sucks. Comparing Columbus with Himmler...

I don't know where you're getting this from. On second thought, I do know - your ass.

This one proves you don't feel respect for those who disagree with you. I think somebody should report it to a moderator.

By the way, I wish to say that Chris hasen't been a model of political correction too, and his opinions about the "leftists" are too despective. Men, please keep the level a little higher.

[chequita guevara]

You're mixing the arguments of two people.

[Caligastia]

Your turn again Ramo.