Historical or political correctness?

[Ramo]

I did it again; I totally butchered the quotes.

[Ramo]

This is the last time - I hope.

So far, we have your word on that.

I'm still looking through my sources, but no doubt it was large. Las Casas' works can attest to that.

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

Provincial Pacification in the Philippines, 1900-1901: The First District Department of Northern Luzon, by Brian M. Linn
Military Affairs © 1987 Society for Military History

http://www.jstor.org/view/00263931/di962741/96p0003r/0?currentResult=00263931%2bdi962741%2b96p0003r%2b0%2c01%2b19870400%2b9995%2b80129599&psearchExp=&searchID=cc99331a.10114981220&nextHit=01&sortOrder=SCORE&viewContent=Article&config=jstor&frame=noframe&userID=80537033@utexas.edu/01cc99331a0050598718&dpi=3&displayChunk=10

Better?

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?

*Shrug*
My access to historical academic journals is probably not as extensive as yours may be. I probably was mistaken in terms of numbers of deaths, but that doesn't make the concentration camps go away.

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

I mentioned the Spanish gov't because you did! I can't believe anyone can possibly be so dishonest! What did you intend for me to refer to when you made assertions regarding the Spanish gov't? The Martians?

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

I did not intend for it to be interpreted in that manner! The taxes were near-impossible to come up with wrt gold (there was little more than gold dust in the rivers), and it was a death sentence! That's why the system was instituted - the Spanish soldiers were unable to find vast stores of gold, and Columbus had to follow through with the promises he made in Toledo. It was also why the system was replaced by slavery - it didn't bring in enough returns.

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.

Again, you're seeing political bias where none exists.

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

Selective morality? More dishonesty.

Condemning Columbus as a mass murdurer is equivalent to condemning the Caribs as cannibals - realizing the truth.

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

The only thing you're "seeing" is the interior of your ass.

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.

I selectively attack false statements.

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

Population densities among hunter-gatherer cultures often cannot allow frequent warfare (though these cultures, tend to have higher homicide rates). Consider the Inuit or !kung, for instance.

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

thesis.

If the taxes are impossible pay, that's murder.

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

Come now. The disparities were certainly greater than a 4-1 ratio.

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

Eh? You're addressing my statement?

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

No, you're twisting what I wrote again - killing someone for a snack or for gold are morally equivalent.

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.

Speculation. There's no reason to think that the results wouldn't be approximately the same (not much worse or better).

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.

Coming from you, that's a compliment.

Sure, it's disgusting to me, sure it's an insult to the memory and family of the deceased in most cultures, but I don't consider it morally "wrong." Murder, I consider, wrong.

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

You were making the unfair comparison between simply Arawak slavery and Columbus' murders. The appropriate comparison would be Arawak and Columbus' encomienda system, which were both very bad, only one worse than another (which is an argument in your favor, yet you call it racism nevertheless ).

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

If the gov't kills me because I didn't hand over something I can't - like a billion dollars, that's certainly murder.

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 are a liar. Look over the first posts, and tell me who brought up the Spanish gov't first. I'll give you a hint - it's not me.

I brought up the Spanish gov't in response to your statements regarding Spain, in general.

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

Whereas calling me a racist does serve a purpose?

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

If Goebbels would be proud of my posts, he would be worshipping yours.

Shall we run through this thread?

My second post referred to the Spanish tribute system and the Spanish soldiers, yet the context was obvious - the tribute system Columbus ordered and the soldiers Columbus had jurisdiction over.

Your second post addressed to me:

"Show me one European colonial power or native tribe with clean hands and I'll change my opinion, not before."

My post responding to you has Spain or Spanish gov't how many times? That's right, none. I did refer to the colonial powers, but that was in response to this statement.
_____________________________

Your third post addressed to me:

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

"What your doing is called revisionist history, with a healthy dose of racism, and I'll have no part of either."
You call me a racist in response to my assertion regarding Columbus.

"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."

How many times did I refer to Spain or the Spanish gov't? That's right a big 0 number of times. I referred to Spanish raids, but obviously that's limited to Columbus' men stationed in Fort Navidad.

The next round of posts was similar; you refer to Spain, and I bring it up only in response to those statements.
____________________

In conclusion, you're a liar.

What a boat load of politically correct Horsesh1t.

Yep, that characterizes your posts!

And not an indian exterminator.

Are you aware of the aforementioned tribute system?

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).

I'll check it out ASAP.

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

This assertion proves you didn't read the sentence correctly. I didn't say murder was the official policy of the Moorish gov'ts; I said it did occur.

You accuse me of being too harsh on Islam, Chris asserts I'm too easy. Why can't you PC people get your stories straight?

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).

This, again, proves you're having problems with your reading skills. I didn't mention the Caribs, nor did I refer to all Amerindian cultures (only some).

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

I was naturally extending Chris' (and your) belief that murders should be dismissed if the murderers had a different morality than us.

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

Again, more reading problems.

I don't have any respect for Chris because he's a liar, calling me a racist (look at what I was quoting more carefully).

[Chris 62]

And the saga continues...

Originally posted by Ramo
I'm still looking through my sources, but no doubt it was large. Las Casas' works can attest to that.

If you had asked me from the start, I would have told you what killed the majority of the indigieous population, lqack of resistants to the diseases, like small pox, that were brought by the Spanish, not your ludicrous claim that Spain axed 10,000 arawaks! (And I see you like trying to call me liar, when in fact, that's your stock in trade. )

Provincial Pacification in the Philippines, 1900-1901: The First District Department of Northern Luzon, by Brian M. Linn
Military Affairs © 1987 Society for Military History
(Better?

Your link is restricted to your college account, and I'm not familiar with this work.

*Shrug*
My access to historical academic journals is probably not as extensive as yours may be. It's all I could find regarding the US-Philippines War.

Ramo, the problem is, many people today like to "add" little things, saying that the past is a not clean, so they add details they assume to be correct, and thus must be true.
This is a dangerous kind of history, and you yourself did it, making the jump from tax collecting to killing 10,000 Arawaks!
I had said what I meant, orginally, Caribs, you first brought up the peaceful slavers.

I mentioned the Spanish gov't because you did!

You freely moved back and forth, as it suited your argument.
Don't blame me that you were called on it.

I can't believe anyone can possibly be so dishonest!

Don't be so hard on yourself.

What did you intend for me to refer to when you made assertions regarding the Spanish gov't? The Martians?

You freely claimed Columbus was a mass murderer, then used the Spanish gov as example of policy.
If you didn't mean this, you must express yourself better, I'm not here to intrepret your meanings.

I did not intend for it to be interpreted in that manner!

All we can go by is what you write, so it's best to be clear and precise.

The taxes were near-impossible to come up with wrt gold (there was little more than gold dust in the rivers), and it was a death sentence!

In your opinion.
Your doing it again, moralizing.

That's why the system was instituted - the Spanish soldiers were unable to find vast stores of gold, and Columbus had to follow through with the promises he made in Toledo.

This statement infers that the Spanish government wants killings in place of gold, you just said you didn't mean that!

It was also why the system was replaced by slavery - it didn't bring in enough returns.

Isn't it true that Columbus was relieved of his command due to mis-management, and that in fact, many believe that the real reason was he was Italian, and resented by Spaniards, not some "mass-murder" matter, which the government in Spain wouldn't give a fig about?

Again, you're seeing political bias where none exists.

So you say, but your words say a different story.

Selective morality? More dishonesty.

Only on your part, young man.

Condemning Columbus as a mass murdurer is equivalent to condemning the Caribs as cannibals - the truth.

You still haven't, and never can, prove the charge of mass-murder on Columbus, nor has anything you have written changed the fact that he was a man of his time.

Yes it is.

So you again say, yet your actions speak volumes in the other direction.

I selectively attack false statements.

You could have a field day if you started with your own.

Population densities among hunter-gatherrer cultures often cannot allow warfare (though these cultures, tend to have higher homicide rates). Look at the Inuit or !kung, for instance.

Simply because people try to stay alive, it still changes nothing that our frozen friends may be an exception.
No axium is 100% in any matter.

If the taxes are impossible, that's murder.

Again, in your opinion, and by your morality.

Come now. The disparities were certainly greater than 4-1.

Rationalizing again.

Eh? You're addressing my statement?

Pointing out a pertinent fact.

No, killing someone for a snack or for gold are morally equivalent.

But this isn't the case, you just assume it's so.

Speculation. There's no reason to think that the results wouldn't be approximately the same (not much worse or better).

Speculation is your stock-in-trade, your whole assertion is based on it.

Coming from you, that's a compliment.

Like so many other things, you have this wrong also.

Sure, it's disgusting to me, sure it's an insult to the memory and family of the deceased in most cultures, but I don't consider it morally "wrong." Murder, I consider, wrong.

Man makes rules to govern himself, and to selectivly ignore or admonish one over another is wrong.
Next semester, take an ethics class, it should help you gain some understanding in these matters.

You were making the unfair comparison between simply Arawak slavery and Columbus' murders.

I have been trying all along to get you to see that the phrase "mass-murder" is incorrect and doesn't apply.

The appropriate comparison would be Arawak and Spanish slavery, which were both very bad, only one worse than another.

Yet another rationalization.
White slavery worse then native slavery.

If the gov't murders me because I didn't hand over something I can't - like a billion dollars, that's certainly murder.

You keep tripping over your own words.
You make a big point about your not condeming Spain, only Columbus, but here again, you say gov't!
Well?????

You are a liar.

Not at all, as your own posts have condemned you yet again.

Look over the first posts, and tell me who brought up Spain first. I'll give you a hint - it's not me.

I was speaking of the Caribs, you made the conection to the Arawks, your the one that says Columbus is a mass murderer, based on your morality, your the one that condemns the Spainish gov't (look above, that's your words, not mine), then insist it's not Spain you attack, your twists and turns are endless!

I brought up the Spanish gov't in response to your statements regarding Spain, in general.

You just contridicted your own statement above!

Whereas calling me a racist does serve a purpose?

Sometimes racism comes in subtle forms, you show it, by your refusal to treat cultrues equaly and equitably.
You continue to insist that the natives "aern't as bad", and so forth.
In other words, whether you realize it or not, your displaying racism, because you refuse to treat each culture equaly.

If Goebbels would be proud of my posts, he would be worshipping yours.

Only insofar as it makes you back pedal and insist different postions on the same issues from paragrapgh to paragrapgh, as you displayed over and over.

Shall we run through this thread

I can go post for post adnauism, and I can promise you, I will.

Your second post addressed to me:
"Why did the Spanish treat the natives this way?"
"Show me one European colonial power or native tribe with clean hands and I'll change my opinion, not before."

My post responding to you has Spain or Spanish gov't how many times? That's right, none. I did refer to the colonial powers, but that was in response to your second statement.

Your own words condemn you, look at your own posts for enlightenment.
I do admit, this attempt to wear me down in minutia is interesting, but, as you see, ultimitly futile.
Your third post addressed to me:

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

"What your doing is called revisionist history, with a healthy dose of racism, and I'll have no part of either."
You call me a racist in response to my assertion regarding Columbus.

"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."

How many times did I refer to Spain or the Spanish gov't? That's right a big 0 number of times. I referred to Spanish raids, but obviously that's limited to Columbus' men stationed in Fort Navidad.

You freely jumped your Columbus, to Spanish government, and back again, only now, when called on it, do you atempt to selectivly clarify it.

The next round of posts was similar; you refer to Spain, and I bring it up only in response to those statements.

Nice try at weasaling out of it, but like your original asertion, it doesn't hold water.

In conclusion, you're a liar.

The ultimate weapon of the clueless when caught BSing: Call people liars.
You can't run from your own posts, boy.
They are there for all to see.

Yep, that characterizes your posts!

Cute attempt at role-reversal, but like your other statements, it's a no-go.

I don't have any respect for Chris because he's a liar who called me a racist (look at what I was quoting more carefully).

That's fine with me, because all you have shown me is you know how to distort history and quote at of context, and when caught and trapped, you revert to mane calling and childishness.
When you grow up, in say 8-10 years, you may be worth talking to, but presently, your in the "cause of the month" club, one of the angry young men that has no idea why.

Respect from one such as you is neither saught or disired, only distained.

[Berzerker]

Jasev -

Not as a policy.

He didn't say "as a policy", only that the Moors murdered innocent Iberians (some, obviously).

They invaded the country (and, of course, in the battles many people died, it's the definition of war) and stayed here.

I call it murder when one group of people invades another people's lands and kill them for resisiting. "War" is a term best left for those who kill invaders in self-defense.

Well, if I'm not wrong, he talked about amerindian cultures, and I must say: the arawaks and any amazon tribes were probably the only "peaceful" nations (as a result of their lack of contact with other nations) in central and south america.

I doubt he generalized that all Indian cultures were "peaceful", but if he did, the generalization was obviously wrong. But we all know, as he undoubtedly does, that some were peaceful and some were violent. It seems the further west you went in N America, the more peaceful people became. I guess left coasters were laid back even then.

BTW, I may be confused, but can you remember what happened to the losers of a ball match in the Arawak culture?

I'm no Arawak scholar, but I imagine if the ball game had it's origin in C America with the Mayan ball game, the losers were often or occasionally sacrificed. But as I understand it, the Mayan games were played by volunteers and ballplayers were highly honored citizens (while they lasted, lol).

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Jasev -
I call it murder when one group of people invades another people's lands and kill them for resisiting. "War" is a term best left for those who kill invaders in self-defense.

Youre joking....right?

[jasev]

I have an idea! Let´s declare the war out of the law and judge every nation leader who invades the other one. But, what shall we do if he invaders win the war? Who'll caught them?

Originally posted by Berzerker
I call it murder when one group of people invades another people's lands and kill them for resisiting. "War" is a term best left for those who kill invaders in self-defense.

Well, if so, the moors killed not many native iberians, just visigoths who arrived 200 years before (and not peacefully, I can assure it to you) and stablished in the land as a minoritary dominant class.
And to call "murder" a battle like Guadalete (711, the only true battle in the whole conquest) with two complete armies in the battlefield... well, it sounds very strange to me. I don't like war, but to kill an armed enemy is not exactly the same as killing a peaceful peasant.

Originally posted by Ramo
You accuse me of being too harsh on Islam, Chris asserts I'm too easy. Why can't you PC people get your stories straight?

Because I'm not Chris's clone. And I disagree with him at many points, so I don't have to get my history straight with him.
But I didn't accuse you of being too harsh on Islam. I accused you of a great ignorance about spanish history. And after reading your post, I think I wasn't wrong.

Are you aware of the aforementioned tribute system?

Yes, but the fact of killing the men who didn't pay... sounds hard to believe. You find it in Las Casas "A brief introduction of the destruction of Las Indias", maybe?
But, as Chris said, the main cause of the almost extermination of the Arawaks were the diseases brought by the conquerors, not their swords. By the way, the Arawaks didn't disappeared, they mixed with the spanish and the black slaves and today there are still "Taínos" in Santo Domingo.

This, again, proves you're having problems with your reading skills. I didn't mention the Caribs, nor did I refer to all Amerindian cultures (only some).

Maybe, you shall note I'm reading and writing on a foreign language, and that's a handicap.
But, didn't you say "countless"? Well, I can count them: One, Arawaks (and I'm not sure if they deserve the "peaceful" definition). Can you name another american culture who contacted with spanish that can be called "peaceful"? The amazon tribes who lived under the portuguese influence sphere, maybe... but they never contacted the spanish conquerors.

Again, more reading problems.
I don't have any respect for Chris because he's a liar, calling me a racist (look at what I was quoting more carefully).

Not a reading problem, I'm afraid. I knew he called you racist, and I think you've a reason to feel offended. But talking about his ass is completely out of place. If not respect, please show a bit of education.

[Waku]

Bunch of hipocrytes!!!

US Army officer in the Philippines: “There is no use mincing words... We exterminated the American Indians and I guess most of us are proud of it...and we must have no scruples about extermination this other race standing in the way of progress and enlightenment, if it is necessary...”

[Thorgal]

JeJe, in USA they always have thought that the colonial powers are all Europeans. So religious country should read more the bible, you know: "Why do you see the speck in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?"

[Deity Dude]

What che and others fail to realize is that

ANYTIME ANYTHING IS DONE BECAUSE OF RACE --- IT IS RACIST

Changing the races of people in a photo is racist. Not allowing a white couple to adopt a non-white child, simply because of race, is racist. Lynching a black person because of the color of their skin is racist. The only true non-racist society is color blind one.

"Judge a man by the content of his character not the color of his skin" Martin Luther King. I think the same could be said of a photo and statue

By the way - How many of the firemen have brown hair and how many have blonde?

[Shaka Naldur]

i´m not even going to read this thread

i just wanted to say that i was glado to see the all spanish band here

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
What che and others fail to realize is that

ANYTIME ANYTHING IS DONE BECAUSE OF RACE --- IT IS RACIST

If that's your definition of racism, then it's meaningless. There are all kinds of arbitrary physical features that can be the reason anything is done. Racism is different. It is not merely differentiation by race, it is oppression based upon race. A racist act is one that furthers the goals of racial oppression. A racist thought or phrase is one that is a product of or furthering the goals of racism. So, thinking that Blacks are all ignorant is a racist thought. Thinking that Whoopie Goldberg would be a terrible choice for Buttercup in the Princess Bride because she is Black isn't racist (to use a real example).

[Deity Dude]

Che - you didnt understand what I said.

First of all my definition is not meaningless. What u have done is distort what I said.

"Thinking that all blacks are ignorant" would be racist because you have determined in your mind they are ignorant based on their race.

Your other example, Whoopi Goldberg, fits my definition - and this is where you fail or choose not to understand my definition.

To be an actress you need certain qualifications. One of those may be a likeness to the character you are supposed to play. In this situation Whoopi Goldberg does not possess one of the qualifications for the position. The decision is made based on qualifications not race. The outcome may fall along racial lines, but the decision isnt racist. Now on the other hand, if someone were to say, "we must give that part to Whoopi because we need more blacks and Whoopi is black" that would be racist because the decision would be based on race even though the outcome might provide for a more diverse cast.

What I should have said here and did in another post is:

ANYTIME A DECISION IS MADE BASED SOLELY ON RACE IT IS A RACIST DECISION.

By the way Che, if you got a better definition post it. I still stand by mine

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Deity Dude

To be an actress you need certain qualifications. One of those may be a likeness to the character you are supposed to play. In this situation Whoopi Goldberg does not possess one of the qualifications for the position. The decision is made based on qualifications not race. The outcome may fall along racial lines, but the decision isnt racist. Now on the other hand, if someone were to say, "we must give that part to Whoopi because we need more blacks and Whoopi is black" that would be racist because the decision would be based on race even though the outcome might provide for a more diverse cast.

So, if they cast a black person to improve the artistic value of the film, then this is a racist decision. But if they cast a black person in order to create a more marketable film for black audiences, then that is okay?

[Berzerker]

Caligasta -

Youre joking....right?

Nope. Can you address what I said or was this the extent of your thinking capacity?

jasev -

Well, if so, the moors killed not many native iberians, just visigoths who arrived 200 years before (and not peacefully, I can assure it to you) and stablished in the land as a minoritary dominant class.

Visigoths were native Iberians if they arrived 2 centuries before the Moors arrived. The fact we often apply different names to latecomers to reflect they are latecomers doesn't mean they aren't natives of the lands they were born in.

And to call "murder" a battle like Guadalete (711, the only true battle in the whole conquest) with two complete armies in the battlefield... well, it sounds very strange to me.

If you invade my land and try to murder me, it doesn't matter if you have an army with you and I hire an army to protect my land, it's still murder if you succeed.

I don't like war, but to kill an armed enemy is not exactly the same as killing a peaceful peasant.

If the armed enemy is protecting his land and family, there is no moral distinction between murdering him or a peaceful peasant.

Can you name another american culture who contacted with spanish that can be called "peaceful"?

Navaho (relatively peaceful), Hopi, Pueblo, and more down in Mexico.

[jasev]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Visigoths were native Iberians if they arrived 2 centuries before the Moors arrived. The fact we often apply different names to latecomers to reflect they are latecomers doesn't mean they aren't natives of the lands they were born in.

Maybe, but when they posess this land as a result of a former invasion and a racist polytical sistem, they lose many of their rights.

If you invade my land and try to murder me, it doesn't matter if you have an army with you and I hire an army to protect my land, it's still murder if you succeed.

I know my english is quite poor, but I'm sure I said moors didn't kill civilians. Those who didn't resist and accepted the new rule continued with their lives, changing visigoth taxes for muslim taxes.

The only people who lost with the moor invasion was the king and a part of the dirigent class. Under my point of view, the only murderers are those who send their men to battle only to protect their own privileges.

If the armed enemy is protecting his land and family, there is no moral distinction between murdering him or a peaceful peasant.

Protecting from who? As I said, those who didn't resist preserved their lives and posessions. They only changed the government.

War is part of the history, and maybe one of the engines that move it. And you can't judge the wars in the 8th century with a 22nd century morale.

Navaho (relatively peaceful), Hopi, Pueblo, and more down in Mexico.

Forgive my ignorance, but... what did we do to them? Did we almost exterminate them? I don't think so, it was US job.