Forums → WEPR → Was Europeans' treatment of Native Americans justified?

You forget that the Europeans brought medicine that prevented many from dieing from childhood illnesses, as they had previously done before.

On the essay you refer to me, most of those outrageous claims comes un-sourced. Horrible, childish, and un-academic.

You forget that the Europeans brought medicine that prevented many from dieing from childhood illnesses, as they had previously done before.

Read an unbiased book about him instead of watching animated short clips. Then come back and we'll talk.

[...] most of those outrageous claims comes un-sourced. Horrible, childish, and un-academic.

@Hahiha

The natives had their own medicine before, and the European medicine was still pretty bad at the time, too. The death toll among natives that followed the arrival of the Europeans speaks for itself.

The Europeans did not intend to kill the natives by spreading disease, it just happened.

but the facts remain. The sources are explicitly mentioned at the end, and I have mentioned it to you more than once.

Then let me say once again, only some of the stuff actually "quoted" in that "essay" comes from the sources. The other stuff is paraphrased and is the opinion of the author. In addition, the author did not explicitly denote what was quoted and what was not, instead using the legibility of the sources to cover the whole work.

@Fishpreferred

You neglect the fact that the only medicine effective against the illnesses brought by Europeans was invented 300 years too late.

I did not say the Europeans treated the diseases they brought, but that the Europeans treated some of the diseases that affected children.

1 You wanted sources. There they are.
2 I'm not interested in sifting through everything ever written on the subject just to find something you agree with. Do your own research and find whatever it is you perceive as an "unbiased book" about him, and name it.

1. As I mentioned before, the whole work is not sourced: it merely used one quote and used the source to cover the whole work.
2. For a online biography, try Britannica; for a book, read rds=paur:ClkAsKraX9QoPCzF4ZFblI6AzRxZwcuOH6PsxKc4zH98PXCocwuFsboPeUEKCnyWSRec__IExqILfuTWGzzwEsiMeVOv74jhU-1rqfWt99hkHmdn8FMUCQBY0BIZAFPVH71uXhfR6jfxFgicjLCuot4DTwpMVg&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOvaCnqczbAhULuFMKHfJGDD8Q8wIIoQM">Washington Irving's classic, or rds=paur:ClkAsKraXxSNPWAPxm4ytYbwh3vTcDGD3ieDo6iE8I2ARUuqln-A_g0NByQC3N8uioVXPiE2Nd0WFKBrWvRglJw1LiLlQHtUhujt6HD6FOJezBFXPvsxofpPKBIZAFPVH70ADhfFSeQo7C51kkvGlVDgU8VYRQ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjOxezvqczbAhXnzVkKHV4wBTcQ8wII0gM">this.

Coming from you, this is a remarkable irony.

I believe that you are misinformed and are making a mockery of a man who deserves to be remembered better.

Different website, same conclusions: Columbus enslaved and exploited the natives he came into contact with.

I want to make one thing clear about my argumentation: it is not my aim to make all Europeans look like monsters. I'm European and I can sleep at night. But I am also aware that many bad things were done by ruthless people, including but not limited to Columbus, who may have contributed in positive ways but also has done a lot of wrong even in the eyes of many of his contemporaries. History is never all good or all bad, so it is important to dig deeper and be aware of both sides. I say this without any hate or any kind of agenda: a lot of harm was done to American native populations by the hand of Europeans, intentionally and unintentionally. Recognition of this simple historical fact is important. No one is going to enact some obscure vengeance on us for that; all it takes is recognition, so that we may build on a peaceful future together, instead of throwing around accusations and denial.

Yeah, I know this last bit sounds cheesy. But it's true.

@Hahiha

Different website, same conclusions: Columbus enslaved and exploited the natives he came into contact with.

History.com is hardly a reliable source, triply so because they make money off producing sensationalist headlines and videos that people will pay to view.

including but not limited to Columbus, who may have contributed in positive ways but also has done a lot of wrong even in the eyes of many of his contemporaries.

While I readily admit the faults of his contemporaries, Columbus is not the tyrant exploiter you make him to be. Please read what I have reccomended.

This is certainly childish but I have no reason to consider your links any less biased than mine since you keep finding excuses.

The sources I am indicating at are not the websites themselves, but the primary sources they are based on. Historians have done research on those. I trust their informed research enough to believe, without having read the contemporary journals or eyewitness testimonies firsthand (have you?), that Columbus was a gold-hungry slaver and an exploiter. I have no guarantee that an online encyclopedia is complete, or that random books are unbiased.

I did not say the Europeans treated the diseases they brought, but that the Europeans treated some of the diseases that affected children.

1. As I mentioned before, the whole work is not sourced: it merely used one quote and used the source to cover the whole work.

2. For a online biography, try Britannica;

[...] for a book, read [...]this.

I believe that you are misinformed and are making a mockery of a man who deserves to be remembered better.

@Hahiha

This is certainly childish but I have no reason to consider your links any less biased than mine since you keep finding excuses.

Find a reputable author, doctor, or someone with a degree to back up your claims.

I trust their informed research enough to believe, without having read the contemporary journals or eyewitness testimonies firsthand (have you?), that Columbus was a gold-hungry slaver and an exploiter.

Yes, in the completion of my minor in liberal arts, I did study some of his works. He is not what you set him up to be.

So, what you're telling me is that you didn't even watch it.

I did watch it. Instead of formatting quotes like:
"quote"{source}
they just showed 'quotes' without sources right beside them.

You've cited a work of fiction by Washington Irving (author of Rip Van Winkle and The Legend of Sleepy Hollow).

lol, it's much better than anything you're ought to dig up. Anyway, I assumed it was your age level.

What you believe is of no relevance to me.

Uhm... then stop posting?

lol, it's much better than anything you're ought to dig up. Anyway, I assumed it was your age level.

@Hahiha, since you clamor for a reliable source and throw latin words at me, try
rds=paur:ClkAsKraX4lSuLL5mRpvlU_LQHrZAl0fSCWx6FFiGHnv0JsxsMvYrdRWVeRacXGy_vcaaddHRT2gs9JKivdaEF32zMGym9IZjJQ7pEVX5YLCHdHNyLpn9ws10RIZAFPVH72q2htiWLL2-yvR861LQG72xYy4dw&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiFs4j0g8_bAhVJ_IMKHUV4CC8Q8wII8wI">his Journal.

The search gave no results. Besides, I had already found a transcript of one of his journals before, remember? Can you point me to the section that would support your claims?

On your end, I want you to read this. This is talking about a 48-page historical report written by Francisco de Bobadilla while investigating in the name of the Spanish Crown on reports about Columbus' misdoings. Columbus lost governorship of Hispaniola and was imprisoned in Spain. He was later set free to continue exploring because he could convince the Queen that he was close to making a huge discovery, but mostly for strategic reasons because Spain wanted to win the race against the other European countries. All that and more can be found there. Have fun reading.

No. Columbus was wrongly imprisoned because Bobadilla was misinformed. A revolt had taken place in Hispaniola, and when Bobadilla was sent to quell it, he was misinformed by the rebels. When he reached Spain, he was immediately freed from his chains and shortly afterwards was kindly received by the monarchs. He did no misdoings, and none are recorded.

No. Columbus was wrongly imprisoned because Bobadilla was misinformed.

A revolt had taken place in Hispaniola,

and when Bobadilla was sent to quell it, he was misinformed by the rebels.

When he reached Spain, he was immediately freed from his chains and shortly afterwards was kindly received by the monarchs.

He did no misdoings, and none are recorded.

@Hahiha

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is your evidence that this was all a conspiracy?

The Life and Times of Columbus, Curtis International Portraits of Greatness. Page 56.

Also, Bobadilla was sent to investigate on accusations against Columbus, not to quell the revolt.

Source that.

Because the monarchs cared more for victory against Portugal than for some distant natives.

In that case, why had they even investigated Columbus?

Historical records say otherwise.

Since there are so many records that say otherwise, name one.

The Life and Times of Columbus, Curtis International Portraits of Greatness. Page 56.

Source that.

In that case, why had they even investigated Columbus?

Since there are so many records that say otherwise, name one.