Columbus statue covered up in LA, Columbus Day removed and replaced by Indiginous Peoples Day

[lfd0311]

The next thing you're going to say is that Thanksgiving is actually a legit holiday.

Yay the destruction of indigenous people!

*sarcasm*

on a scale of 1-10, how butt hurt are you by history?

 

[Rod1]

What is a hipster to do?

https://newrepublic.com/article/112574/howard-zinns-influential-mutilations-american-history

As a faculty brat in those years, I was doubly enamored of Zinn after a classmate gave me A People’s History of the United States, his now-famous victims’-eye panorama of the American experience. In my adolescent rebelliousness, I thrilled to Zinn’s deflation of what he presented as the myths of standard-issue history. Do you know that the Declaration of Independence charged King George with fomenting slave rebellions and attacks from “merciless Indian Savages”? That James Polk started a war with Mexico as a pretext for annexing California? That Eugene Debs was jailed for calling World War I a war of conquest and plunder? Perhaps you do, if you are moderately well-read in American history. And if you are very well-read, you also know that these statements themselves are problematic simplifications. But like most sixteen-year-olds, I didn’t know any of this. Mischievously—subversively—A People’s History whispered that everything I had learned in school was a sugar-coated fairy tale, if not a deliberate lie. Now I knew.

What I didn’t realize was that the orthodox version of the American past that Howard Zinn spent his life debunking was by the 1980s no longer quite as hegemonic as Zinn made out. Even my high school history teacher marked Columbus Day by explaining that the celebrated “discoverer” of America had plundered Hispaniola for its gold and that, in acts of barbarism that would later be classified as genocide, Columbus’s men had butchered the native Arawaks, slicing off limbs for sport and turning their scrotums into change-purses. (This last detail stuck vividly in the teenage mind.) That Mr. MacDougall was conversant with radical scholarship such as Zinn’s suggests that much had changed from the days when Zinn himself had imbibed uncritical schoolbook accounts of the American story. True, in the popular books and public ceremonies of the 1980s, you could still find a whitewashed tale of the nation’s past, as you can today; and many cities around the country shielded their charges from such heresies. But as far as historians were concerned, the sacred cows that Howard Zinn was purporting to gore had already been slaughtered many times. As Jon Wiener noted in the Journal of American History, “during the early seventies … of all the changes in the profession, the institutionalization of radical history was the most remarkable.”

It is no secret that the radical historians of the 1960s—and more basically, the infusion of that decade’s fiercely questioning spirit into intellectual life—transformed historical inquiry. Almost half a century has now passed since a new tide of work upended interpretations of subjects from the Civil War to the Cold War and legitimized whole fields of research, notably Afro-American history and women’s history. In short order, these new fields and frameworks became central to the discipline. This mainstreaming of radical history owes more to the flow of deep currents of academic thought than it does to the person of Howard Zinn. But Zinn deserves a share of responsibility. As Martin Duberman notes in his interesting but flawed biography of Zinn, A People’s History of the United States has long been a publishing sensation, having sold more than two million copies in thirty-plus years, and its transgressive vapors still beguile young minds. To be sure, when they get to college, many of these students continue to read books, including works of history. And some of them come to realize that Zinn’s famous book is—for reasons that Duberman admirably makes clear—a pretty lousy piece of work.

Whats the point here? these things happened but they got sensationalized in a book therefore they dont matter?

 

[goldennirvana]

The next thing you're going to say is that Thanksgiving is actually a legit holiday.

Yay the destruction of indigenous people!

*sarcasm*

Thanksgiving has nothing to do with celebrating the destruction of anyone. Saying Thanksgiving is a legitimate holiday isn't a ridiculous statement. You're really floundering all over the place, buddeh.

 

[Slick_36]

It wasn't just the US. It was an attack from an ideological perspective on the West in general, and it started with an attack on the education system.

Well that changes everything.

 

[Teppodama]

Your trolling missing the point.

I would agree that all statues and monuments and public icons that are proven to be misrepresented and which were historical inaccurate should be torn down.

Why would anyone be of the view that just because its been around a while we should ignore the truth and keep it out of some form of misplaced nostalgia?

Right or wrong, everyone will find a reason to be offended or pissed off. You don't like Columbus, so you say screw'em. Italian Americans often do appreciate him to some degree so they get pissed off when you deface his statuary etc... Two pissed off groups of people. So, screw it all together and do away with it all.

It's a case of your judgement based on your feelings trampling on their judgement and feelings. But this isn't about real equality of outcome. It's about YOUR outcome over anyone else's so once again, get rid of it all then everyone can be pissed and equal together.

 

[Shoot Boxe Hero]

Has this been going on for awhile or did it start today? Cause last week South Park made an episode on this exact thing and it would be absolutely hilarious if they just decided to do this after watching that episode

 

[Rod1]

Yes, thank you for quoting Howard Zinn. Did you even read my post? The man's a liar. His entire position is based off of something that Columbus was exonerated for while he was alive because it was preposterous. A half a million people? are you high? That's dozens and dozens of millions more people than even lived in the region at the time, you realize that right? And Columbus might have had 200 men. That's a BUNCH of killing for 200 dudes to do, especially when they weren't even there most of the time. You got conned. Congratulations for doubling down on that.

Columbus wasnt exonerated, he was pardoned.

 

[Slick_36]

Right or wrong, everyone will find a reason to be offended or pissed off. You don't like Columbus, so you say screw'em. Italian Americans often do appreciate him to some degree so they get pissed off when you deface his statuary etc... Two pissed off groups of people. So, screw it all together and do away with it all.

It's a case of your judgement based on your feelings trampling on their judgement and feelings. But this isn't about real equality of outcome. It's about YOUR outcome over anyone else's so once again, get rid of it all then everyone can be pissed and equal together.

For someone who has recently complained about things being overly politicized, you sure do find yourself in a lot of these threads and on a certain side. Weird...

 

[Teppodama]

For someone who has recently complained about things being overly politicized, you sure do find yourself in a lot of these threads and on a certain side. Weird...

Yeah, the side of people awfully tired of the social revolution bullshit. What I find weird is you even caring.

 

[lfd0311]

What is a hipster to do?

https://newrepublic.com/article/112574/howard-zinns-influential-mutilations-american-history

As a faculty brat in those years, I was doubly enamored of Zinn after a classmate gave me A People’s History of the United States, his now-famous victims’-eye panorama of the American experience. In my adolescent rebelliousness, I thrilled to Zinn’s deflation of what he presented as the myths of standard-issue history. Do you know that the Declaration of Independence charged King George with fomenting slave rebellions and attacks from “merciless Indian Savages”? That James Polk started a war with Mexico as a pretext for annexing California? That Eugene Debs was jailed for calling World War I a war of conquest and plunder? Perhaps you do, if you are moderately well-read in American history. And if you are very well-read, you also know that these statements themselves are problematic simplifications. But like most sixteen-year-olds, I didn’t know any of this. Mischievously—subversively—A People’s History whispered that everything I had learned in school was a sugar-coated fairy tale, if not a deliberate lie. Now I knew.

What I didn’t realize was that the orthodox version of the American past that Howard Zinn spent his life debunking was by the 1980s no longer quite as hegemonic as Zinn made out. Even my high school history teacher marked Columbus Day by explaining that the celebrated “discoverer” of America had plundered Hispaniola for its gold and that, in acts of barbarism that would later be classified as genocide, Columbus’s men had butchered the native Arawaks, slicing off limbs for sport and turning their scrotums into change-purses. (This last detail stuck vividly in the teenage mind.) That Mr. MacDougall was conversant with radical scholarship such as Zinn’s suggests that much had changed from the days when Zinn himself had imbibed uncritical schoolbook accounts of the American story. True, in the popular books and public ceremonies of the 1980s, you could still find a whitewashed tale of the nation’s past, as you can today; and many cities around the country shielded their charges from such heresies. But as far as historians were concerned, the sacred cows that Howard Zinn was purporting to gore had already been slaughtered many times. As Jon Wiener noted in the Journal of American History, “during the early seventies … of all the changes in the profession, the institutionalization of radical history was the most remarkable.”

It is no secret that the radical historians of the 1960s—and more basically, the infusion of that decade’s fiercely questioning spirit into intellectual life—transformed historical inquiry. Almost half a century has now passed since a new tide of work upended interpretations of subjects from the Civil War to the Cold War and legitimized whole fields of research, notably Afro-American history and women’s history. In short order, these new fields and frameworks became central to the discipline. This mainstreaming of radical history owes more to the flow of deep currents of academic thought than it does to the person of Howard Zinn. But Zinn deserves a share of responsibility. As Martin Duberman notes in his interesting but flawed biography of Zinn, A People’s History of the United States has long been a publishing sensation, having sold more than two million copies in thirty-plus years, and its transgressive vapors still beguile young minds. To be sure, when they get to college, many of these students continue to read books, including works of history. And some of them come to realize that Zinn’s famous book is—for reasons that Duberman admirably makes clear—a pretty lousy piece of work.

This in my opinion is the best article ever written on Zinn:

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1493

“Objectivity is impossible,” Zinn once remarked, “and it is also undesirable. That is, if it were possible it would be undesirable, because if you have any kind of a social aim, if you think history should serve society in some way; should serve the progress of the human race; should serve justice in some way, then it requires that you make your selection on the basis of what you think will advance causes of humanity.”

History serving “a social aim” other than the preservation or interpretation of a historical record is precisely what we get in A People’s History of the United States. Howard Zinn’s 776 page tome, which after selling more than a million copies, has been recently re-released in a hardback edition.

Ah. Of course. History is actually ment to serve a social aim. It's meant to be manipulated and twisted to fit your agenda and not to be objectively and honestly recorded for posterity.

The book is deemed to be so crucial to the development of young minds by some academics that a course at Evergreen State decreed: “This is an advanced class and all students should have read Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States before the first day of class, to give us a common background to begin the class.”

And what “common background” might that be?

Through Zinn’s looking-glass, Maoist China, site of history’s bloodiest state-sponsored killings, becomes “the closest thing, in the long history of that ancient country, to a people’s government, independent of outside control.” The authoritarian Nicaraguan Sandinistas were “welcomed” by their own people, while the opposition Contras, who backed the candidate that triumphed when free elections were finally held, were a “terrorist group” that “seemed to have no popular support inside Nicaragua.” Castro’s Cuba, readers learn, “had no bloody record of suppression.”

The recently released updated edition continues to be plagued with inaccuracies and poor judgment. The added sections on the Clinton years, the 2000 election, and 9/11 bear little resemblance to the reality his current readers have lived through.

And this here is the key. I challenge any of you goofballs who are touting this work as some piece of actual, objective history to go an read Zinn's interpretations of events that have taken place of the last 25 years and see the utter bullshit light they are presented in. I bet none of you have the courage to actually do that.

 

[lfd0311]

Yet he dies poor because said land is devoid of any riches whatsoever and cant pay back his debtors.

Because they stripped him of his title as a way to avoid paying him. Are we doing this again today, Rod?

 

[lfd0311]

Whats the point here? these things happened but they got sensationalized in a book therefore they dont matter?

The point is that they didn't happen, Rod. Jesus Christ. Read.

 

[Slick_36]

Yeah, the side of people awfully tired of the social revolution bullshit. What I find weird is you even carrying.

No, you were complaining saying that you wished you could escape people making statements either way politically. But I only see you post in threads like this taking a certain side. It really looks like you're incapable of being honest about what you actually think and feel, hiding behind a facade of impartiality.

 

[lfd0311]

Columbus wasnt exonerated, he was pardoned.

No, he was exonerated. This happened between his third and fourth crown sponsored voyages to the New World.

 

[BEER]

Alright, you bunch of goofballs, I see it is once again that time of year where I have to educate you all once again as to the real story of Cristobal Columbo, AKA Christopher Columbus. The modern story of Christopher Columbus as it is told, the story of genocide and what not, comes entirely for Howard Zinn, who on top of being a huge Liberal is a massive and well documented liar. Zinn's entire account of the Columbus tale not only incorrectly claims that Columbus was responsible for committing genoicide on the Taino and exterminating them from the earth (despite the fact that they still exist all across South America today) but tells the story that this was the only tribe that Columbus encountered. This is not true. Columbus dealt with at least 3 tribes of Natives in Haiti, the Arawaks, the Taino and the Carib. The Carib and the Taino were the ones dealt with the most, as the Taino where seen by Columbus and his men as wealthy and properous, and the Carib constantly attacked them and more than likely engaged in Cannibalism. Early on in their interactions Columbus and his men essentially served as muscle for the Taino as they fought against the Carib, and the absolutely enslaved natives and put them to work in the mines. The natives they enslaved were Carib and Arawaks captured in fights against the Taino. The claim that he and his men killed millions of people is beyond preposterous. He never had more than a few hundred soldiers, if that, with him at any given time. Secondly, Columbus had a Priest with him during his second voyage and afterward named Bartolome De Las Casas. De Las Casas was one of the main witnesses against Columbus when he was eventually put on trial later in his life for the very same crimes that Zinn is accusing him of today. One of the main pieces of evidence against him was a "secret" journal that De Las Casas had taken of Columbus' that he sent back to Spain along with other reports on the situation in Haiti about the crfimes Columbus was allegedly committing. This Journal was the basis for much almost all of Zinn's work. Just a slight problem though. The journal was written in beautiful hand writing, in gramatically perfect Latin and Greek. Columbus, however was an unducated peasant who could barely write legibly in Italian or Spanish, the only two languages that he spoke. Columbus was exonerated for the crimes that he is still accused of to this day by people like Zinn WHILE HE WAS STILL ALIVE IN THE LATE 1400S.

Now, let's address the silly "He got lost going to India" line of thinking. This is just as absurd. Columbus grew up in Genoa, at the time the single most important port city in the world. He was a cartographer's assistant at 14, during a time when maps where used as currency. He would have grown up making maps from around the world, and had access to all of the knowledge within. By his mid 20s he was at sea and his late 20s the capitan of his own ship that had made at least 2 trips to Iceland, the place that just so happens to be the home of Lief Erickson. People don't seem to realize that amongst seafareing peoples the fact that there was land far away to the West was a commonly accepted fact for roughly 500 years by the time Columbus came around. What Columbus did was con Spain into agreeing to name him the Duke of any previously undiscovered lands that he may encounter on his way West with rights to profits from trade and title to descend through his hiers for ever. The rest is history. That's the real story of Columbus, glad I could be of help.

I'm not reading that shit

 

[Liquid Smoke]

Think about the guys who worked on Columbus' crew. They agreed to spend months doing back breaking labor under miserable conditions with no guarantee that they'd even live. Can you imagine how shitty their lives at home must have been for them to agree to do that? Instead of painting these people as a bunch of big meanies maybe we should consider the fact that 500 years ago life was no picnic for anybody.

 

[lfd0311]

I'm not reading that shit

I mean, why would you want to learn something when you can just keep ignorantly virtue signaling, right?

 

[ALE]

You should all thank mr colombo. Every nation on this earth was made with blood, no one made nations singing and dancing. Pussies

 

[Diamond Jim]

Skilled navigator for the guy who had no clue where he was.

 

[Rod1]

Because they stripped him of his title as a way to avoid paying him. Are we doing this again today, Rod?

Because the islands were devoid of valuable riches, so he had to turn to brutality in order to extract some sort of wealth from it.