Why do you allege that i think that's wrong? You have no basis for such a specious and scurrilous allegation.
You really lack a sense of proportion. You go to youtube, you suck up all this bullshit that people post, and apparently apply no judgment at all about the source. If people insist, i can give them a reference, or post a link to back up what i say. I am usually careful to state when i am giving an opinion or an interpretation. If someone calls me on what i write, i will either cite a source or acknowledge that i'm speculating.
This joker you've got here reminds me of Howard Zinn. There is some truth, a lot of half-truths which constitute distortions, and a pack of outright lies. For example, your boy here alleges things that are in Columbus' "diary" ([sic
]--he kept a journal of his voyages, which is not at all the same as a diary; you may think that's not an important point, but when people are careless of the small things, how reliable can we consider them about the big issue?) He says that "it says so right in his diary" that he enslaved people. Yes he did, but that's one of those truths allied to a half-truth which is a distortion. On his first voyage, he noted in his journal that the people he encountered, the Tiano, would make good servants. He said servants, not slaves. When he returned to Spain in 1493, he suggested taking these people to be "servants" to Spanish settlers. Isabella was already pissed that he had brought some of them back with him, apparently without their prior consent. She told him that it was also his duty to convert them to Christianity, and that if he had done so, he could not make slaves of them, and tanking them from their homes was effectively enslaving them.
On his second voyage, he made slaves of some of the people, and although the truth did not get back to Spain right away, when it did, he was in the deep ****.
I'm not going through this shithook's rant line by line, so forget that. Try this on for size:
I would not allow that person to purchase a squirt gun.
Do you understand why i'm pointing this out to you? This is not your average online exchange where you can't see or hear the other person. You can see this guy. You can see him getting hysterical and vilifying a man who was, essentially a failure by the end of his career, and who has been dead for 500 years. This guy is not a credible witness, he's not a trustworthy source. Howard Zinn was the same way. Truth--a lot of the Taino and Arawak died while employed by the Spanish. Converted into a half truth--the Spanish worked them to death, the truth being that they died, the lie being that they were worked to death--Zinn converts the truth to a lie. The Taino and the Arawak died of malaria, which the Spanish unknowingly brought from Italy. Spaniards who had not fought in Italy and who went out to the new colonies died of malaria, too. Zinn either didn't know that, or he suppressed that fact--in either case, he had no business calling himself an historian on that basis.
At least with Zinn, though, you can check his work. Although he wasn't very strong on citing his sources, you can still check what he does provide, and by looking at other sources, see what he's left out. With this ranting fool, you've got no way of checking his work. You can either swallow it whole (which seems to be your predilection), or you can come here, and expect us to do that for you.
You lack a sense of proportion, you lack discrimination, and you are woefully ignorant. There is a cure for that last condition, but i don't see any evidence that you're doing anything about that.