Should we Still Celebrate Columbus Day?

TonyRM: what YOU don't know about American history. You need to read about the French and Indian Wars and how white colonialists treated each other during the Revolution.

What was going on in Europe where, in England for example where hanging eight year olds for stealing loaves of bread went on till the mid 1800's, where given the choice of hanging or going to the colonies for seven years servitude, most chose to be hung? Incredible death and wars, the 100 Years War, the 30 Years War, the history of England fighting for territory in France for almost 700 years. Please.

You're saying we killed them for their own good, not for the land and the mineral wealth, right?

Absolutely right. Maybe he deserves fainter praise, it does mark for better or worse the start of modern history - the move past the first world. There's a large component of cautionary tale, also.

The natives was just as "bad" as the Europeans and was not a group of ideal societies and most of the lands that was taken by Europeans by force of arms have been fought over many times and taken in warfares long before 1492.

Read it again, TonyRM. He definitely argued that the west was won because indigenous tribes could not defend against guns, germs and steel. He definitely did not argue that indigenous killed each other off because they adapted guns, germs and steel.

I'd like you to explain how the indigenous with bows and arrows any more violent than Europeans with guns, germs and steel.

Didn't the title give you any hint?

great reads

Actully, Mann's books were 1491 and then 1493 , Bothe were lotsa facts but could have been written much more economically.

ha - I defaulted to reading that as 1491. I found it and the Diamond at a thrift. I'll have to look for 1493.

it was from 1493 that Mann gave one of his best lines when he described the Columbian Exchange as
"Reweaving the torn fabric of Pangea"
Ive glommed that line for several talks on the worldwide metals industry

Once more who said they was killing each other due to their access to metal weapons they had a long history, thousands of years, or killing each other in the new world long before they had such access to such weapons.

They was no worst and no better then the Europeans as far as warfare and killings are concern and seizing other groups lands and resources.

The only difference was that the Europeans was better at warfare and have better tools/weapons.

Diamond's book is badly flawed. It doesn't take into account, for example, the Chinese who had "guns, germs and steel," and still succumbed to the Europeans. In fact, the Chinese invented gunpowder, but failed effectively to exploit it. Influenza comes from domestic fowl, and the Chinese first domesticated the chicken. Additionally, Diamond fails to take into account the many times Europeans failed to conquer, or even to overawe the local inhabitants of this or that shore which they visited. In fact, his specific claims, and his general claim, are specious because they rely on generalizations which don't stand up to close scrutiny, and because they ignore specific, individual conditions which applied to various instances of European dominance of the locals.

Time and again, native armies proved to be a match for European armies. Their weapons, being adapted to their conditions, were as good or better than European weapons. Magellan's one military adventure cost him his life because he didn't listen to his indigenous allies. Prince Henry the Navigator first sent military expeditions to Morocco--but having his military ass handed to him very promptly by the Moors, he decided to get out of the military business and go into exploration. Cortés was close to the annihilation of his little force when he substituted diplomacy for futile military efforts, and made allies of the Tlascalans. It was only because he had thousands and thousands of Indian allies that he was able to overcome the Aztecs. The only advantage the Europeans enjoyed was social organization. If you did wipe out an expedition, the odds were good that another would be along to see what had happened to the first.

?????

Cannons with grape shots and over all military tactics and organizations was one hell of an advantage and must later on Gatling guns and Maxmin guns used in dealing with the natives.

them Spanish gatlins and Maximin guns managed to win it for Balboa and Cortes', I agree.
good points

Funny how you and people like you added things I did not say as the words must later was in my posting concerning gatlins and Maximin guns.

The colonial powers did indeed used them on the natives that dare to challenge their rule beginning in the 1880s era.

Have no problem with being challenge with comments and positions I had taken but not having some clown making up nonsense.

Oh, the horses of the Spanish did help to a degree on first contact to intimidate the natives.

so you meant "MUCH LATER" instead of" must later...". my bad.
Anyway, its a MAXIM gun and a GATLING gun.

Still playing games I see and given your normal level of typos you are in no position to do so.

Once we get away from the subject of rocks you seems to feel the near to play such silly games for some strange reason.

at least my skill with the English language is not in dispute.

Only in your own mind and it would seems and of course my fan club who would vote up any postings that attacked me either directly or indirectly.

You both are doing better at not drunk posting and/or cats running over the keyboard posting.

My one cat as a matter of fact had just ran over keys on my printer so your posting was very timely.