Columbus shouldn't be considered a hero.
Debate Rounds (4)
This debate will be about whether or not columbus should be praised for his introducing of the americas to the new world.
1st round can be used as an acceptance or argument round. This will be up to the accepting Con.
I find that Columbus is often blamed for the slave trade, however,he did in fact, not create the slave trade. Slave trading was a big part of life in the Ute Native American tribes,says Colorado historian Virginia McConnell Simmons in her book "The Ute Indians of Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico." Slavery already existed in Central America, at the time of Columbus' arrival, Cortez was able to provide descriptions of what he found in the Mexico City of the Aztecs. Even where what is now known as the "West Indies," tribes practiced slavery and cannibalism. Therefore, Columbus was mistakenly blamed.
There also is an misconception that Native Americans were harmless. Actually, here are whole bunches of misconceptions, and my source proves each and every one wrong.
My source says:
""Columbus inaugurated an era of slavery." No, he didn't. Slavery was common throughout the world at that time.
" "Columbus and the Europeans took away land that belonged to the Indians." The Native Americans never stayed in any one place to develop and own any land. They were constantly roaming all over the country.
" "The Indians were just peaceful people." While there were some exceptions, most Native American tribes were killing and slaughtering each other years before the white man came. They pretty much lived in a constant state of war.
" "Columbus himself took personal leadership in acts that would today be called genocide." We cannot judge people in history by the standards that we have at present. Just as we cannot criticize the Native Americans for failing to understand that there were no spirits that lived in human hair (which is why they scalped people), we cannot criticize the Europeans for failing to understand individual rights. The concept of individual rights did not exist at that period in history. Nonetheless, it is true that gruesome incidents took place and cannot be condoned, but this was no different from how Europeans treated other Europeans, nor from the way Native Americans treated other Native Americans at that point in time.
" "The Indians lived in harmony with the earth." Multiculturalists would have us believe that the Native Americans were always happy and carefree, tiptoeing through the forest and throwing tulip petals along the way. The truth is that because, at that time, they did not understand science and natural law, it was very difficult for them to survive. They suffered through famine, disease, drought, floods, and malnutrition. They weren't as happy as we are led to believe -- they often felt afraid and helpless. Besides, running herds of buffalo off cliffs only to use a few of them and leaving the rest to rot is not "living in harmony with the earth."
" "Columbus and the Europeans are to blame for introducing diseases such as smallpox which killed many Indians." Using that same line of reasoning, perhaps we should blame the Native Americans for introducing the Europeans to tobacco because people have died of lung cancer.
Thank you, Charlotte crushman(he wrote this source)
Therefore, with these arguments, I have successfully rid all the reasons why Columbus was bad. Next round, I`ll continue on and argue that he is good.
Rebuttal #1: The con stated that "Slavery was common throughout the world at that time". In this statement the con is pretty much saying that Columbus can be excused for endorsing the enslavement of Native Americans because it was common at this time. This would like giving Hitler a pass since anti-semitic behavior was common at the time period. Some historians have gone on to say that Columbus did not promote the enslavement of native americans, but he did. We know this because of the following diary entry that he wrote "They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane... . They
would make fine servants.... With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do
whatever we want ". This is all the evidence we need to see that Columbus supported the enslavement of Native Americans.
Rebuttal #2: Next I will be discussing the cons statement" ...most Native American tribes were killing and slaughtering each other years before the white man came." To address this I will be pulling another quote from Columbus' diary. In his diary Columbus wrote the following about what occurred upon his arrival to the new world."When you ask for something they have, they
never say no. To the contrary, they offer to share with anyone...."" After reading this I hope you understand that Native Americans first instinct was not to fight but rather to make peace. The only time that they would have "slaughtered" anyone is during war or when they felt threatened.
Rebuttal #3: My last Rebuttal will include the cons last argument in which he said" 'Columbus and the Europeans are to blame for introducing diseases such as smallpox which killed many Indians.' Using that same line of reasoning, perhaps we should blame the Native Americans for introducing the Europeans to tobacco because people have died of lung cancer." To be honest there is not much to point out here besides the fact that the con compared an airborne disease that was impossible for the natives to realize that they were ingesting with a product that was voluntarily use. End of rebuttal.
Argument #1, Greed: One of the many reasons why Columbus should not be considered a hero(not to mention the reasons above) is because of of his greed. Columbus valued gold more than the lives of the Native Americans(he put an object over human life.), which is a terrible trait for someone who is given a holiday in some places to have. Here are just a few examples of the things that he did for gold."...they ordered all persons fourteen years or older to collect a certain quantity of gold every
three months. When they brought it, they were given copper tokens to hang around their
necks. Indians found without a copper token had their hands cut off and bled to death." I can't speak for you but in my personal opinion killing someone seems over exaggerant for not bringing forth enough gold. Not to mention that some Native American tribes were no where near enough gold to supply the demands according to well accredited historian Howard Zinn "The Indians had been given an impossible task. The only gold around was bits of dust garnered from the streams."
Closing argument(s): In the words of Zinn" To emphasize the heroism of Columbus and his successors as navigators and discoverers, and to de-emphasize their genocide, is not a technical necessity but an ideological choice. It
serves-unwittingly-to justify what was done. Also I would like to remind the con that part of his job is to prove that Columbus was a hero rather than just debating why he wasn't a terrible person. Lastly I would like to thank kbub for the resource that she gave me, which held up much of my argument. With this said I will conclude my round 2 arguments.
Anti-semitic- discrimination against or prejudice or hostility toward Jews.
"In this statement the con is pretty much saying that Columbus can be excused for endorsing the enslavement of Native Americans because it was common at this time"
No, I am saying Columbus did not start the slave trade, Native Americans had slavery a long time before Columbus was born, and this means you can`t pin Columbus for starting a slave trade.
" This would like giving Hitler a pass since anti-Semitic behavior was common at the time period"
This is also saying Washington was bad because he had slaves and slaves were wrong, even though it was a part of everyday life to him, JFK is bad for supporting the petrodollar, even though it`s a part of everyday life back then and even now, King Arthur was bad for killing his wife, although a king was expected to do that, Mark twain was bad for using n*gger in his books, although it wasn`t a bad word at his timeline, Patton was bad for slapping a solider, even though back then, this was what any general would do (ptsd wasn`t studied at this point),and Douglass Macarthur was bad because he wanted to do something Truman didn`t want him to do, even though Koreans and Japanese wanted him to do it.
" To be honest there is not much to point out here besides the fact that the con compared an airborne disease that was impossible for the natives to realize that they were ingesting with a product that was voluntarily use. "
It was not voluntarily use, Many Europeans did not know what smoking meant, and were amazed when they first encountered it. It was not until years later since native tell the Europeans Tabasco was bad for your health.
"After reading this I hope you understand that Native Americans first instinct was not to fight but rather to make peace"
Oh really? I would like my opponent to explain the Indian attack of 1622. The Powhatan's killed 347 settlers in all - men, women, and children. Not even George Thorpe, a prominent colonist well known for his friendly stance towards the Indians, was spared. The Powhatans harsh treatment of the bodies of their victims was symbolic of their contempt for their opponents. The Indians also burned most of the outlying plantations, destroying the livestock and crops. The only natural thing colonist did was being stunned by the massacre. The settlers immediately withdrew to the fort and to other easily defensible locations. In addition to the loss of life, the colonists also lost valuable crops and supplies necessary to survive the winter. Ironically, during the winter of 1622-23 the colonists were forced to trade with the Indians for corn and supplies and even with these provisions many went hungry. The mortality rate during the winter of 1622-23 climbed due to malnutrition and disease - over four hundred settlers died the Indian attack of March 22,1622, constituted a watershed in history of the Jamestown settlement.
Need another example? Take the attack on Seattle. On Sunday, October 28, 1855, Indians attacked and killed settlers in south King County and in Thurston County. Then, Indians ambushed U.S. Army Lieutenant Slaughter and killed him on Brannan"s Prairie near the future Auburn. Chief Seattle (178?-1866), his daughter Angeline (1820-1896), and Curley or Curly Jim warned Seattle's 50 or so white residents that an attack was imminent, but only after the two strikes came. Chiefs Owhi and Coquilton reconnoitered the lines, disguised as friendly Indians, on the night of January 25. Sporadic exchanges of fire continued until 11:45 a.m. when American indians, to fat and un-resistant to do otherwise, sat and ate. The settlers used this time evacuate women and children to the ships. Sawmill owner Henry Yesler won upon his Duwamish consort, Susan , to take refuge with their infant daughter aboard the ship, despite her objections. When settlers attempted to retrieve arms and valuables from their abandoned homes, the Indians resumed firing. It was clear the barbaric, violent, and stupid american indians were out for nothing more than blood lust. Desultory exchanges then resumed and continued all afternoon. Troops fought in honor, while rouge natives fought in unjust, barbaric, and disgraceful ways. Tons of natives deserted. When scouts reported that the Indians were preparing to light fire to settler dwellings, as they wanted more blood lust like every disgusting group, the Decatur shifted its fire to the homes, damaging several. By 10 p.m. All firing stopped. The next morning found the attackers cowardly away along with whatever settler stock, foodstuffs, and other property they could take. Two settlers were killed, Milton G. Holgate and Christian White. Colonists were completely innocent.
"Rebuttal #1: The con . . ." throughout the world . .". In this statement the con. . .Pretty much . . .Saying because it was common at this time. . .This would like giving Hitler a pass. . .We know this . . .]They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane... Columbus supported . . .
Pro still was never able to state any proof or defense that natives were innocent of slavery, in fact, they were not. The sad reality that some Native Americans, (in particular, the Creek, Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole, or "the Five Tribes") also participated in chattel and race-based slavery, was rarely acknowledged in the historical annals. The truth is,
Several groundbreaking studies recognized the momentous repercussions of this practice for Native and African American populations alike during the antebellum era and down to the present day. My opponent instead uses basis that "slavery was bad even though no one knew it was" and "Columbus wanted slaves just like natives want slaves. However, Columbus is evil."
" Greed: One of the many reasons why Columbus should not be considered a hero(not to mention the reasons above) is because of his greed" ( some emotional arguments stating about how harsh ONE of his many interactions are. Not in reality. People in England and Spain HAVE tried to convict Columbus from this basis, but evidence says they all ended in fails. While jailed for six weeks before the trail began, the king ordered there release, meaning he was tried fairly, and he was innocent. That means he is Innocent. Therefore, you cannot say Columbus was a greedy fat-cat, weak debaters and lawyers tried to convict him for this, but in the end, he was proved innocent.
TBSmothers forfeited this round.
all points extended
I understand that you don`t have time, however, I still think you should be penalized in the voting system. I won`t include any arguments to balance out the arguments, it won`t be fair if 3 rounds fought your 1.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.