Columbus Day: Libertarian Economist Says the Left is Right to Condemn Columbus


Economist Bryan Caplan, sometime Reason contributor and author of some great consensus-breaking books about voting and child-rearing, speaks up against that rat bastard Chrisopher Columbus on this national holiday celebrating him (on which most of you are likely working anyway):

The far left's radical critique of Columbus Day rubs a lot of people the wrong way. But the facts are on their side. Columbus was not just a brutal slaver; he was a pioneer of slavery….

Can you condemn a man just for being a slaver? Of course. It's almost as bad as you can get. And Columbus didn't even have the lame excuses of a Thomas Jefferson, like "I grew up with it," or "I couldn't afford not to do it."

The lamest excuse of all is that we have to judge Columbus by the standards of his time. For this is nothing but the cultural relativism that defenders of Western civilization so often decry. If some cultures and practices are better than others, then we can fairly hold up a mirror to Columbus and the Spanish conquerors, and find theirs to be among the worst.

But hasn't the European colonization of the New World been an improvement? Even if this were true, it would be no reason to have a special day to honor Columbus and his ilk. If Mengele had cured cancer, should we celebrate Mengele Day? In any case, you've got to ask: Compared to what? The benefits of Western culture would have spread at least as rapidly if the Europeans had arrived in the New World as traders and teachers instead of conquerors and slavers.

Since it is often presumed that a point-and-quote blog post implies strong agreement on the part of the blogger, I will point out that I'm neither sure I agree nor disagree with this sort of application of contemporary moral standards on figures from the past (and I expect that I will likely have emotional responses based on how much I otherwise admire or despise the figure at times rather than reactions based on unimpeachable and unaltering applications of eternal principles).

I'm not even sure I agree that it matters in any way what judgment you or I in the present have about figures from the past, so this is presented as an argument-starter, not an argument ender.

NEXT: Ezra Klein 'Completely Supports' 'Terrible' Yes Means Yes Law

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “contemporary moral standards”

    The heck with contemporary standards, the standards of that time were against slavery – the Popes denounced the enslavement of Indians and Africans in the New World.

    The Latin countries (Spanish and Portugese-speaking) put slavery “on the course of ultimate extinction” while Americans were debating whether to *extend* slavery and the quarrel ended in civil war.

    1. So, this is wrong?

      Brazil was the last country in the Western world to abolish slavery. By the time it was abolished, in 1888, an estimated four million slaves had been imported from Africa to Brazil, 40% of the total number of slaves brought to the Americas.

      1. Yes it was wrong, the Popes said so.

        Brazil had already passed gradual-emancipation laws, even without the pressure of the U.S. Civil War slavery would have died out.

        One reason Pope Gregory XVI issues his encyclical against slavery in 1839 was to rebuke the Cubans and Brazilians for their slaver habits.

        1. Yes it was wrong, the Popes said so.

          Well, if the Popes said so. Those Brazilians only kept slaves because the white debils up north made them do it. I got it now.

        2. Wrong as in factually incorrect, I think is what Hyperion was getting at.

    2. Wasn’t the impetus of Spanish/Portuguese voyages of exploration to find new treasure? Treasure that would be used to curry favor with the Vatican? Sort of like Spain saying, “Hey Pope, Spain gave you a much better gift this year than France did. So next time we need the Church to decide some European political stuff, side with Spain over France.”

      The Church may have denounced slavery, but they were definitely the big beneficiaries of it.

      1. Roman Catholic Church: the biggest and most successful extortion racket ever?

        1. How many hospitals have you built? How many works of classical antiquity did you provide. How many times have you provided the cultural leadership to pull a continent out of the Dark Ages? Restoras: least justified sense of superiority ever?

          1. Oh, right. Yes, I see what you mean.

            It sure did spend a lot of money building those things. Tell me, what was the tremendous economic value add that the Roman Catholic Church gave the world that it accrued so much wealth to itself?

          2. The Catholic church didn’t pull a continent out of the Dark Ages, it put it into the Dark Ages. It collaborated with tyrants and the Nazis. It mass murdered people who held different religious beliefs. And robbing people of classical treasures is not a morally acceptable way of “preserving” them.

    3. What a laughable point of view. Brazilian slavery was constantly in danger of exhausting itself beause they routinely practiced castration on slaves and worked them to death. Southern slavery was more resilient (it actually wasn’t but let’s pretend) because slaves were not castrated or generally worked to death and as such reproduced. The United States banned the importation of slaves in the first decades of its existence. Because of the brutality of Brazilian slavery slaves had to be constantly imported when England crushed the slave trade this was no longer an option. And sill slavery lasted longer in Brazil than up North.

    4. Let’s be sure to base all our actions and policies on what we guess to be the moral standards of 400 years from now.

  2. . . . he was a pioneer of slavery

    Yes, because slavery did not have a long history before europeans came to the new world.

      1. And those native american civilizations were totally peaceful and in harmony with their neighbors.


        1. The Erie tribe would like a word with you.

          1. For some reason I was thinking more about the Mexicans and the Incas.

    1. Little know fact, the pyramid of Giza was built by white slave owners from Atlanta.

      1. That was ‘Atlantis’, not Atlanta. But the Atlanteans were white debils also, so same difference.

        1. Both are a delta hubs so you can forgive my mistake.

          1. Delta flies to Atlantis?

            1. Yes, but only to drop off lugggage.

      2. I know this is a joke, but interestingly enough the modern historical consensus is that the pyramids were not built by slaves.

    2. Of course slavery has been a thing since civilization was invented. But in New World colonies I think it is fair to say that it became the basis of whole economies as it hadn’t really been before.

      1. Egypt? Or any conquering empire, really? Isn’t looting and taking captives as slaves the basis for nearly all ancient regimes?

        1. Or for mass sacrifices

        2. Sure, but the demand for slaves in New World colonies made it into a global industry. The African slaves were mostly enslaved by other Africans in wars, certainly. But you know the extra demand for the new colonies gave good incentives for more conquering and slaving raids far beyond what the existing demand from Europe and Arabia provided.

      2. Um Sparta Rome in the days of the Gracchi. Do you know much history? If anything New World slavery was more confined to the economic realm rather than having been completely intwined in the cultural identity of the New World. As such it could be eliminated without the complete collapse of those cultures.

        1. Yes, I do know about all of those things. I agree that slavery being more purely about business ultimately made it easier to end it. But it also made the way it was implemented different, which is my point. Slaves became a commodity instead of war spoils or a natural part of the order of society.

          I’m not trying to demonize European powers here. No civilization has clean hands when it comes to that sort of thing. I’m just saying that there was something distinct about new world slavery.

      3. Uh, Rome?


        Lots of historic economies where products of slavery makes up a significant fraction of economic output.

        Then you get into massive quasi-slavery setups like serfdom.

        The only thing that has really ended slavery as a institution was the rise of the machines. As the Joker says – people are only as good as the world allows them to be, and industrialization allows them to forgo slavery.

        1. Yes, yes. Everyone wants to tell me what I already know.

          In many times and places slavery has been a fundamental part of societal organization. But many of the new world colonies were built on slavery from the ground up. Look at the Caribbean. Pretty much the entire population is descended from African slaves. The New World is different. I’m not saying better or worse than anything else. Just that it did change the whole game in some ways.

          1. I think you’re down to a distinction without a moral difference, Zeb. Give it up.

      4. Nope. 80% of all the slaves went to the West Indies. Sugar drove the slave trade more than cotton.

      5. Are you kidding? US slavery was just a variant of European feudalism, the basis of European economies for many centuries. In fact, the whole thing started with British subjects forced to work in the colonies, but they didn’t do well with the tropical conditions in the US South.

        Feudalism in Europe continued well into the 19th century. It only ended when the industrial revolution made it economically unattractive.

  3. posted too early =

    “GILMORE|10.13.14 @ 3:29PM|#

    “Today was designated #MoralMonday”

    but Columbus day is when i celebrate how the white man brought civilization to the savages?

    no fair”

    Talk about “first world problems”! hating on Columbus has been Gay/Lame since Howard Zinn wrote ‘People’s History…” We get it. I now joke with American Indians that the best they can expect is being handed a leftover holiday about some italian jerk

  4. Seems like a good place to link this

    I’d like to invite anyone whose name ends with a vowel (Persians excluded) to raise their hands, extend their middle fingers, and flip off the Native Americans, the hippies, and everyone else in the International Association of Crybabies who has a piss and a moan about Christopher Columbus.

    1. EXACTLY

      the correct attitude is to celebrate this day by colonizing a barstool and make inappropriate jokes about Indians and Smallpox

  5. What’s really funny about this is, isn’t Columbus Day actually sort of supposed to be “Italian-American Day”, like St Patrick’s Day is “Mick-American Day”? It really isn’t about praising Columbus at all, he just happened to be a prominent Italian with a connection to America (in that he discovered it), and therefore a useful person for the day. I mean, the Knights of Columbus is just an Italian-American Elks Club too, am I right?

    This looks like just another something for the SJWs to obsess about.

    1. What, you want to give people a reason to hate Columbus Day more than they already do?

      1. They can’t hate it more than I hate St. Patrick’s Day.

        1. Ugh, working in Manhattan that is easily the worst day of the year. The train ride home is awful. But, it’s also only once a year so I’m ok with all the Paddies celebrating their heritage by drinking, fighting, and puking all they want…


            1. That’s worse if you LIVE in Manhattan…

        2. Oh, you mean, “National Mock My Heritage Day?”

          Good times. We’ve already shared our respective ’86th & York’ horror stories. Parade Graveyard.

    2. the Knights of Columbus is just an Italian-American Elks Club too, am I right?

      Only if you have a bunch of Catholic Italians. Elsewhere it’s a generic Catholic fraternal society, founded by a Irish priest.

    3. So can we just sub-in another famous Italian and be done with the controversy?

      Robert De Niro day?

      1. Michael Corleone?

      2. Father Guido Sarducci Day!

        1. Vinny Barbarino Day!

      3. Santo & Johnny Day.

      4. Honestly, I think changing it to Amerigo Vespucci Day would actually make more sense, since the country is named after him.

    4. isn’t Columbus Day actually sort of supposed to be “Italian-American Day”

      I have never heard that. It must be something that only dirty wops think.

      1. I don’t really understand why the Italians get a day and nobody else. I demand a Leif Erikson Day…and I better not get a single piece of mail that day.

        1. There IS a yearly Norwegian parade in my neighborhood that ends at Leif Erikson Park, if that helps.

          1. A little, but I bet that mail carriers, DMV workers, and bank tellers have to take a personal day in order to participate? Ridiculous.

      2. I have never heard that. It must be something that only dirty wops think.

        Came up front-and-center in Seattle when the council voted to abolish it.

    5. What’s really funny about this is, isn’t Columbus Day actually sort of supposed to be “Italian-American Day”,

      Yes, which is the real reason we’re switching it to Indigenous Peoples Day. Nobody sits and thinks about Christopher Columbus on Columbus day, we all think about the contributions the mob has made to our culture.

    6. I have it on good authority that the Knights of Columbus are really engaged in a secret war with the Illuminati. OK, by really good source, I mean a Dan Brown novel, but still…

    7. What’s really ironic is that Columbus was from Catalonia.

  6. also, yo….

    no attire review 2nite

    buying my mom dinner

    1. That’s nice. Have fun.

      1. Im a cheap date

        1. If you’re doing the buying, wouldn’t that make mom the cheap date?

  7. I find the left’s attack on Columbus Day bothersome because I’m so sick of watching them manufacture BS issues to distract people away from the important issues. …millions of people have had their deductibles go up, their premiums rise, or their hours cut because of Obamacare, and we’re talking about Columbus Day?

    I haven’t seen a bigger red herring since Terry Schaivo.

    1. But, social justice!

    2. It’s pathetic. But hey, it let’s them be unrepentedly indignant about all of western civilization for a whole day without any fear of being called out on it.

      1. Western culture is, by and large, the best thing to happen to humanity. There, I said it! Bah, hah, hah, hah!

        1. You meanie! Don’t make the leftards feel bad on their favorite Feel Bad Day!

          1. It’s my contribution to the holiday extravaganza.

    3. millions of people have had their deductibles go up, their premiums rise, or their hours cut because of Obamacare, and we’re talking about Columbus Day?

      Uh, that’s why we’re talking about Columbus day.

      And by the way, your shoe’s untied.

  8. But hasn’t the European colonization of the New World been an improvement?

    I’m not at all certain that it improved central america any. I guess there’s no human sacrifice now, so there’s that.

  9. You know what would be way worse than Columbus Day? Ann Arbor Day.

    1. That’s an excellent point. If some holiday that most people ignore is offensive, how much worse is a city named after the person of offense?

      While we’re at it, what about the District of Fuckyounativesbia? I guess DC needs a renaming, too.

      1. That’s why they had to put the Indians in Cleveland.

        1. Cleveland has an ethic offense exemption, due to its haplessness.

    2. Go Blow!

  10. This is fucking retarded.
    he was a pioneer of slavery

    Really. In the late 15th century some obscure Italian guy pioneered slavery. This will be news to the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, along with every culture that existed alongside and before them.

    I think it’s bullshit to heap derision on Columbus when it would have been someone else if not him.

    1. Yeah, but Columbus was a white dude, so he was pure evil, a debil.

    2. The Italians invented slavery? I did not know that.

    3. I’m pretty sure he meant that Columbus was a pioneer of slavery in the Americas. Not that it didn’t exist anywhere else, or even in the Americas, but Columbus clearly was a pioneer in the transformation of pre-Columbian societies to colonial ones in places like Hispaniola, and a large part of that transformation was widespread enslavement of the indigenous population (later replaced by African slaves).

    4. Also

      “I think it’s bullshit to heap derision on Columbus when it would have been someone else if not him.”

      This is bullshit, and it’s ridiculous to see it on a libertarian site. “Well, someone else would have killed, tortured, and enslaved people if I hadn’t, so why are you getting mad at me?” Does any libertarian give Obama a pass on the shit he does just because if it wasn’t him, it’d be some other asshole doing similar things? Shit, even by 16th Century standards, Columbus was viewed as being brutal towards the native populations. It’s not like nobody else thought he did anything wrong.

  11. The benefits of Western culture would have spread at least as rapidly if the Europeans had arrived in the New World as traders and teachers instead of conquerors and slavers.

    Yea man, Columbus should’ve read Ricardo and Smith, and as GKC says upthread, noticed that the US was in the process of ending slavery.

    1. Most of the indigenous people of the Americas would’ve died of “white man’s diseases” no matter the intentions of the white men.

      1. Yup. And because they were technologically in the stone age they would have been conquered anyway as well.

        1. Not if the Europeans had just left them alone to honor their age old traditions!

          Don’t most progressives argue that it’s evil to allow stone age tribes in the rain forest be corrupted by any modern luxuries? You’d think this logic would retro back to the time of Columbus.

      2. Does that justify the treatment of those who didn’t die off?

        1. Which “treatment” are you referring to, and which tribes? American Indians weren’t one uniform group, they were independent, often warring nations. They allied with different European powers and fought against each other. Many just became American citizens and disappeared in society. Your categories of “American Indians” vs. “the white man” are just wrong.

    2. But then most of the Americas today resemble something like Venezuela.

      Chunks of Asia clung to their backwards Confucius ways well into the early 1900s, even though some of them established some level of contact with the west. The Samurai existed well into the late 1800’s.

      An emerging tribal power could have adapted modern technology to crush their rivals and conquer their lands. It’s a bit foolish to think that the indigenous people would continue their “let’s share the land and resources” philosophy once their eyes were open to new worlds and possibilities.

      Not to trivialize the indigenous genocide, but we are what we are because of “white people” coming here. Enough of them achieved enlightment to introduce freedom that the natives would have rejected. And those who are behind in the time are eventually dominated by those who aren’t, right or wrong.

      1. The native peoples never had a “share the land and resources” philosophy. The Americas had empires, huge political divisions, and wars just like Europe.

  12. How many singular events, championed by a single man, are more historically significant to the identity of Western Civilization than Columbus’s voyage to the New World? And what type of person did it take, in that era, to actually pull that off?

    There’s a reason why Canuckistan is celebrating Thanksgiving today than the bullshit Americanized version. Pilgrims’ Thanksgiving? BAH. Doesn’t hold a candle to Columbus.

    1. “And what type of person did it take, in that era, to actually pull that off?”

      Someone who was reckless, short-sighted, pig-headed, and sailing someone else’s ships.

      1. You feel their pain. That’s so white of you.

        1. Who’s pain, the ships’ owners?

          1. You’re drunk on Feel today, aren’t you? You really should lay off the stuff. It clouds the ability to think clearly.

            1. You’re a twit.

              1. That’s all you got? I get called far worse when I tell NYC bums begging for change to fuck off. Try harder next time.

    2. Maybe we should replace it with a holiday on July 20–Armstrong Day. Then rename everything named after Columbus: Armstrong, Ohio; Armstrong, Georgia; District of Armstrongia; Armostrongia, South America; and so on.

        1. Don’t tell sloopy. Let it be a surprise.

          1. “There’s something screwy about this new map.”

      1. What about Megellan? No love for Magellan?

      2. And there are even two good candidates for the source of the name. Determining the other is left as an exercise for the reader.

    3. Strangely Canadian culture looks a lot more like Massachisettes than Port au Prince though. Maybe those Purtians were a little more influential than you think. Honestly it makes no sense for Canada to celebrate Colombus or the Purtians frankly. Especially as the Spanish New World Empire never even nominally extended north to Canada whereas it was very much a player in several american states.

    4. Shouldn’t the Canucks be celebrating one of the Cabots’ voyages?

  13. But hasn’t the European colonization of the New World been an improvement? Even if this were true, it would be no reason to have a special day to honor Columbus and his ilk. If Mengele had cured cancer, should we celebrate Mengele Day?

    But that supposes Columbus was a bad person who made a great accomplishment and I can’t think of one. He didn’t discover America for the Europeans, the Erik the Red did that as I recall. But hey he was one hell of a tyrannical governor of Cuba and an even better slaver.

    1. They should change the name of Ohio’s capital to The Red.

      1. Of course, then I’d be going to The Red Blue Jackets game later this week, and that would just be confusing.

        1. Purple Jackets?

    2. No he didn’t discover America he was just the first to establish wide spread settlement there. No difference between aimlessly drifting somewhere in search of arable land while leaving no mark and establishing the roots of Western civilization in the new world. Our ancestors weren’t stupid they thought this stuff out and obviously were impressed with Colombus.

  14. I bet the name Caplan never turns up in the list of slave traders. But that was free trade you see. It’s only slavery when dumb Southerners and Italians do it.

    1. Because you are responsible for the actions of your ancestors?

      I’m not saying we all need to do a 2 minute hate on Columbus. I don’t really object to celebrating him as a symbol of the expansion of European civilization to the new world. But it does seem like he was kind of a shitty person in many ways and there is nothing wrong with mentioning that either.

      1. Yes absolutely if you are going to judge historical figures by the standards of todsy you better put your ancestors on the hot seat as well. Especially when adopting the “not in my name” self righteous attitude. Why does Caplan even care ? no one would confuse him for an American patriot anyways. If Caplan wanted to write an instructive article he would start with the premise of denouncing Colombus as a fellow citizen of the world rather than sneering at the American commoners that his nerd self so deeply hates because of high school.

  15. “I suppose if I had suggested Liam Neeson Day, you’d all be patting me on the back.”

  16. Here’s my simpleton take:

    Columbus, whatever his motivations etc, actually got into a boat and sailed into the unknown. Unlike the Vikings before him, that actually mattered to the entire world.

    If I were to disregard this incredible achievement because he was a slaver, then I’d be in the same camp that argues that the liberties the Constitution attempts to shield from my government are null and void since they were written by slavers.

    1. Yes, Columbus changed the Old World as well. From Samuel Eliot Morison’s Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus:

      At the end of 1492 most men in Western Europe felt exceedingly gloomy about the future. Christian civilization appeared to be shrinking in area and dividing into hostile units as its sphere contracted. For over a century there had been no important advance in natural science and registration in the universities dwindled as the instruction they offered became increasingly jejune and lifeless. Institutions were decaying, well-meaning people were growing cynical or desperate, and many intelligent men, for want of something better to do, were endeavoring to escape the present through studying the pagan past. . . .

      Yet, even as the chroniclers of Nuremberg were correcting their proofs from Koberger’s press, a Spanish caravel named Nina scudded before a winter gale into Lisbon with news of a discovery that was to give old Europe another chance. In a few years we find the mental picture completely changed.

      1. Strong monarchs are stamping out privy conspiracy and rebellion; the Church, purged and chastened by the Protestant Reformation, puts her house in order; new ideas flare up throughout Italy, France, Germany and the northern nations; faith in God revives and the human spirit is renewed. The change is complete and startling: “A new envisagement of the world has begun, and men are no longer sighing after the imaginary golden age that lay in the distant past, but speculating as to the golden age that might possibly lie in the oncoming future.”

        Christopher Columbus belonged to an age that was past, yet he became the sign and symbol of this new age of hope, glory and accomplishment. His medieval faith impelled him to a modern solution: Expansion.

    2. I don’t think any rational person would deny Columbus’s historical importance. That doesn’t mean he was a good person or someone worth celebrating.

  17. I don’t know why anyone wants to defend the shitty things people did in the past. And I don’t know why anyone wants to spend a lot of time discussing how horrible things were in the past. Knowing about history is good. And acknowledging that history is full of people doing horrible things to other people is good. But the past is the past. We aren’t going back and the injustices of the past can’t be fixed.

  18. In order to buy into this, you first have to be brainwashed into thinking taxation is not slavery.

  19. Tundra’s link this morning heralding the wise choice of Minneapolis’ city council to rename Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples Day made me start wondering if they had thought this through.

    Nope. The city’s web page still says that you can get free parking on Columbus Day (List here). The meters all still list the same dreaded name on them too.

    So if the city council is serious about not othering anyone in October, they had better start appropriating $$ to re-sign all the meters and update city parking literature.

  20. What irritates me about the complaints about today’s holiday if not that the criticisms of Columbus are not valid, but the same people refuse to call out the terrible things the indigenous people’s did as if it was some wonderful utopia here prior to the Europeans coming over.

    1. I agree that many on the left portray an inaccurate picture of pre-Columbian life, but that’s also extremely common on the right as well, and not all Columbus critics do that. Part of the issue here is that the Americas are a very big place and were home to thousands of cultures, states, and tribes prior to colonization. Trying to generalize all those groups as if they all had the same beliefs or practices is stupid because it’s impossible to even come close to being accurate in doing so. This is especially evident in discussions about Columbus – I always see people defending him by making critiques of the practices of the Aztecs and the Inca – which says about as much about the Taino of Hispaniola as the Holocaust does about the modern United States. By Columbus’s own accounts, the Taino were a relatively peaceful people (I emphasize that I’m not trying to portray them as a violence-free utopia, just that they were far from the bloodthirsty image of the Aztecs or even the Spaniards themselves). The writings of Columbus and his companions are more than enough to paint a very brutal picture of how the Taino were treated, and trying to create a moral equivalency between the two groups at that time is simply absurd. No one thinks the Nazis or Japanese were justified or not that bad because the Allies also did bad things before, during, and after WWII.

      1. I wasn’t trying to generalize all indigenous peoples as violent and barbaric or excuse Columbus for his record of vile behavior. What i am saying, while trying to be brief and not going into huge details about every tribe or nation, is that in my experience lefties never address the terrible acts SOME of the indigenous groups did and do whitewash them all as peaceful and such. It is like libs i know who are constantly berating righties for things that their side does just as much. (yes righties do this too and i call them on it as) To me it’s about being consistent in criticism and i do not see this when it comes to this topic like, ever.

  21. Chrisopher Columbus on this national holiday celebrating him (on which most of you are likely working anyway):

    Uhh, no we’re not, we’re celebrating Indigenous Peoples Day!

  22. For me, the issue is the sugarcoating of historical figures. We should be teaching kids the truth of historical figures, events, etc the good and the bad.

    By not teaching the truth we end up with sanitized false accounts about Columbus and the Pilgrims, but also the Native Americans.

  23. Slavery has been around for at least 10,000 to 12,000 years.

    Can anybody be a pioneer so long after something was pioneered?

  24. So, is this just Caplan’s way of saying

    “Fuck, off slaver” ?

    If so, I’ll let him skate on this one, just to be nice on a Holiday and all.

  25. While I agree with Ken Shultz that there are obviously far more important issues in the modern US than the existence of Columbus Day, I’m not really sure why so many libertarians here feel the need to try to justify or excuse Columbus’s actions. One doesn’t have to think the pre-Columbian Americas were a peaceful, prosperous utopia or that the modern US and the West are fundamentally evil to recognize that, while historically important, he wasn’t a very good person (even by the standards of his time) and that his actions were wrong. Moral relativism usually isn’t looked upon highly here anyways. Yeah, I know the Left is full of shit on a lot of stuff, and many do go overboard demonizing the West historically, or whitewashing Native American societies, but that doesn’t mean everything they say is wrong. Opposing leftists should never surpass adhering to one’s own beliefs and values.

    1. You are right. It is just lazyness. But you can be right about 95% by just opposing the right kind of leftists. So I can’t get too worked up about it either.

  26. Columbus was an asshole, but what gets me about the whole Columbus Day controversy is – Literally no one gives a shit about it except whiny liberals. They have no desire to get rid of it, they want to keep it and pretend it’s a plot by evil white people, who secretly worship and aspire to be Colombus, so they can have their annual bitchfest.

  27. and btw, the indigenous people were assholes too.

  28. The lamest excuse of all is that we have to judge Columbus by the standards of his time. For this is nothing but the cultural relativism that defenders of Western civilization so often decry.

    See the little faggot with the earring and the makeup
    Yeah buddy that’s his own hair
    That little faggot got his own jet airplane
    That little faggot he’s a millionaire

    We gotta install microwave ovens
    Custom kitchens deliveries
    We gotta move these refrigerators
    We gotta move these colour TV’s

    Yep…no Rock & Roll Hall of Fame for you Dire Straights. You guys are clearly a bunch of hateful homophobes. Oh, by the way, so was about 97% of the entire population, so I guess only 3% of the people living from 1 AD to present will be worthy of having one of their accomplishments celebrated.

    1. I am just an aging drummer boy
      And in the wars I used to play
      And I’ve called the tune to many a torture session
      Now they say I am a war criminal
      And I’m fading away
      Father, please hear my confession

      I have legalized robbery
      And called it relief
      I have run with the money
      I have hid like a thief
      Rewritten histories with armies and my crooks
      Invented memories
      I did burn all the books
      And I can still hear his laughter
      And I can still hear his song
      The man’s too big
      The man’s too strong

    2. Of course, in that Dire Straits song, those words are supposedly spoken by a despicable blue-collar delivery man that Mark Knopfler wanted you to hate. I don’t think anyone would think that song is Dire Straits encouraging use of the word “faggot.”

      If you want to go against Dire Straits, go instead to the throwaway song from Making Movies:

      Les Boys do cabaret,
      Les Boys are glad to be gay.

      1. Doesn’t matter how the expressions are used. They used the verboten words. You probably think Jefferson was a good man just because he didn’t whip his slaves. 😉

        I listened to Money for Nothing on XM Radio the other day and they had cut that entire part out. I guess we need to rewrite history rather than look back and admire the progress we’ve made. Sad.

  29. The attacks on Columbus Day are just part of the never-ending cycle of self-hatred by proggies, multi-cultis, and their nitwit hangers-on.

    That’s it, really. The bad reaction to the attacks on Columbus Day is really just a (completely justifiable, IMO) bad reaction to the proggies, multi-cultis, and their nitwit hangers-on.

  30. Look on the bright side, the left could be trying to implement actual policy instead of spinning on their fucking heads over some totally irrelevant shit like this.

    1. Good point.

  31. I think this whole controversy over Columbus and the native Americans is in itself racist. We don’t get terribly upset at Napoleon or the Romans conquering Europe, but somehow when talking about the wars with Indians, people talk about it as if Europeans had conquered immature kindergardeners. These were adults from powerful nations, making alliances and deals with a variety of Western nations. Many made some bad bets and lots sovreignty as a result. That’s how history works.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.