Outer Acharet wrote:Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire wrote:You conveniently left out the next line from the Wikipedia article, which states
I'm not denying that Columbus did bad things (after all, he did still do some pretty awful things to the Taino), but the atrocities he committed against the natives are likely exaggerated by the Spanish themselves. A more neutral source would be helpful. In addition, there's still the "black legend" overall from the Spanish colonial days which influences accounts of ol' Chris to this day. He's used at this point as a symbol for the depopulation of the indigenous peoples of the New World. That's why I don't think Columbus deserves as much hate as he does.
Edit: I feel like Fallout 76 with constantly updating this poorly written initial post into something... more workable
Actually... I, uh, didn't notice that bit. I was skimming over the article looking for what I needed, my bad. And I do concede that Bobadilla was likely biased in his assessment of Columbus, as were those who judged him (as I understand it, they were particularly shocked by the fact that the enslaved peoples were already converted to Christianity) and there's definitely worse things in Spain's colonial record, particularly their atrocities at Potosí. I think people look to Columbus to point out the dark side of Spanish colonialism because he's a figure the common perception knows as a jolly old explorer, not a greed-motivated entrepreneur with a willingness to look the other way at certain less-than-moral acts.
tl;dr, sorry, i'm tired and forgot to gather context, you're absolutely correct
Sorry to be that guy, but Ol’ Columbo isn’t the topic of the thread. It’s about Indian courts approving the reinstatement of a Hindu temple on a Hindu holy site that until recently was the site of a mosque built to insult and degrade Hindus and their beliefs.
