Reconsider Columbus Day 2010

[summitchaserCJB]

Oh I get it keV... You want your cake and eat it too. You want to benefit from Columbus and ridicule him.. Now I understand.

[Nitrox]

Brute force...its whats for dinner!

 

 

 

[AlpineK]

Alright, my bad. You're right. America never should have happened. Big mistake. Terrible country (all in sarcastic voice).

I mean, if you don't think Columbus should have discovered the new world FOR what was then "Western Society" it is as if you hate America, IMO, because you are wishing it away. Or you're an idealist who somehow wishes you could go back and change things. But if history teaches us anything it is that bad things almost always accompany any sort of positive change. Unless you think America is completely a waste...then I ask...why live here?

These are my thoughts, ignore them if you wish.

 

You sure twist the conversation around. Watch the video again. You will see that these people only want the truth to be told nothing else. They don’t want to have a national holiday honoring a person who committed atrocious acts of violence against indigenous people. That’s all. This has nothing to do whether he discovered America.

 

One or more of the folks interviewed state, "It ain't your fault." I don't think they hate folks descended from European ancestry.

[sobo]

...the spanish, in the example of columbus, were hardly singling out americans for abuse, just ask monty python!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO-BODY EXPECTS A SPANISH INQUISITION!!!1

And you didn't see me picking up on this at all, didja ivan?

[ivan]

They weren't Americans...

ahhh, i see - a cunning linguist! what handle do your prefer for the denizens of the proto-americas?

[summitchaserCJB]

But you'll noticed no one represented us there.

[kevbone]

Oh I get it keV... You want your cake and eat it too. You want to benefit from Columbus and ridicule

 

Twisting the converstation again are we? I dont think the folks on the video want to ridicule Columbus. They just dont want a national Holiday. Get it?

[JayB]

my fav hl mencken quote:

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

 

Had Mencken stated that oppressive laws are first aimed at scoundrels, while possessing the knowledge of history we have today, he would be speaking with an eloquent style, while at once acting the part of a muddle-minded pseudo-intellectual.

 

By the blood of millions of innocent people murdered by the practice of laws crafted and executed by scoundrels such as Christopher Columbus, we know that oppression more often begins as an act of evil against not a few, but the many.

 

 

 

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Interesting statistics. Who kept them? Most of those tribes didn't write.

[ivan]

is that the pritchard scale for measuring a good war?

[j_b]

hmmm, most euro countries lost 1%/yr during WW1.

 

Vietnam lost ~.5%/year during the Vietnam war. Very different graph if one starts plotting all the relevant blood baths.

 

Anyone cares to guess where Iraq would fit?

Edited October 15, 2010 by j_b

[prole]

Anybody got the "War fatality rates (percentage of population killed per annum)" for American Native populations during the U.S.'s Indian Wars 1776-1890? That'd be a good one.

[JayB]

hmmm, most euro countries lost 1%/yr during WW1.

 

Vietnam lost ~.5%/year during the Vietnam war. Very different graph if one starts plotting all the relevant blood baths.

 

Anyone cares to guess where Iraq would fit?

 

 

 

The key relationship there is the long-term fatality rate in a given society, which is a function of the frequency, severity, and duration of conflict in each.

 

A small society that is engaged in constant skirmishes where a handful of people are killed each time there's a battle, raid, etc will generally see a significantly greater percentage of its population killed in war than a much larger society that engages in intense conflicts for limited periods of time.

 

"Noble Savages" tend to kill an awful lot of each other relative to non-primitive societies.

[summitchaserCJB]

To a liberal ridicule is the only way to get people to side with them. I know what you're saying, but it's hard to apply our standard today to those of his time. In fact... This video has No credibity because of just that.

Edited October 15, 2010 by summitchaserCJB

[prole]

How 'bout "War fatality rates (percentage of population killed per annum)" for the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki between August 5 and 9th, 1945? Gah-damn, that graph looks like Mt. Fuji!!

[j_b]

Where do you think an 80% casualty rate for a total population of 5 people over 30 years would plot compared to a 10% casualty rate for a population of 200 million over 5 years? How meaningful would that graph be?

 

Moreover, do you think this graph is telling us that Germany and Russia had a war death rate of .15% over the course of the 20th century? That seems quite high.

 

Edited October 15, 2010 by j_b

[rob]

have you guys settled this issue yet, or does the debate still rage on???

 

[tvashtarkatena]

hmmm, most euro countries lost 1%/yr during WW1.

 

Vietnam lost ~.5%/year during the Vietnam war. Very different graph if one starts plotting all the relevant blood baths.

 

Anyone cares to guess where Iraq would fit?

 

Since the data you presented was basically impossible to gather for aforementioned reasons, your conclusions remain unsupported.

 

There are other flaws in your thesis. Timing, for example. Over what time periods were these questionable stats gathered. Are they long term averages, over a societies 'worst year or years'...

 

Furthermore, population scales are vastly different. Is it valid to compare a few tribes out of many with all of europe to determine the levels of violence of 'primitives' to 'europeans'? Why not compare the levels of violence between, say, Germans during WWII and I (high) versus the Toltecs during their worst years. You know, since we're cherry picking tribes to arrive an a predetermined, desired conclusion. What of the levels of violence amongs California coastal tribes (omitted) verses the NAZIs?

 

All one needs to do is move the data sample one or two years in either direction to either include or exclude major wars, and the conclusions do a 180. That, and the data for primitive societies must be simply made up.

 

Don't get me wrong, the Noble Savage idea is bullshit - angry hairless monkeys are what they are, but this kind of faux science would be an insult to a kindergartener.

 

 

 

 

 

The key relationship there is the long-term fatality rate in a given society, which is a function of the frequency, severity, and duration of conflict in each.

 

A small society that is engaged in constant skirmishes where a handful of people are killed each time there's a battle, raid, etc will generally see a significantly greater percentage of its population killed in war than a much larger society that engages in intense conflicts for limited periods of time.

 

"Noble Savages" tend to kill an awful lot of each other relative to non-primitive societies.

[JayB]

Take it up with this guy, professor:

 

http://www.uic.edu/depts/anth/faculty/keeley.html

 

lkeeley@uic.edu

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

I'll get right on that!

[ivan]

i always make a point of getting hammered on columbus day...course, it IS my b-day.

[tvashtarkatena]

You're kind of like an invasion of a new world, if you think about it.

[ivan]

"when alexander saw the breadth of his empire he wept, for there were no more worlds to conquer!"

[Off_White]

My wife works for the Nisqually tribe. They don't celebrate Columbus Day and tend to refer to it as a day of mourning. Summitchaser, maybe you'd like to go out to the rez and tell them what a bunch of America hating racists they are.

 

 

[ivan]

good thing we don't have a lewis n' clark day then