Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lebell
I think I need to dispell a few of these misconceptions and move on.
First, we seem to be discussing it.
I will repeat, for the last time, that the reason for closing the thread was it's title, which was: "Columbus was an Asshole".
This was not a thread title that was conducive to a discussion.
Second: My beef with AIM is not that they protest, but that they ACTIVELY TRY TO PREVENT the Sons of Italy from holding their own parade. People like Russell Means are free to protest. But they should not be free to prevent others from their right to hold a parade. (Ironically, Ward Churchill who recently has been in the news arguing for academic freedom of speech also has no problem preventing others from exercising their own freedom of speech when he doesn't like it.)
Third: I have acknowledged the all the "sins" presented. I have not "whitewashed" them as you have charged. I would indeed say that if anyone is "whitewashing" (or perhaps more correctly, "blackwashing"), it's those who chose to have as myopic a view of historical individuals in a black light as those who hold them in a white light.
And finally: This a discussion board. I was once told long ago that the poster cannot dictate the direction of the discussion. It is not up to you (or me) to dictate the responses to your post. If some defend Columbus, then some defend Columbus. If others say "move on" then they say "move on". And likewise, if some agree with you, then they agree with you.
Welcome to America  |
Columbus
was an asshole. I'm not sure who gets offended by that statement, an Italian maybe? Would a German get offended if I called Hitler an gaping cankerous asshole? Regardless, if you disagreed, we could have discussed it. But you locked the thread and threatened to temp ban me instead.
AIM has the right to attempt to prevent parades honoring Columbus. Because this is America. Welcome to it.
I haven't seen anyone here hold a myopic view of the negative side of Columbus. But I have seen quite a bit of criticism of even mentioning his utter reprehsibility without also glorifying him at the same time. It is entirely disingenous to claim this thread topic is myopic when it was in DIRECT response to your request for exactly the information it presents.
And finally: I don't need a lesson on what a discussion board happens to be. I did not make any attempt to dictate the discussion (notwithstanding the fact that all posts are attempts to dictate a discussion). I did state that if your response to a discussion about the attrocities of Columbus is to claim the discussion is weak, myopic, one-sided, imbalanced, etc. because it doesn't include information on positive aspects of the man, I would respond as I have: there is already vastly more information on his heroism vs. his despotism - this thread is but a small step towards the balance you claim, but fail, to seek.
But sure, I'm done now. So let's move on.