"These articles offer a refutation of your charges."Then the burden of proof is on YOU to show where they do so,
@philosopher You haven't.
Why can't YOU link the articles, quote them, and show, point by point, where they supposedly counter the extensively documented evidence I already
linked up directly?
If you want to "get real" about Columbus, it's time you start defending him in a scholarly manner. This ain't it.
You also need to "get real" when it comes to recognizing acceptable standards of culpability and proof of it.
"that Columbus personally ( not as an administrator) committed the crimes of rape, murder, genocide, and personally enslaved? If personally had a slave, what was their name and how many?"Moving the goal-posts much? Why not ask for their birth certificates as well?
:DWe're discussing Columbus'impact on the New World. As for his -personal- involvement, an administrator is directly responsible for setting policy and supervising his subordinates.
In legal terms, Columbus has
command responsibility.which is an internationally recognized concept when judging the criminality of a leader's actions. It also impart direct responsibility for those under his command when establishing culpability for war-crimes and crimes against humanity..
An administrator doesn't have to personally murder someone to be directly responsible for their death.
An administrator doesn't have to personally beat a slave to work to have them enslaved.
An adminsitrator doesn't have to personally hold a child down when his subordinates do so.
He's still responsible for the system he introduces (
encomienda, in this case), how he administrates it, and responsible when he condones the actions of his subordinates while they do so on his behalf.
You're also adding in additional requirements, such as showing "genocide" which you never discussed to begin with. I've seen your style of debating. It's isn't clever, it isn't honest, and all it will do is prolong the inevitable.
;-)"First hand evidence please. Again no secondary sources."...and who are YOU to decide what sources are or are not acceptable proof?
If you feel a scholarly work, including a
secondary one, is inaccurate the burden of proof is on YOU to show the error. This is a bad-faith demand on your part, as evidenced by
your own refusal to adhere to it.Is Fr. Hardon "
first hand evidence"? No. Then why did you cite him?
;-)Is Christopher Columbus and Fake History 9-1-2017 a primary source? No. It's a
"secondary source" , exactly the kind
you won't accept. Fancy that. Double-standards much? ;-)
"First hand evidence please. Again no secondary sources."Apply your standards evenly Philosopher. According to the ones YOU set, you still have yet to refute
any evidence I've already presented thus far.
Did you even
quote your secondary sources? No. Did you even
link them? No. You couldn't even do that. A cynical mind would speculate you just wanted to present a factual-looking "refutation source" without showing any proof that it actually DOES refute the information I've presented.
;-)What you HAVE done is keep piling on additional demands for proof even though you're
already unable to refute what's already on the table.
Will it make a difference? Probably not. After all, you're ignoring "first hand evidence" I already supplied.
In the case of Columbus condoning both rape and slavery I already HAVE supplied first-hand evidence in the form of his own letter. You obviously didn't read it.
-- "A hundred castellanoes are as easily obtained for a woman as for a farm, and it is very general and there are plenty of dealers who go about looking for girls; those from nine to ten are now in demand."--
That's a direct quote from a letter Columbus sent in 1500 to Doña Juana de la Torre, the sister of one of his head crew members detailing his second voyage to the Americas.
Cited here and
hereColumbus even bragged to the Spanish crown on his ability to supply slaves, using that term.
--"I make this promise to our most invincible Sovereigns, that, if I am supported by some little assistance from them, I will give them as much gold as they have need of, and in addition spices, cotton, and mastic, which is found only in Chios, and as much aloes-wood,
and as many heathen slaves as their Majesties may choose to demand."--
Cited here and hereColumbus' enslavement and murder of the Indians was extensively documented by someone who witnessed them
first-hand,
Fr. Bartolome de las Casas, the first priest ordained of the Americas
--"In three or four months, when I was there, more than seventy thousand children, whose fathers and mothers had been sent to the mines, died of hunger."--
--"Where had been a flourishing population, it is now a shame and pity to see the island laid waste and turned into a desert."--
--"There are two main ways in which those who have travelled to this part of the world pretending to be Christians have uprooted these pitiful peoples and wiped them from the face of the earth. First, they have waged war on them: unjust, cruel, bloody and tyrannical war. Second, they have murdered anyone and everyone who has shown the slightest sign of resistance, or even of wishing to escape the torment to which they have subjected him.
This latter policy has been instrumental in suppressing the native leaders, and, indeed, given that the Spaniards normally spare only women and children, it has led to the annihilation of all adult males, whom they habitually subject to the harshest and most iniquitous and brutal slavery that man has ever devised for his fellow-men, treating them, in fact, worse than animals. "--
That's from "The Devastation of the Indies: A Brief Account" Bartolomé de Las Casas. There's plenty more in the work.
Cited hereSo even your newly-added demands for
"first-hand" evidence and proof of
"genocide" are met as well.
"Let's get real about Columbus and stop perpetuating the post modern anti-Catholic version..."You should get real about how scholarly debates are conducted, how to refute a counter-example, and what standards of proof are academically acceptable for factually supporting a claim.
In this case, there's nothing
"post modern anti-Catholic" about the horrifiying
eye-witness accounts from a Catholic priest, the first from the New World Columbus discovered and enslaved.
Father de Las Casas beats Father Hardon.
:D De Las Casas was there Hardon was not.