Why Columbus Day Should Be Abolished

[ShadySands]

Was atheism used as the justification for the oppression?

 

I'm seriously asking as I'm not very familiar with how much of a role it played

[Blarghagh]

 

religion has served as the dominant ideological apparatus for explicitly oppressive institutions

 

Are you sure?

 

Hitler, Stalin & Mao didn't use religion as their ideological apparatus (in fact the latter two used atheism as part of theirs), yet their institutions were plenty oppressive.

 

 

What he said (as quoted by you):

 

religion has served as the dominant ideological apparatus for explicitly oppressive institutions

 

What you read:

 

religion has served as the dominant ideological apparatus for ALL explicitly oppressive institutions

 

There's a minor but key difference.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Was atheism used as the justification for the oppression?

 

I'm seriously asking as I'm not very familiar with how much of a role it played

Not really, mostly enemy of the state(aka political opponents) sort of thing for Stalin and Mao. Hitler's was more racial/ethnic, although it's arguable that religion was a motivating factor with a certain group.

[the_dog_days]

 

 

 

 

No great civilization been founded without a religion.

 

Best of luck though!

Yeah... I get the feeling Gfted1 was being a wee bit facetious here... Poe's law at work.

Goddammit, you're probably right.

Yeah, I fell for it too. <_<

[Barothmuk]

Are you sure?

 

Hitler, Stalin & Mao didn't use religion as their ideological apparatus (in fact the latter two used atheism as part of theirs), yet their institutions were plenty oppressive.

Ignoring the Catholic Church's compliance with fascism and Hitler's own religiosity this really isn't relevant to my point. There existing non-religious ideological justifications for oppressive institutions does not mitigate the impact of religious justifications for oppressive institutions.

Was atheism used as the justification for the oppression?

Not really. Only crazy religious ideologues would say the purges or the famines were simply a case of the godless killing the faithful. That said, despite religious persecution frequnetly being that explicit (i.e. "We're godly, they're not. Kill 'em") it'd be incredibly simplistic to say religion was the root cause.

[Gfted1]

You guys/gals rock. I mean that sincerely.

 

Aside, what part of my previous post was factually incorrect?

[Barothmuk]

Aside, what part of my previous post was factually incorrect?

Christmas and Easter are evil holidays obviously.

[Nonek]

Mankind has never needed a reason to demonise others, in fact hate speech, self righteousness and lies that damn entire races, groups or whatever has always been fashionable. One will always find people whom are comfortable with this, look down upon their fellow man and just expect them to do as they're told rather than stand up for what is right. One does not need religion for this, one can find any excuse, it's not right but it is a reality.

 

Inhumanities usually begin with this, when lies are accepted and unfounded demonisation is judged as a good thing.

[Ineth]

Was atheism used as the justification for the oppression?

 

Not for most of the oppression, but for some of it, yes - at least in the case of Mao.

 

Atheism was declared mandatory, religious congregations were made illegal, and members of such congregations who kept meeting in secret, were relentlessly persecuted by the police state.

 

 

 What he said (as quoted by you):

 

 

religion has served as the dominant ideological apparatus for explicitly oppressive institutions

 

What you read:

 

religion has served as the dominant ideological apparatus for ALL explicitly oppressive institutions

 

Ah. When reading it I broke down the sentence to

• religion has served as
• the dominant
• ideological apparatus for explicitly oppressive institutions

But I see now that it can just as well be read as

• religion has served as
• the dominant ideological apparatus
• for [some] explicitly oppressive institutions

 

[Barothmuk]

Ah. When reading it I broke down the sentence to

• religion has served as
• the dominant
• ideological apparatus for explicitly oppressive institutions

But I see now that it can just as well be read as

• religion has served as
• the dominant ideological apparatus
• for [some] explicitly oppressive institutions

Yeah, had to re-read a couple of times to make sure I didn't make that mistake.

[Hurlshort]

Religion deserves plenty of the bad rap it gets, but I do believe that the 'Catholic Church versus Science!' stuff is fairly overstated.  

[Guard Dog]

You have to admit, it's real easy to feel sorry for God. His primary command to us was to love one another. I'd say we pretty well screwed the pooch on that count over the years. But even more look at all the horrible s--t done in the name of the one who told us to love one another. How would you feel if one of your children killed one of their siblings and then said "I did it for you Dad"

 

I think it's probably a lot like that.

[Raithe]

Religion deserves plenty of the bad rap it gets, but I do believe that the 'Catholic Church versus Science!' stuff is fairly overstated.  

 

Funny thing is we have this wonderful representation of the Middle Ages leading into the Renaissance as a point of the Church being heavy against science. It's a pretty popular conception of history. The thing is, it's pretty much wrong. The majority of leading scientists of the time and protected knowledge was because of the church. Hell, even Galileo's trial was more because of politics and how he annoyed people, not because of the science (although the heliocentralism was used as the excuse for the trail).

 

Hm, although now I'm trying to remember exactly where I studied that background. Heh, I got curious on it after reading one of the Ring of Fire books by Eric Flint and looked into the real history, but I can't place where it was  I found the evidence.

[Hurlshort]

I always like to point out the fact that the Big Bang Theory was originated by a Catholic priest.  

[213374U]

Aside, what part of my previous post was factually incorrect?

 

Ah, you were being serious then? Not even a little droll?

 

As for incorrect, I wouldn't say you are "factually" wrong, but the argument you're making is that religion killed people, whereas it really didn't. The Spanish Flu killed people. On the other hand, religion was simply an excuse for the Spanish Inquisition to kill people, whenever it was convenient for whoever happened to sit on the throne at the time. To be *strictly* right, you'd have to prove that without religion, people wouldn't have found some other rationale by which to oppress, brutalize and kill each other.

 

In addition to what Leferd said, during the "Golden Age" of Islam, there was a focus on cultivating the sciences and the Caliphs sponsored the preservation and spread of knowledge gained from the then-decadent classical civilizations. Francis I of France, while favoring rather expeditious methods to deal with Protestants, was a well known patron of the arts and hosted and sponsored Leonardo da Vinci until his death. Etc. Can't separate the good from the bad.

 

We have outgrown the whole Divine Right thing, right? We replaced it with popular sovereignty and natural rights which are still easily perverted or outright abrogated to pretty much keep doing the same thing when needed. Where religion was banned, some of the worst recorded abuses have been committed. It's not religion, it's just people, man.

[Barothmuk]

It's not religion, it's just people, man.

Bah, that's the kind of flaccid mindset I was talking about.

 

Nowadays whether its left or right whenever it's religion that's used as the ideological justification for any kind of action suddenly everyone will give these impotent excuses about how "it's just human mature maaaan". Rarely see other ideologies get this kind of free pass.

[213374U]

 

It's not religion, it's just people, man.

Bah, that's the kind of flaccid mindset I was talking about.

 

Nowadays whether its left or right whenever it's religion that's used as the ideological justification for any kind of action suddenly everyone will give these impotent excuses about how "it's just human mature maaaan". Rarely see other ideologies get this kind of free pass.

 

Well, now that I'm officially one of them flaccid contemporary progressives, I wonder what's the next step. Register a Twitter account? Go vegan? Crossfit? Go vegan and post it to Twitter?

 

What exactly are you referring to when you say "religion"? Is it the power structure oriented towards societal control? The myriad cosmogonic myths? The concept of the flying spaghetti monster? Have you identified any particular concept that is common to all religions that you deem to be especially pernicious, or perhaps a set of psychological mechanisms unique to religion that make it the go-to method to turn perfectly well-adjusted citizens into bloodthirsty barbarians?

 

People killing each other has been a constant ever since we learned to use sticks as tools, and possibly earlier. Only the justifications have evolved, and perhaps our ability to use these justifications to manipulate one another, but we haven't. I don't see anything inherently virulent or vicious in religion, or at least not any more than in, as you say, other ideologies. On the other hand, religion, or the biological traits that cause it to emerge may serve an evolutionary purpose, what with it being a constant throughout virtually all human cultures and all.

 

Me, I think trying to blame religion for whatever is a cop-out. If you want something to put your finger on, I'd suggest looking at economics. And even that still wouldn't be the whole picture.

Edited October 14, 2015 by 213374U

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

You need a twitter account dedicated to vegan crossfit.

[Barothmuk]

Well, now that I'm officially one of them flaccid contemporary progressives, I wonder what's the next step. Register a Twitter account? Go vegan? Crossfit? Go vegan and post it to Twitter?

Have a shower and get a haircut you stinking hippy.

What exactly are you referring to when you say "religion"? Is it the power structure oriented towards societal control? The myriad cosmogonic myths? The concept of the flying spaghetti monster? Have you identified any particular concept that is common to all religions that you deem to be especially pernicious, or perhaps a set of psychological mechanisms unique to religion that make it the go-to method to turn perfectly well-adjusted citizens into bloodthirsty barbarians?

Of course, you speak of religion in the abstract. A wishy washy, ill defined religion, perhaps deism, one of the many eastern philosophies or even the spiritual beliefs of some indigenous peoples. Can many of these things even constitute as "religions"? Aren't many belief systems like Hinduism or shamanism largely European constructs that try to force foreign beliefs within a Western framework?

 

I am interested in none of these questions. What I refer to are specific, concrete, actually existing religions who have served to justify many oppressive acts and institutions and who, according "progressive-minded folks", should be free of any examination or critique.

Me, I think trying to blame religion for whatever is a cop-out. If you want something to put your finger on, I'd suggest looking at economics.

No kidding. That's why I advocating exposing whom they serve and for what purpose rather than trying to hide this behind strawman materialism.

 

Note post on last page

Edited October 14, 2015 by Barothmuk

[Namutree]

In my mind religions are just superstitious ideologies. They are just as capable of being harmful and destructive as any other kind of ideology. Writing them off as, "People can be bad with or without them" may be true, but it's not the whole truth. If people take a bad ideology seriously, including religion, it can and (in my opinion) has done harm. It does more than just provide excuse for doing harm; it can provide incentive.

 

 

 

People killing each other has been a constant ever since we learned to use sticks as tools, and possibly earlier. 

Definitely earlier.

[Bryy]

 

 

 

Moral standards of yesteryear?

 

So, the subjugation and genocide of a society/civilization is a-okay because.... more people were prejudice than there are today?

 

Completely ignoring my point.

 

You're a good soldier.

 

Yup, don't even respond to me. Just give the good old "you're just a SJW/whatever buzzword it is today".

 

 

Me: "History is filled with blood and iron, of which our modern society is built upon. Those acts have created myths with sometimes rosetinted glasses, but they are our foundations, no matter what you think they should be. Trying to change the past is a tool of the useful idiot for its unknown master"

You: "Are you saying that genocide is a-ok?!"

 

'k

 

Nobody is trying to change the past.

 

Like, what did you honestly think is going on here?

 

He did all those things. It's documented. It's proven.

 

Are you saying that simply acknowledging that things went differently than what is popular opinion.... is literally changing the past? Are you honestly saying that we should ignore the full (and actual) story just because a better story was told? That the myth is more important than actual history?

 

You're saying that I'M a tool? 

 

By the way, I absolutely love how you're talking about an "unknown master" like you're Fox Mulder.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Bryy

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

 

Moral standards of yesteryear?

 

So, the subjugation and genocide of a society/civilization is a-okay because.... more people were prejudice than there are today?

 

Completely ignoring my point.

 

You're a good soldier.

 

Yup, don't even respond to me. Just give the good old "you're just a SJW/whatever buzzword it is today".

 

 

Me: "History is filled with blood and iron, of which our modern society is built upon. Those acts have created myths with sometimes rosetinted glasses, but they are our foundations, no matter what you think they should be. Trying to change the past is a tool of the useful idiot for its unknown master"

You: "Are you saying that genocide is a-ok?!"

 

'k

 

Nobody is trying to change the past.

 

Like, what did you honestly think is going on here?

 

He did all those things. It's documented. It's proven.

 

Are you saying that simply acknowledging that things went differently than what is popular opinion.... is literally changing the past? Are you honestly saying that we should ignore the full (and actual) story just because a better story was told? That the myth is more important than actual history?

 

You're saying that I'M a tool? 

 

By the way, I absolutely love how you're talking about an "unknown master" like you're Fox Mulder.

 

 

Hahahaha, like clockwork. Well done, good sir.

 

Please do continue, i find it absolutely fascinating that you deliberately either spin my point or change it entirely every single time.

 

One more time: Everyone knows that Colombus, and pretty much every historical figure has some skeletons in the closet and did some really nasty things (from our or by then standards) from time to time, and that information is available for anyone bothering to open a book. But it so happens that these figures become myth when whole societies and civilizations are founded on the ideals that they conveyed and people tend to overemphasize the good parts. Like Thomas Jefferson was one hell of a thinker and one of the founding fathers, but he also happened to own slaves. So when you have useful idiots who, in a juvenile spell of hatred against themselves and the society they inhabit, share videos and information that overemphasizes on the negatives of the said person(s), thus actively participating in undermining the very foundations of that historical figure has grown to represent and symbolize, you can pretty much bet on that they are played into the hands of those that seek to destroy it.

 

It happens all the times in all places of power. Business? you betcha, just read about the robber barons during the 19th century. War? it's intrinsic in war since Sun Tzu. Espionage? Well duh, just read any interview from defectors from the KGB or the Stasi papers. Realpolitik? Of course, just look at Syria for the most recent example.

 

Now at ease, private.

[Gfted1]

Ah, you were being serious then? Not even a little droll?

No, not necessarily serious, just making a point. And I like to be as accurate as possible when laying out a counter-argument.

[Longknife]

 

 

Do not cite the Young Turks.

 

Former Subscriber (maybe still?), Wolf-PAC supporter, but I do not and will not watch their videos anymore. It's gone from lightly opinionated but educated commentaries on politics to downright reactionary hysterics.

 

Couple things in regards to this video:

 

1) No one gives a flying **** about Colombus. So Colombus was an ****. Ok, cool. Nobody cared about the guy to begin with. This is a guy that comes up briefly in 3rd grade when we're told about how America came to be, he's by no means a revered or important figure for anyone in the big picture of things. The entire video is presented with this sort of premise that Americans and others actually give a damned about the guy and revere him as an important and amazing historical figure. Hell no, he's that guy that gets me an extra day off of work, nothing more. This has the same effect to if you told me "DID U KNO NAPOLEON BONAPARTE WAS KIND OF A JERK?" Cool, I believe you immediately and have zero ****s to give.

 

What's more important to me is what the **** the person's angle is with telling me Colombus is terrible. Is this gonna be some anti-America speech and how genocide is ok when the west does it? Is this gonna be about how our country lies to us or something? Dude, Colombus gets away with looking very neutral because his actions are taught to 7 year olds. By the time you're teaching those same people but at 14, Colombus just isn't relevant at all. There's no conspiracy here, this is just dumb luck that has allowed Colombus to go about with a relatively neutral reputation for most people.

 

 

2) TYT is reactionary hysterics. The video itself basically wants to imply Colombus is responsible for slaughtering 3 million natives like an ****. A quick google search will immediately diminish those claims in two important ways:

 

1) The "Experts say" line they use is an obvious weasel word, and of course the reality is that the number claims vary from as low as ~100,000 to as high as 8 million. If you use one the most cited sources on wikipedia (which refer you to books from Yale University by a guy named, Irving Rouse at the bottom here), then the numbers named are in the 500,000 to 1 million range.

 

2) Colombus is not directly responsible for their deaths, as 90% of the population had no immunity to smallpox and died from that. The way the information is presented, they'd have you believe the guy rode around killing them for sport (TOTAL side-note: my American family has Scottish origins and I know **** all about them because we always get mean looks and turned away at those scottish conventions as we're told our ancestors ran down some hill and killed their neighbors for sport. Good job, my ancestors. Kill grandma for bonus points) and never stopped. No, he indirectly did so just by exposing them to a disease they weren't built to resist. I'm not doubting he did terrible ****, but how about we stick to the facts and not exaggerate them, as the video would have you believe this guy is old skool Hitler.

 

3) There's a snippet in there about Colombus pimping 9 and 10 year old girls. I actually forgot to search this, but given my above searches, I again would have my doubts he was pimping them. Enslaving them? Absolutely, but the way they delivered the excerpt seemed designed to make you think "AND HE'S A PEDOPHILE TOO? GOD I HATE HIM" when infact the excerpt makes absolutely zero mention of anything sexual going on with the girls. Again, I don't know, it's merely a suspicion, and after all, if they wish to make this claim, the burden of proof is on them. This and many other parts of the video need a giant [citation needed], is the point.

 

 

 

 

The point is that it's very easy to see something like this and get pissed off. It's very easy to look at a historical figure that did bad things and demonize them until they're going toe-to-toe with Hitler. I would be quicker to ask what's the purpose in that, as well as point out that there's nothing objective about exaggerating all the worst aspects and leaving out important snippets in his favor. Granted, not trying to defend the guy: as I and I'm sure many others have stated, who gives a damned about Colombus? Throw him under the bus 20 times for all I care. I merely question the motive in doing so. It feels like a witch hunt for the sake of a witch hunt.

 

 

So how about we just go back to not giving a damned about the guy, take solace in knowing some new snippets of history, and then we enjoy Colombus day all the same cause hell yeah free day off of work?

[HoonDing]

Hernan Cortes was the only progressive conquistador.