In a Columbus Day post, Alberto Zambrano explains how those who trash Columbus — and the day which honors him — justify their attitudes.
“History of mankind is one of conflict and constant competition for limited resources: Water, earth, food and women. Those who trash Columbus day want to make people believe that the pre columbine societies were much more advanced than the european societies and history has proven that this isn’t the case. Europeans have proven to be better in these sorts of disputes, conflicts and competences than any other race in the face of the earth, the indigenous peoples were losers, and their friends and successors want europeans to feel sorry, shame and regret for being better than the savages in matters of conquest and exploration.”
He is right about the anti-Columbus crowd and their ‘sore loser’ mentality. In fact that’s the whole history of the “aggrieved victim” mentality vs. those who bested them in conflict or conquered them. The thought that their side lost is unbearable to them, and they will settle for nothing less than revenge in some form, and now that mentality takes the form of forcing guilt, contrition and apologies from the descendants of their conquerors. They simply want to turn the tables, and make us grovel, and too often they succeed, fueling more demands for apologies and appeasement. The cycle shows no signs of ever ending.
So much of the Columbus Day discussion centers on claims of atrocities by the European explorers and colonists against the ‘indigenous peoples’, even to the extent of charging Columbus with ”genocide”. I still maintain that the term genocide ought to be reserved for actual extermination of a people, not things like forcing them to speak European languages, or forbidding their often bloodthirsty ‘religions’. The fact is that these peoples for the most part still exist; they were not victims of ‘genocide’. They survived not only to ‘tell the tale’ but to complain endlessly of the injustices supposedly done to them.
Most White people are willing to accept at least some guilt for what the earliest European explorers and colonists did, willingly believing the leftist narrative of victimhood vs. oppression, and accepting that their ancestors were the villains. When presented with evidence of horrible atrocities committed by ‘indigenous’ peoples against Whites, they are easily gulled into thinking that the stories of savagery on the part of the indigenous were ‘exaggerated’ if not completely false. As with the following comment from another website:
“I’ve read a couple places that Columbus and sailors before him started the cannibalism rumor to justify enslaving and killing the natives, which certainly makes more sense to me.”
Again, from Alberto Zambrano’s blog piece:
“All of the elements that have sustained previous forms of success and european western pride are either in decline or withered to the extreme. What the west must do is to awaken and stop giving terrain to the demands of minorities and other groups that demand from majorities a more liberal mindset.”
Yes. All too often White people try to meet the other side halfway and concede vital points to them, such as this kind of thing: ‘Yes, Columbus and his men were brutal to the natives and they enslaved them…’ or in other cases, ”yes, slavery was a great evil, an abomination, an atrocity, but at least we abolished slavery and stopped forcing Christianity on the natives…”
This kind of response is weak because it is defensive, and it concedes too much to the other side. The other side sees it as weak and continues to attack our Achilles heel of wanting to be conciliatory and ”fair.”
And I find it disgusting that the people who try to appease in this fashion are affecting some kind of moral superiority over those of Columbus’ time, or those of the early colonial days. My ancestors, like those of many Americans, had to fight for survival against often hostile and yes, savage natives, people who often attacked at night, stealthily, showing no quarter to the old, the weak, to children, or women. These same hostile Indians did in fact treat captives brutally, often torturing them, and doing so with open enjoyment. Our ancestors tried to live peaceably alongside these people(s) at first, and too often found that their newfound Indian ”friends” would turn on them and attack them treacherously out of the blue.
Modern Americans who apologize for or condemn their colonist ancestors for using force should be ashamed. Were it not for their ancestors’ tough-mindedness and willingness to fight for their families and their own lives and property they (we) would not be here today. We have them to thank for our very existence here. We should look up to them, and never be ashamed or apologetic. If we do so, we disgrace them, and are unworthy of them.
As Zambrano says in closing his piece,
“It is really foolish and decadent when western men, that have never have had to subdue entire tribes of savages are forced to morally condemn those men that in a past fought tooth and nail to take the continent for their Kingdom. Those men who’s blood, swear, tears, pain, broken bones bought peace at a very high cost for the territories over which liberals cry and communists fantasize about by lying to the public by saying that the indians were good savages.”