If Christopher Colombus' legacy were placed on trial, in an actual court; with an actual Jury, what do you think the verdict would be?
Guilty of crimes against humanity and unworthy of admiration, or innocent and worthy of admiration?
- MarliLv 71 month ago
That depends on how the prosecution and the defense present their cases, and the makeup of the jury and what each person thinks right.
Some jurors would find him guilty of crimes against humanity but still worthy of admiration because his voyage brought the Eastern and Western Hemispheres together. We would not be what we are if that had not happened, or if it had happened differently. Is that important? Does that outweigh the subjugation and deaths of the indigenous natives?
Some jurors - the Spanish in 1492 - might not care that the Arawaks died. Spain wanted the gold and thought she needed it and deserved it. Spain had driven out the Moors and were now cleansing the nation of Jews and heretics to the true and holy church. Bigots and race haters get on juries. Were the deaths of the natives and the plunder of their country the only crimes against humanity taking place? The pope ruled that Spain was entitled to the land and could rule the inhabitants as she pleased. Ferdinand and Isabella and every Spaniard through them were complicit but they were Columbus's patrons and there was no law stating crimes against humanity in 1492. Where (and when) there is no law, there is no crime in a judicial maxim, good or bad as that is A jury in 2020 would say he was guilty; but even today the verdict would not be unanimous. A jury sitting before 1939 or 1914 may declare Columbus not guilty because "crimes against humanity" did not exist in law.
- nonpartisanLv 61 month ago
Where do you get your history nonsense?
(No, wait...let me guess...you're a Liberal, aren't you?)There's a cure for polyphobia, you know - it's called living in a country lead by a head of state that you're not afraid of.