Not only that, he also fought werewolves: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1811315/

that's true, back before the 90's there was lesser emphasis on Soviet history, and more emphasis on the Holocaust instead. Operation Barbarossa was mostly glossed over as graphs and maps, with the real horrors of the eastern front as foot notes.

Come to think of it though, it could've been mostly an information gap at the time, it's not like the west and east were fully cooperative academically.

things are a lot different nowadays with how accessible information is.

I think it may be both actually. Without this becoming an ethnic issue, there is certainly a lot of resentment against our European ancestors -- for both good and bad reasons.


The question has become, "Why are we celebrating a white colonist who enslaved local populations?" It is a loaded and unfair question when most cultures of all types were both brutal and heroic, as is the case today.


I don't think there is anything wrong with celebrating Columbus, but it is important to teach the whole person. This is true for all figures, regardless of nationality or ethnic background.

Although there's now a grudging respect of the Soviet effort, I've noticed a lot of the more vociferous people I've seen arguing this point online seem determined to reject the idea that anyone else contributed to the war effort, and it seems that an admission that Britain did anything beyond the lazy incompetents as portrayed in the likes of Band of Brothers is like pulling teeth. It's slightly depressing to see nonsensical comments about the Spitfire always being mediocre at best, that Whittle stole the idea of the jet engine from the Nazis (even though it was a completely different design) and that any other achievement was either the product of the awesome victor or their nearly-as-awesome adversary. And that we should be grateful we're not speaking German if not for the awesomeness, etc.

Hehe, yeah. Likewise, I've talked to many who thinks that Denmark helped the Germans because we surrendered and "invited" the Germans to come in From 1940 to 1942 even Britian thought we were axis and not allied because our government chose to try work with the Germans in order to stay in "power" (instead of being replaced by a puppet government) and that way, help the danish civilian population the most. Not from choice, but necessity. It was either that, or we would have been slaughtered (Denmarks military force at that time, was non-existent, laughable at best)

I must admit, even as someone who's had a passing (but not serious) interest in WWII, I've wondered why nobody ever seemed to clarify Denmark's position. My admittedly very vague understanding is at least along the lines of what you've said, but I don't understand why it's never really spelt out properly.

The whole situation in Scandinavia was chaos. Some was pro-german, majority wasn't. Think it was just easier putting us under the same umbrella of Axis, and deal with it later The danish collaboration with the Germans was seen as an act of alliance, while the truth was that is was an uneasy, forced into submission collaboration. The allied forces named us allied when the danes revolted against the Germans because they wanted to have death penalty to saboteurs and danish jews (Danes rescued almost all their jewish population during ww2 by ferrying them all to Sweden in a couple of nights in fishing boats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_of_the_Danish_Jews

Edit: Found out the link was broke, lol

Teddy Roosevelt would've been more believable as a werewolf killing "American badass".

Because like it or not, Columbus is a key historical figure of Western expansion as a society in the 15th century. Was Colombus a bastard? Oh yes, there's no denying it. But history is written by the conquerors and those who seize what they desire. people praise Alexander the Great but he was just as much of a bastard towards others, yet his mark on history is also crucial and he is but one of many examples. Do I personally celebrate him as a hero? No. Do I recognise he did good and bad things? Yes. But so did George Washington and I don't vilify him. Honestly, this generation is pretty silly. We basically do nothing but commit secular Cadaver Synod to people who did amazing things. Has Columbus' legacy been whitewashed? Certainly, but that doesn't mean we need to belittle the feats they accomplished. Also, while we're at it, let's belittle the Mongolians for their wholesale butcher of Europe in the 1200s while we're at it.

My point? It's okay to balance out the legacy of famed figures to show they had dirt under their nails, but all this backtracking to go "HE'S A MONSTER AND NOTHING HE DID SHOULD BE CELEBRATED!" is just silly ego stroking self-righteousness.

This is the point that I have been trying to make.

B-b-b but what if I'm triggered by him?

This is definitely a possibility. An original translator could leave out a part they did not like/agree with, in order to present the person they are researching, just as someone later could "interpret" the same writings differently.

What many people forget is that writing relies heavily on context. Without that context, interpretations run wild

How does this stay our of our history lessons! Lincoln fought vampires and now I learn FDR was a Bad Ass?

I feel so cheated now!

I don't disagree. But the teaching I want to see is one without judgement. Especially when we change the rules. Tell kids he was a slaver, as EVERY culture on the planet has practiced in some form at some time. Let kids know that SOME Indians were killed.

"Slaughtered" is a judgement word that infers the Indians just stood around and did not fight back, kind of like sheep and cattle.

"Brutal" is another judgement word. What one person finds "brutal", another may find "justified." Throw babies in the mix and people may agree more readily

Teaching, to me, is about facts. Judgements should be left to the Religions of the world and Court Rooms.

that's a very unpopular opinion among tenured teachers and professors. they feel they should replace the churches, temples, and mosques as the secular moral authority.

Well, it's hard to deny the effects of Columbus's arrival, at least, in the West Indies. As a result of his arrival, the Caribbean islands are practically depopulated of its indigenous populations. Only remnant of that population is the Kalinago Caribs of Dominica, and the mestizo populations of Aruba, Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico. It's kind of hard not to feel judgment that teaching Columbus is well-entrenched into the European-centered history of the Americas, including terms like pre-Columbian, District of Columbia, and Columbia University. Columbus's part in history is tainted with ethnocentrism. The fact is some people, that no matter the facts presented, people will feel triggered. Native Americans have no reason to celebrate him, and some Latin American nations are attempting to revise history as a way to legitimize anti-colonialist national narratives.

4. It resulted in the deaths and enslavement of most of the natives.

5 . He never stepped foot in North America. He discovered Central and South America.

it was the Italian American lobby and Catholic lobby that got Columbus day recognized. It wasn't a federal holiday until the 1930's. It's like celebrating St. Patrick's Day for most people.

I think they still celebrate Columbus quite prominently in Italy and possibly Spain. Is this a different case for them as they're in Europe? Any thoughts?

I'd be surprised if the same people against Columbus day are against all other federal holidays, except probably Labor day. Thanksgiving and Independence day are offensive for the same reasons. Christmas and Easter because it's too Christian. Even Veteren's day for promoting the military.

The main point is that Columbus had 0% to do with North America.

Yet was an important figure for Italian Americans and Catholics, who lived in the USA. Multiculturalism. Except the bad kind because it's European.

Glad I'm not European then! Modern English culture isn't much different to American culture.