But That's None Of My Business

Most of them were unfortunately killed by Small Pox. History is littered with genocide, man can be cruel and compassionate. BioMarker is correct, if you lived in that time you would have done the same thing. Is it right? That's relative question. As far as Small Pox is concerned, the two populations were bound to run into one another sooner or later. The later, the worse it would have been because the population has only grown larger. It's all history and none of us here are not responsible for what someone else did, should we kill all the German today for what Hitler did 70+ years ago? It's history.

BioMarker??? LOL! That sounds painful ... :)

I'm sorry, Damn autocorrect!! I even followed the prompts to make sure it wouldn't change you username, and it did anyway!! I'm going to get a new tablet, I broke mine and I'm using a family members, it's a Kindle Fire! What a piece of garbage! Again, I apologize for that, I'm going to call Bezos and complain to him about his company's tablet !! Lol

LOL! No problem!!

Don't apply 21st Century ethics to a 17th Century event. Back then, chances are 99% you would've acted the same way.

You're probably right but I've just always been of the opinion that, in general, people make the best decision they can at that moment with the information they have (barring intentional genocide like the Holocaust). No one really knew smallpox or other diseases would wipe out 90% of the Native American population over a 300 year span nor did they see historical land rights and usage in the same light we do today. In 200 years, there's a good chance that something we think is completely natural and okay will be considered abhorrent by people in the future. I have an issue with viewing people's actions in the past (especially the far distant past) with our 21st Century lens.... (upvoted your comment by the way).

But they were here.

Yeah, they were here. Slaughtering one another in tribal disputes. You think the Indian tribes were all one big happy family dancing around fires and going on Buffalo hunting excursions together?

Then the euros slaughtered them.
Seems legit.

Not initially, no. He tried to civilize the Indians and give them a life. Columbus went back to report to the queen of Spain on his progress and to get more resources. When he came back, the Indians slaughtered his men. As a result he repaid the favor. It wasn't like the Indians had an established society with a government. They were simply a bunch of savages running through the woods with spear in their hands.

Exactly. They were having their own world wars but their world was much smaller.

Yea, Bob Ballard did! Unless he's really Bob Chov Ballard?

Lol! I meant Leonardo DiCrapio (since he was in "Titanic") Haha!

I was told you did!! Ok, fine!! Leonardo Carbon Footprint it is!! (Did I say that out loud?)

But you said you were there, Brian!!

Good, but I think a more accurate one would be '...is like saying Marco Polo "discovered" China'

I guess "discovered" is relative, if your of European decent then whoever discovered that land for which there was no knowledge of in that community.

Yeah, seriously

hahaha

Fox isnt conservative, except for the part where it is, which is all of it

If you think Fox is conservative, you don't know what conservative is. Fox is moderate at best. Of course, when you live in modern America, having moved as far as our culture has to the left. It's easy to understand why you'd think that. Our modern far left culture is the only reference point you have.

They treated Obama coming into office like Ghengis Khan was taking over. They have skipped over information many times in the past regarding cases that would make republican arguements look bad. They have had people working on the network who are now politicians for the republican party. Im not saying that other sources are unbiased, but saying Fox is not a republican centred news network is crazy

Saying NBC, ABC, NBC, UNIVSION, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and so on and so forth are not a Democrat controlled networks is crazy!

"Im not saying that other sources are unbiased"

I see where your your going with this, we're cool, enough said!! :)

First, Opposition to Obama doesn't make one conservative. Second, one being Republican doesn't' equal them being conservative either. You do know there's a difference between being conservative and Republican, right? There are Republicans that are every bit as liberal as Obama. John Boehner, the current speaker of the house is an example of this. This is why conservatives want him out. So you're right. Saying Fox is not a Republican network might be considered crazy, but saying there not exclusively conservative would be.

Heres the thing, the whole problem is that a news network should not show opposition to anything! All the liberal, republican, conservative or whatever networks are all wrong in showing bias. But here the thing, the reason they do is because they know people will watch them if it says what they want to hear. The biggest reason that Fox is so popular compared to other networks is because it is the only right wing network. I wouldnt know exactly how to deal with this because we really dont have this issue in Canada, but seriously, this isnt just limited to Fox (although they take it to the highest extreme) they shouldnt be allowed to call themselves the news if they leave information out and bend what actually happened

thats stupid xD use some logic

dis·cov·er
d??sk?v?r/
verb
verb: discover; 3rd person present: discovers; past tense: discovered; past participle: discovered; gerund or present participle: discoveringbe the first to find or observe (a place, substance, or scientific phenomenon)

Willy Wonka:
Tell us more about how you kept running into living beings and civilizations..."where no one has gone before"...

Guess Joseph Priestly didn't discover oxygen either. After all, people had been breathing it the whole time.

Did anyone KNOW it was O2? No....so he discovered it. Sure it was there....but no one knew it.

America was visited by other explorers BEFORE Columbus and people LIVED there already...so they surely "discovered" it before Columbus. People KNEW it was there long before Columbus.

So...yeah...not close to oxygen....but thanks for playing.

By your definition below, literally everyone who had ever lived already "discovered" the phenomena of oxygen respiration and gravitation since they had been universally observed. Yet as you say, that does not diminish the work of Priestly and Newton. So why do the explorers of the late 1400s get no respect? They made the important connections to the general body of knowledge that had been lacking.

They stumbled upon civilizations and lands THEY had never been. I am saying the term "discovered" is a misnomer. They went to a place and brought the knowledge of it back to their homelands. But they didn't "discover" those lands.

When you go to a supermarket you don't "discover" a loaf of bread even though no one else bought it and took it home. You do. But you don't "discover" the bread. Other people made it, loaded it, looked at it, etc....it's presence was known by many others before YOU picked it up and took it home.

You'd be a bit self-important to say you "discovered" the bread.

http://reverbpress.com/discovery/history/columbus-day-myths-debunked-and-explained/

Dumb luck?