Image 01 Image 03

Sorry leftists, we SHOULD be celebrating Columbus Day

Sorry leftists, we SHOULD be celebrating Columbus Day

A culture battle we will not yield

Of all their sins, progressive insistence on revisionism and transposing modern day mores onto history is one of the worst. The anti-history movement is a scourge on our culture and intellectual heritage.

When I was a kid we spent this time of year learning about the great explorers, sitting on the graveled blacktop squashed against one another inside chalked drawings of the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria. They were much smaller ships than I’d imagined.

Mere years later and Columbus Day is an annual mini-culture war. Leftists insist Columbus is heroes greatest villain. As is their standard policy, everyone must be remembered not for their greatest achievements, but for their biggest flaw.

The Daily Wire’s Michael Knowles dedicated his entire show today to Christopher Columbus and rightly argues that Columbus has the ability to extract so much vitriol from progressive anti-history types because he embodies western civilization. Once championed by progressive intellectuals, western culture is now responsible for everything wrong with humanity, so we’re told.

So obsessed are these anti-historians that they’ve started a nationwide attempt to rename Columbus Day, Indigenous People’s Day, which as The Federalist points out, is far worse:

When thinking of pre-Columbian America, forget what you’ve seen in the Disney movies. Think “slavery, cannibalism and mass human sacrifice.” From the Aztecs to the Iroquois, that was life among the indigenous peoples before Columbus arrived.

For all the talk from the angry and indigenous about European slavery, it turns out that pre-Columbian America was virtually one huge slave camp. According to “Slavery and Native Americans in British North America and the United States: 1600 to 1865,” by Tony Seybert, “Most Native American tribal groups practiced some form of slavery before the European introduction of African slavery into North America.”

“Enslaved warriors sometimes endured mutilation or torture that could end in death as part of a grief ritual for relatives slain in battle. Some Indians cut off one foot of their captives to keep them from running away.”

Things changed when the Europeans arrived, however: “Indians found that British settlers… eagerly purchased or captured Indians to use as forced labor. More and more, Indians began selling war captives to whites.”

That’s right: Pocahontas and her pals were slave traders. If you were an Indian lucky enough to be sold to a European slave master, that turned out to be a good thing, relatively speaking. At least you didn’t end up in a scene from “Indiana Jones And The Temple of Doom.”

Facts and things though.

Columbus’ motivations have been largely mischaracterized and lost in the discussion is his dedication to spreading Christianity to newly found lands. The Daily Signal writes:

The truth is that Columbus set out for the New World thinking he would spread Christianity to regions where it didn’t exist. While Columbus, and certainly his Spanish benefactors, had an interest in the goods and gold he could return from what they thought would be Asia, the explorer’s primary motivation was religious.

“This conviction that God destined him to be an instrument for spreading the faith was far more potent than the desire to win glory, wealth, and worldly honors,” wrote historian Samuel Eliot Morison over a half-century ago.

In fact, as contemporary historian Carol Delaney noted, even the money Columbus sought was primarily dedicated to religious purposes. Delaney said in an interview with the Catholic fraternal organization the Knights of Columbus:

Everybody knows that Columbus was trying to find gold, but they don’t know what the gold was for: to fund a crusade to take Jerusalem back from the Muslims before the end of the world. A lot of people at the time thought that the apocalypse was coming because of all the signs: the plague, famine, earthquakes, and so forth. And it was believed that before the end, Jerusalem had to be back in Christian hands so that Christ could return in judgment.

Columbus critics don’t just stop at accusing him of greed. One of the biggest allegations against him is that he waged a genocidal war and engaged in acts of cruelty against indigenous people in the Americas.

But historians like Delaney have debunked these claims.

Rather than cruel, Columbus was mostly benign in his interaction with native populations. While deprivations did occur, Columbus was quick to punish those under his command who committed unjust acts against local populations.

“Columbus strictly told the crew not to do things like maraud, or rape, and instead to treat the native people with respect,” Delaney said. “There are many examples in his writings where he gave instructions to this effect. Most of the time when injustices occurred, Columbus wasn’t even there. There were terrible diseases that got communicated to the natives, but he can’t be blamed for that.”

And if you’re in the mood for something a bit more contentious, watch Tucker spar with an anti-historian:

Lastly, I leave you with my favorite Columbus meme. Makes me chuckle every time:

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Why not the “Indignant” or “Indigent” Peoples of the Americas? Without Columbus all those malcontents would have been princesses or princes of the Aztec or Inca Empires…. NOT. More likely slave, serf or sacrifice… or … all three.

OK… who has culturally appropriated the most? The “native” Americans (ah…what do we call this place pre- Vespucio?) or European?

    JOHN B in reply to alaskabob. | October 10, 2017 at 8:03 am

    Remember that before the Europeans came the indigenous people happily lived on the land raising corn and riding their beloved horses.

    Oops – corn and horses were brought by Europeans – and were then culturally mis-appropriated by the natives.

      rotten in reply to JOHN B. | October 10, 2017 at 12:47 pm

      Is this sarcasm? Corn came from the Americas, along with such staples as tomatoes and potatoes and peanut butter. And the Natives were skilled Horsemen.

        alaskabob in reply to rotten. | October 10, 2017 at 7:50 pm

        Corn and potatoes are New World. The horse went extinct in the Americas… the horse culture of the Indians came from stock reintroduced by the Spanish.

Paul In Sweden | October 9, 2017 at 9:54 pm

What I find somewhat amusing is that it is not mentioned often that Columbus was financed by a woman and the primary reason was to avoid further conflict and bloodshed with the Islamist pirates by finding an alternate path to the Indies for the purpose of trade.

Today is also the anniversary of the killing of Che Guevara! That’s two reasons to celebrate!

I really don’t see how what the indigenous people did to each other was “far worse” than their wholesale enslavement, including mutilation and child sex slavery, and arbitrary murder. You’re trying to argue it’s a mere difference in scale, rather than a difference in kind, but no group of natives the size of Columbus’ crew ever came close to their scale.

But hey, at least we’re talking about it, why you claim the people that want the whole history told, rather than a gilded fable, are ‘anti-history’ is beyond me. Quoting an article that farcically claims Pocahontas was a slave trader really doesn’t help your case that it’s those ‘other people’ that are anti history.

    It wasn’t the indigenous people that made North America the greatest place to live and thrive in the world. It wasn’t the indigenous people that made this country THE PLACE that people of color and minorities want to leave their own countries and come to here to live.

    That would be the WHITE EUROPEANS that made this place what it is.

    If Columbus and the WHITE EUROPEANS had not come here the Indians would still be wearing animal skins and living in the stone age.

    When an inferior culture and technology comes into contact with a superior culture and technology the inferior culture ceases to exist. That is the way of the world. It is cultural/technological Darwinism.

    Liberals love Darwin right?

    Arminius in reply to Awing1. | October 11, 2017 at 3:32 am

    “…why you claim the people that want the whole history told, rather than a gilded fable, are ‘anti-history’ is beyond me…”

    Because they are lying.

    They want the gilded fable. I know because I’ve tried to talk to people about, say, the true history of Islam. And they have an outcome in mind; that Islam is a “religion of peace,” and that any conflict between Islam and the West is all the fault of the West. Beginning with the Crusades and then of course up through present day when the poor brown Muslims continue to be victimized by a rapacious US and our constant wars for oil and our concomitant oppressive foreign policy.

    It’s all BS and easy enough to prove. Shortly after the purported prophet of Islam allegedly died in 632 (I say this because while someone named Muhammad who is reputed to have had something to do with receiving the Quran directly from the tablets that have existed uncreated and eternally in heaven with Allah via the angel Gabriel, all the historical sources, manuscript evidence, numismatic evidence, and archeological refutes the “official” Islamic historical narrative as a fabrication that began developing over two hundred years later in the 9th century and then was cast back in time) the Arabs began to conquer parts of the Byzantine and Persian empires (note I say Arabs, not Muslims, as they didn’t even call themselves Muslims until the turn of the 8th century and it’s difficult to call them Muslims when they didn’t even have a Quran until 705 at the earliest and their Qurans went through approximately a century of constant revision).

    By 634 they had captured Basra. By 636 Damascus, by 637 Antioch and Jerusalem had fallen, shortly later Alexandria, and by 654 the Arabs had advanced as far west as to the western border of what is now Libya (The Persian or Sasanian Empire fell to the Arabs in 651).

    They still didn’t have a Quran, and they still weren’t calling themselves Muslims. They had lots of names for themselves; Saracens, Hagarines or Ishmaelites (they believed they were descended from the Biblical Hagar and Ishmael), etc., but they weren’t yet Muslims. The Caliph Abd Al Malik apparently invented Islam circa 690. That’s when we first start seeing coins with the names Muhammad and the Shahada (with Malik’s immage engravd on them! The images disappeared mid-decade when they came up with the doctrine that graven images were haram). By 709 The Arabs had completed their conquest of North Africa.

    By this time Caliph Abd al-Malik (who reigned from 685 until he died in 705) may have delivered the first draft of the Quran. The oldest datable Quran is the Sanaa manuscript and can be dated no older than 705 and perhaps as late as 715, but only a few pages. Other pages are as much as 80 years older. The Arabs had probably begun calling themselves Muslims.

    In 711 the Muslims had invaded Spain, by 732 their armies had marched halfway across France until Charles “The Hammer” Martel routed them at the Battle of Tours that year and sent them reeling back into Spain.

    All the time the Arabs/Muslims were conquering North Africa their corsairs were raiding the southern coast of Europe and the Atlantic coast of Spain, pillaging, raping, and seizing slaves.

    Throughout the 8th and 9th centuries there were three main points of conflict between the Islamic world and what was then Christendom. And it was always because the Muslims were hell-bent on conquest. Spain in the West, Anatolia to the East, and Italy. The Saracens gained a few toe holds on Sicily in the early mid-9th century and in Sicily they heard of the wealth on the Italian peninsula, particularly the ancient religious city of Rome. They established a beachhead at Miseno near Naples and from their in 845 the Saracens pillaged the environs of Rome (they couldn’t breach the city walls as their siege technology was weak but there was a lot of wealth surrounding Rome, more than they could carry. They tried carrying it though, and their greed gave a large and well equipped Lombard army time to march down from Spoleto and pin the the Muslims against Rome’s Auralian walls. It was a rout, the Muslims were scattered. Those who attempted to flee to their ships at Ostia were almost all shipwrecked and the Lombards were able to recover most of what the Muslims had stolen. The Lombards pursued those who attempted to flee south to their beachhead at Miseno, catching up to them there and forcing them to fight. The tide really turned against the Muslims when men from Naples joined the battle, wiping out the invading Muslims and forcing the rest to flee to Sicily.

    If we ignore the Islamic historical narrative, as we must since none of it can be verified, the actual history of the region between the mid-7th century and mid-9th century goes like this. After centuries of fighting the Byzantines and Persians had bled each other white. They no longer had the military resources to defend their borders. As a matter of fact, both empires had employed Arabs as auxiliaries to man border outposts. When neither empire could afford to pay them, the Arabs decided to extract their back pay at the point of the sword. The major cities of the empires they attacked rapidly fell to them.

    The bottom line is that the conquests came first, the religion that explained their conquests and justified further conquest “until the day of judgement” came later. This isn’t quite as cynical as it sounds. Both the Christian Byzantines and the Zoroastrian Persians strongly believed that when they had good fortune that meant God was showing favor to them. On the other hand when they experienced misfortune that meant God had turned His back on them. After centuries of close association with both empires, the Arabs had absorbed this belief as well. They were having wildly good fortune with city after city falling to them in rapid succession. That could only mean Allah was pleased with them and they were destined to rule the world. Now all they needed was a religion to explain it all.

    And to hold their new empire together. Before constitutions it was religion that bound empires together. That’s why the Romans persecuted the Christians. Later, it was Christianity that held the Roman empire together. Including the Eastern Empire, who were in fact Romans although they called themselves Roman in Greek – Rhomaioi.

    Tearing a page from the Zoroastrian and Christian playbook, the Arabs set about creating a religion that could do all of the above. It took them about 240 years to put the basic structure in place. I say that because that’s when al-Bukhari wrote the first ahadith collection, Sahih al-Bukhari. Which contains the justification for conducting offensive jihad against unbelievers.

    Sahih al-Bukhari – Book of Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad) – (102) Chapter: The invitation of the Prophet saws to embrace Islam

    ” Narrated Abu Huraira:

    Allah ‘s Apostle said, ‘I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ and whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to forgive him.)'”

    Got that? According to the official Islamic historical narrative Muhammad didn’t fight people only if those people attacked Muslims. No, he fought “the people” simply because they weren’t Muslim. It was the the Muslims who divided the world into the Dar al Islam, the House of Islam, and Dar al Harb, the House of War. It is the duty of the entire Muslim ummah or community to continue in Muhammad’s footsteps and fight until the entire world submits to Muslim rule. They aren’t necessarily trying to force people to convert. The “people of the book” can continue to practice their religion as long as they accept a humiliating third class status under debilitating conditions and pay a ruinous tax called the jizya. Who are the people of the book? People who have scripture that they recognize as divine revelation, primarily Christians and Jews. But also contained in that category are Zoroastrians and Sikhs.

    Which brings us to the Muslim conquest and subsequent history of genocide in India. Self-hating and historically illiterate people in the West may have convinced themselves that all our conflict with the Islamic world is entirely our fault and we started it with the crusades. Which is insane as the first crusade wasn’t even called until 1095. How that could be the reason the Arabs had invaded and occupied Christian lands during over 450 years of unprovoked wars of Islamic imperialism, including seizing 3 of the 5 original patriarchates of the early Church (Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria) between 637 and 640 I have no idea. Frankly, neither do the current crop of Muslims, but they aren’t going to question their good luck and are quite willing to take advantage of our ruling elites’ monumental stupidity and self-loathing and continue their wars of aggression against us.

    But there is no event comparable to the crusades to the east. The Muslims simply attacked the fragmented collection of Hindu, Sikh, and Buddhist principalities that existed in what is basically now Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and Myanmar. Again, completely unprovoked. But being fragmented each of these polities were weak, and thy couldn’t make common cause with their neighbors. And they were rich, and weak and rich is a combination no pious Muslim dictator can resist. Plus, they were not Muslims so it pleases Allah to slaughter and enslave them.

    They invaded the area that is now Afghanistan and wiped out the entire population in an act of genocide so brutal and senseless even the Mongols were disgusted. Not intimidated, mind you, as the Mongols didn’t have a much respect for the Muslims they encountered in Central Asia (they really shouldn’t have killed the Mongol ambassadors, as the Muslim rulers found out to their great although short lived regret which only lasted until the hordes tracked them down, rolled them up into carpets, and then rode their horses over them and trampled them to death; they really, really shouldn’t have killed the Mongol ambassadors). The Mongols would devastate a city or two but they wanted the country intact for purposes of trade and to acquire knowledge and skills. They would never wipe out the entire population of a country just because they could.

    The Muslims were pointlessly bloodthirsty and had, the Mongols concluded, no business sense.

    But of course most of the people they conquered were pagans to Muslim eyes and their religion demanded that pagans had only two choices. Convert or die. The Buddhists and Hindus refused to convert.

    Between 1000 and 1500 the Muslim invaders killed around 80 million Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs in the Indian subcontinent. That is a conservative estimate; the actual number killed could be as high as 120 million. Which is a lot because unlike the Nazis they didn’t have modern conveniences like Xyclon-B. They had to just keep hacking off heads until their arms grew so tired they felt like they were going to fall off, and then keep on going. Still, Muslim generals used to compete to see who could build the largest mountains of skulls.

    We see the legacy of the brutal, genocidal invading Muslims in Myanmar. The world condemned the Taliban when they destroyed the Buddhas of Bamiyan back in 2001. Those statues were priceless cultural artifacts. Actual living and breathing Buddhists, not so much. The Buddhists were annihilated and, apparently, are supposed to get with the program and continue to meekly offer their throats to the knives of their Muslim assassins.

    The Buddhists of Myanmar aren’t going to get with the program. Unlike self-loathing, historically illiterate white westerners who desperately need to see Muslims as the perpetual victims of white racism so badly they expect other “brown people” to go along with this fraud, the Buddhists know better. The last significant population of Buddhists to their west live in Bangladesh’s Chittagong Hills. And the Muslim majority of that country is doing their level best to do what their coreligionists did to the Buddhists of what is now Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India.

    Wipe them off the face of the earth.

    Which is why you haven’t heard of them. It doesn’t fit the narrative that Muslims are always the victim.

    So we hear of the “plight” of the Rohingyas; how can those militant Buddhists be so mean to them. Well, first of all the British imposed those Rohingyas on them. The Buddhists call them Bengalis, and they want them the hell out of their country and get their butts back to Bengal. But then the Indians and Bangladeshis don’t want them either. There was a recent example of how this refusal just makes sense. A bunch of Muslim Bengalis just killed 22 Hindu Bengalis (the Buddhists are fine with the Hindus staying). Technically they’re all Rohingyas, but the Muslim ones don’t see it that way.

    The Buddhists aren’t as stupid or suicidal as we are. They aren’t going to give us (by that I mean the governments of Western countries) the time of day. Our leaders are completely useless, worse than useless, and if they take our advice they’ll be wiped out in short order. The last time the Rohingyas killed Buddhists en masse in that region was in 1942. After the British retreated from the Japanes, the Rohingyas switched sides and joined with the Japanese. In 1942 they killed about 40,000 Buddhists. After the war ended the Rohingyas launched a jihad against the Burmese government. At first their goal was to seize territory and join their territory with what was then East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. Then it became their goal to simply carve out their own state.

    Since 1949 the Rohingyas have been in nearly constant jihad against the government. This is why as the 1st State Counsellor of Myanmar (withe powers roughly equivalent to the abolished office of Prime Minister) Aung San Suu Kyi refuses to condemn the Buddhist majority for oppressing the Rohingyas as if they’re somehow innocent cherubs, pure as the driven snow.

    They’re not. They have plenty of blood on their hands. And anyone who knows the history of bloodshed between Muslims and Buddhists in that part of the world knows that blood was shed in very lopsided ratios. Primarily it was Muslims spilling Buddhist blood.

    The Buddhists know their own history. We have a large contingent of people who are too stupid, lazy, and ideologically blinded to learn or care about our history with the Muslim world, but the Buddhists had no choice but to learn and remember theirs.

    So, yeah, let’s get it all out. History, warts and all. Because in comparison with Islam’s bloody, hateful track record Western civilization comes out looking pretty damned good. Which is why the leftists are lying about wanting hear “true” history and really do only want the fake, gilded version. And by that means an ahistorical version of history that casts Western Civ as the villain. And anyone who brings up the facts, and facts are the new hate speech, that demonstrate history is the opposite of what the vile left wants it to be must be denounced as a bigot, racist, xenophobic Islamophobe.

      Casey in reply to Arminius. | October 11, 2017 at 6:46 pm

      Well done! Proof that conservatives can weave suitable propaganda when needed, just as well as progressives.

      If believing that gets you through the day, knock yourself out. Meanwhile, back in the real world, those of us who understand history know different.

        Arminius in reply to Casey. | October 11, 2017 at 11:13 pm

        I always enjoy fact-free criticism from the likes of people such as you.

        You don’t know history. You are one of the people who want the gilded fable. You are one of the people who are lying if you were to say you want the unvarnished truth.

        The unvarnished truth that you don’t want to hear is that Muhammad was commanded to fight “the people,” all people everywhere, until they say the Shahada and worship Allah alone, then establish salat (prayer) and pay zakat (their tax to the the Caliph). Only then will their lives and property will be safe from Muhammad.

        The “people of the book” can’t be forced to convert, but can and must be forced to submit to the Islamic social and legal system and accept a degraded and humiliating subordinate status.

        And by extension this obligation belongs to all Muslims “until the day of judgement,” because they are commanded to model their lives upon Muhammad’s example.

        All this is exactly what the Tripolitan ambassador to Britain told Thomas Jefferson and John Adams when they were the US ambassadors to France and Britain, respectively.


        Grosvenor Square, 28 March 1786


        Soon after the arrival of Mr. J. in London, we had a conference with the Ambassador of Tripoli, at his House.

        The amount of all the information we can obtain from him was that a perpetual peace was in all respects the most advisable because a temporary treaty would leave room for increasing demands, upon every renewal of it, and a stipulation for annual payments would be liable to failures of performance which would renew the war, repeat the negotiations and continually augment the claims of his nation and the difference of expense would by no means be adequate to the inconvenience, since 12,500 Guineas to his Constituents with 10 per Cent upon that sum for himself, must be paid if the treaty was made for only one year.

        That 30,000 Guineas for his Employers and £3,000 for himself were the lowest terms upon which a perpetual peace could be made and that this must be paid in Cash on the delivery of the treaty signed by his sovereign, that no kind of Merchandize could be accepted. That Tunis would treat upon the same Terms, but he could not answer for Algiers or Morocco.

        We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretentions to make war upon Nations who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.

        The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the LAWS OF THEIR PROPHET, that it was written in their Koran, that ALL NATIONS WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THEIR AUTHORITY WERE SINNERS, that it was their RIGHT AND DUTY to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

        That it was a law that the first who boarded an Enemy’s Vessell should have one slave more than his share with the rest, which operated as an incentive to the most desperate Valour and Enterprize, that it was the Practice of their Corsairs to bear down upon a ship, for each sailor to take a dagger in each hand, and another in his mouth, and leap on board, which so terrified their Enemies that very few ever stood against them. That he verily believed the Devil assisted his Countrymen, for they were almost always successful. We took time to consider and promised an answer, but we can give him no other than that the demands exceed our Expectations and that of Congress so much that we can proceed no further, without fresh instructions.

        There is but one possible way, that we know of to procure the money, if Congress should authorize us to go to the necessary expense and that is to borrow it in Holland. We are not certain it can be had there. But if Congress should order us to make the best terms we can with Tunis, Tripoli, Algiers, and Morocco, and to procure this money wherever we can find it, when terms like those of the last loan in Holland, our best endeavours shall be used to remove this formidable obstacle out of the way, of the prosperity of the United States.

        Inclosed is a Copy of a letter from P. R. Randall Esqr. at Barcelona. The last from Mr. Barclay was dated Bayonne. It is hoped we shall soon have news from Algiers and Morocco, and we wish it may not be more disagreable than this from Tunis and Tripoli.

        We are etc.



        What was true in the 8th century remained true in the 18th century because orthodox Sunni and Shia Islam demands that its adherents accept the Quran as the uncreated, eternal, and unchangeable word of Allah.

        Surah 5:3 al-Ma’idah

        “Prohibited to you are dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah, and [those animals] killed by strangling or by a violent blow or by a head-long fall or by the goring of horns, and those from which a wild animal has eaten, except what you [are able to] slaughter [before its death], and those which are sacrificed on stone altars, and [prohibited is] that you seek decision through divining arrows. That is grave disobedience. This day those who disbelieve have despaired of [defeating] your religion; so fear them not, but fear Me. THIS DAY I HAVE PERFECTED FOR YOU YOUR RELIGION and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion. But whoever is forced by severe hunger with no inclination to sin – then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.”

        And since Islam is perfect as is, it can’t be reformed. So what was true in the 8th century and the 18th century remains true in the 21st century.

        But what also remains true since the inception of Islam through today is Muhammad’s dictum that all war is deceit. This is why Islam permits various forms of lying, particularly but not exclusively to non-Muslims. Most people are familiar with Taqiyah, which means concealment. Then there’s Tauriyah, using words with double meanings, the speaker knowing that his listeners will draw exactly the wrong conclusion. In fact Muslims don’t consider this lying even though if you did this in a western court of law you’d be convicted of perjury for assigning your own private definition to a word with a commonly accepted meaning. Then there is Muruna, or “setting aside.” In order to deceive the unbelievers, Muslims are allowed to “set aside” the demands of their religion. All things are permitted when done in the cause of Allah. So they can slander Muhammad, go to bars, drink, get lap dances (the 9/11 hijackers did exactly that. Finally, Kithman, which is denying that something that is in the Quran is actually there. Wife beating for example (Surah 4:34). It’s in there, plain as day (as long as the transliteration is remotely honest and not all are). But since that goes against Western sensibilities Muslims practicing Dawa (proselytizing) simply employ Kithman and deny that it’s there at all. Once a convert says the Shahada in Arabic in front of an adult male they can’t back out; apostasy, leaving Islam, carries with it only one punishment; death (Sunan abu Dawud, Volume 40 “The Book of Prescribed Punishments, Chapter One). I’ve never known anyone to convert to Islam if they ever actually read what’s in the Quran and other core texts; they simply relied on what their “recruiter” told them and were later horrified at how badly they were lied to.

        Of course in the West people can and do leave Islam all the time without getting killed. But many are killed. In fact, apostasy is one of the major reasons behind honor killings. Which IS very Islamic. In fact, according to the Al-Azhar authorized English translation of the Shafi’i law manual “The reliance of the Traveler” murder must always be punished by retribution; blood for blood. But certain types of killings carry no punishment because they are not crimes. Among these are when a parent or grandparent kills their child or grandchild.

        Of the four major Sunni schools of jurisprudence, the Shafi’i is a s mainstream as you can get.

        But people like Casey aren’t going to bother to study the facts. People like Casey want to be lied to; they want the gilded fable. And their Muslim conquerors will only be too happy to oblige them until it’s too late. Then they will be brutally honest, as the Tripolitan ambassador was to Adams and Jefferson. The Muslim pirate states weren’t waging war against the US then, and the Muslim terrorists and their state sponsors now, aren’t waging war against us now, because of anything we’ve done to them (although if we’re stupid enough to believe that they’ll say it because it makes their conquest over the Dar al Harb so much easier). They are fighting us because their religion demands that they subjugate the world “until all religion is for Allah.”

        There is nothing we can do to change this. But what we can do is force them to respect us. By being so strong militarily that they know they can not win, and moreover by being so confident that they dare not provoke us.

        This has worked in the past. That’s why it’s important to study Islam when studying the history of Islam’s conflicts with the entire world. So the student of history (which clearly doesn’t include Casey) knows not only what happened but why it happened.

        Jefferson learned this lesson from his study of the Quran and his encounters with Muslims such as the ambassador in London. Which is why he was determined to build a Navy and force the Barbary Coast Pirates to respect and fear the US flag to the point they would never think of attacking a US merchant.

        It’s why the “sick man of Europe” had no choice but to agree to the terms of France and Britain to gain their support against Russia in the Crimean war. And one of those conditions is that Ottoman Caliph abolish the degrading third class status that they imposed on non-Muslims and make Jews and Christians equal with Muslims before the law.

        It’s why Kemal Ataturk abolished the Caliphate and even the Arabic writing system after the Ottoman empire was destroyed in WWI. That’s why Turkish newspapers look like this one hundred years after the war.

        Ataturk had been convinced by his nation’s defeat, and therefore had come into agreement with Churchill, that Islam is a retrograde force. They are correct; Islam is a retrograde force as any serious study of history will prove that.

        Thanks for weighing in, Casey, and proving my point. Most people are like you. They prefer the gilded fable, the soothing lie, to the harsh lessons of history. It adds to the amusement that you claim without any supporting facts that you’re the one who knows history and I am not.

        Of course this must remain an unsupported assertion because it is an unsupportable assertion. You have no facts.

Columbus was an amazing sailor and navigator. In the mid 90’s my wife and I spent 5 years cruising on our 51′ ketch. Spend some time at sea in a relatively small boat and you will really appreciate the courage and skill it took to sail these boats across an unknown ocean.

The native Americans were going to be exposed to horrors of ‘European’ diseases regardless of who first made contact because those diseases were also endemic throughout the rest of the known world by that time. To claim otherwise is to postulate that the New World would never have been discovered which is ridiculous. BTW, when Europeans and Chinese were first exposed to small pox and all the other horrible diseases they went through their populations just as badly as it went through the Amerinds.

    alaskabob in reply to rabidfox. | October 10, 2017 at 12:21 am

    The South, after the loss of the Civil War, created “The Lost Cause”, We have two continents longing for “The Lost Civilizations”…what would have been without being conquered by others. It is a make believe world wishing for something that never happened and never could. You are right… contact and collision were inevitable. It is what it is… could they have done better? They wish so…and strike back now….

    “All struggles and suffering are equal”…..romance and emotions overwhelm reality. Communism was a far more lethal master than the British Empire… they didn’t experience Che… they can’t know and wish not to.

So, exactly what did the “Indigenous People” do to deserve a holiday ? … sit on their fat asses

Did any of these “Indigenous People” sail the oceans and find Europe ?

    puhiawa in reply to Neo. | October 10, 2017 at 1:25 am

    No. But there is now firm scientific evidence that the Polynesians from Hawaii chanced on California. 🙂

I remember reading a Scientific American (remember when that was above high school reading and comprehension ability), about a combined archeological/Spanish eye account of an Aztec slaughter and feast wherein 25K people were killed and cooked, albeit from an adjoining kingdom that lost a skirmish.
That is now down the memory hold.

buckeyeminuteman | October 10, 2017 at 7:46 am

Sadly, most Lefties think Indians used to all be like Pocahontas. Apocalypto more accurately portrays life in the old days of the New World. People that can’t even find their way to the closest Whole Foods without a GPS need to have a little more respect for a man who sailed across the Atlantic without a chart/map and then did it again three more times.

I loved the part with Joe Piscopo. Statues celebrate Italian heritage and culture. Take them away in NY? Fuhgeddabowdit.

Most people don’t realize that Christopher Columbus was a late comer.

Leif Erikson discovered America during a previous period of non-man-made-global-warming!

    alaskabob in reply to CaptTee. | October 10, 2017 at 7:57 pm

    And potentially the Chinese got to the West Coast in junks… but they and the Vikings could not sustain a presence in the Americas and faded. The Chinese emperor abandoned exploration since the Middle Kingdom had all he needed. The Vikings didn’t come in number to beat back natives although they may have explored deep into the country. The later “guns, germs and steel” of Spain and later England allowed continued presence.

ugottabekiddinme | October 10, 2017 at 11:40 am

Columbus had government backing, was heading at great risk into the unknown relying on only what he knew as a seaman and navigator. It occurs to me that Columbus, in his vision, drive, skill and determination to explore, was sort of the Elon Musk of his day.

Hispanic people love Columbus because he represents greatness in their Hispanic heritage.

If the people who are supposed to be offended love the guy, the campaign against him isn’t going anywhere. This is still true even though the media says otherwise.