Christopher Columbus - Crazed Killer?

In 1492 a genocidal maniac named Christopher Columbus persuaded a mob of crazed killers to climb into small, crappy little boats without GPS, LORAN, radar, electricity, proper sanitation, a health spa, free ice cream, 21 bars and lounges, a fog horn, all you can eat shrimp, two heated pools, plasma screen T.V.'s, a ball room with 37 piece orchestra featuring "Tony Orlando and Dawn", a Bingo Hall, a "Disco", a 24 hour buffet featuring an ice sculpture of Oprah, room service, a rock climbing wall, beach volleyball, premium suites facing the ocean, a sauna, a sushi bar, a masseuse, a guy dressed like Mickey Mouse, a shopping mall with duty free merchandise, a wait staff, Wi-Fi, life boats, a desalinization unit, and last but not least, a complete lack of laundry facilities, and blindly sail westward; a journey of thousands of miles into the great unknown.

Apparently, according to modern liberal sociologists and historians, their true purpose was to wipe the indigenous people occupying the land they "found" from the face the earth. We all know the false story of Columbus, we learned it in school, back in the "bad old pre-P.C. days". You know, he sailed over to get some spice, establish a Spanish colony, hopefully find some gold, then sail back. But do we know the "real truth" behind Columbus' journey?

Here's the liberal establishment's version of the "real truth". In reality it was a mission planned to inflict utter destruction on all living organisms, flora and fauna on the continents of North America and South America. Obviously their aim was to subjugate or kill any humans or animals that got in their way. Here's part of a popular little ditty that helps to propagate the lies of the day and mask Columbus' true intentions:

"In fourteen hundred ninety-two Columbus sailed the ocean blue. He had three ships and left from Spain; He sailed through sunshine, wind and rain. He sailed by night; he sailed by day; He used the stars to find his way... Columbus sailed on to find some gold To bring back home, as he'd been told. He made the trip again and again, Trading gold to bring to Spain. The first American? No, not quite. But Columbus was brave, and he was bright."

Now, is that a load of crap or what?

The land Columbus invaded, raped, and pillaged was pristine, it was unspoiled, it was bucolic...hell it was basically unoccupied!

North America is a land mass covering approximately 9,450,000 square miles. NINE and a HALF MILLION SQUARE MILES!

Here is an estimate of the population of North America in 1492:

"The population of North America prior to the first sustained European contact in 1492 CE is a matter of active debate. Various estimates of the Native population of the continental U.S. and Canada range from 1.8 to over 12 million. Over the next four centuries, their numbers were reduced to about 237,000 as Natives were almost wiped out."

Here are some modern scholarly opinions about the aftermath of European incursion into North America:

"The destruction of the Indians of the Americas was, far and away, the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world." David E. Stannard.

"This violent corruption needn't define us.... We can say, yes, this happened, and we are ashamed. We repudiate the greed. We recognize and condemn the evil. And we see how the harm has been perpetuated. But, five hundred years later, we intend to mean something else in the world." Barry Lopez.

"By then [1891] the native population had been reduced to 2.5% of its original numbers and 97.5% of the aboriginal land base had been expropriated....Hundreds upon hundreds of native tribes with unique languages, learning, customs, and cultures had simply been erased from the face of the earth, most often without even the pretense of justice or law." Peter Montague

Well, that's their opinion. What was the opinion of a world class thinker concerning the "occupation" of the "New World" in the time of the settlement of North America?

Here's what John Locke had to say about the issue in his Second Treatise of Civil Government 1690;

Sec. 34. "God gave the world to men in common; but since he gave it them for their benefit, and the greatest conveniences of life they were capable to draw from it, it cannot be supposed he meant it should always remain common and uncultivated"

Sec. 40. "Nor is it so strange, as perhaps before consideration it may appear, that the property of labour should be able to over-balance the community of land: for it is labour indeed that puts the difference of value on every thing; and let any one consider what the difference is between an acre of land planted with tobacco or sugar, sown with wheat or barley, and an acre of the same land lying in common, without any husbandry upon it, and he will find, that the improvement of labour makes the far greater part of the value."

Sec. 41. "There cannot be a clearer demonstration of any thing, than several nations of the Americans are of this, who are rich in land, and poor in all the comforts of life; whom nature having furnished as liberally as any other people, with the materials of plenty, i.e. a fruitful soil, apt to produce in abundance, what might serve for food, raiment, and delight; yet for want of improving it by labour, have not one hundredth part of the conveniences we enjoy: and a king of a large and fruitful territory there, feeds, lodges, and is clad worse than a day-labourer in England.

Do we really think that Europeans wanted to wipe out the inhabitants of the New World? Christianize them against their will and appropriate any wealth they found lying around perhaps, but wipe them out? According to modern "scholarly" propaganda that is what many school children are being led to believe.

Obviously the European invaders knew they were carrying micro-organisms that the indigenous people had no natural defenses to, right? I mean, come on, Columbus must have know that, right? Ask a college sociology or history professor, they'll tell you it was intentional genocide. Jewish Holocaust? That was nothing; these Europeans were on the rampage. No wonder "white guilt" helped get an under qualified guy from Harvard that had a cup of coffee in the U.S. Senate elected, right?

A new narrative is emerging, telling us of a of Pre-Columbian America that perhaps wasn't the "Fantasy Island" that some would lead you to believe, here is a sample;

"...it was the introduction of Old World diseases, especially smallpox and measles, that claimed the majority of the native inhabitants of the hemisphere.
Because the suffering and mortality occasioned by these epidemics was so great, one can easily understand why native writers looked back on the past as a time relatively free of disease, and ultimately as a time when peoples' lives were longer and happier. While this tendency to romanticize life in the Americas before 1492 may be understandable, it does not make it so...." The Great Killers in Precolumbian America. A Hemispheric Perspective
Suzanne Austin Alchon

In reality, disparate civilizations collided with catastrophic consequences for the indigenous people of North and South America, that's a fact. Likewise misrepresenting the world the Pre-Columbian people inhabited as bucolic and peaceful is dishonest and ridiculous. The New World was a violent and sometimes sick place, the arrival of the Europeans just added to the stew already filled with death and disease. Let's just be honest about it.