Remember how the Mainstream Media said they won't be coming for Jefferson and Washington Next?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

but my idea is how it works, like Columbus, he wasn't normal for his time, even his contemporaries, who were probably still colonialists, thought he was a monster.

I'm not able to follow this. I've never heard of contempt for Columbus except for rather recent modern progressivism.

[Dragon Ball Fan]

but my idea is how it works, like Columbus, he wasn't normal for his time, even his contemporaries, who were probably still colonialists, thought he was a monster.

I'm not able to follow this. I've never heard of contempt for Columbus except for rather recent modern progressivism.

he was imprisoned by his country's rulers for being a tyrant.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

but my idea is how it works, like Columbus, he wasn't normal for his time, even his contemporaries, who were probably still colonialists, thought he was a monster.

I'm not able to follow this. I've never heard of contempt for Columbus except for rather recent modern progressivism.

he was imprisoned by his country's rulers for being a tyrant.

And if you could relate that to a slaveholder then that would be appreciated.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

The Spanish government probably did something unjust, but if the defense of slaveholders is the common linkage of "normalcy" that Columbus exhibited, then the comparison is a bit off base I think.

The Spanish imprisoning Columbus who was normal doesn't really say anything about normalcy merged with contemptibility as is the case with slaveowners.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

and wile the things those people as a whole did were still wrong, from the way I see it, since slavery was "normal" then, you have to look at individual slave owners and ask "were these people bad even by that standard?"

If they treated them well, they wouldn't have kept them as slaves. Denying people the most basic human rights isn't good treatment. Even the most "benevolent" slave owner still had absolute power of life and death over the human beings they owned.

Is it such a big leap to say "If you do really, really evil things, you are an evil person"?

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

but my idea is how it works, like Columbus, he wasn't normal for his time, even his contemporaries, who were probably still colonialists, thought he was a monster.

I'm not able to follow this. I've never heard of contempt for Columbus except for rather recent modern progressivism.

Nah, we do have lots of primary sources of his contemporaries going, effectively, "Jesus CHRIST, calm down you freak!" The Spanish Inquisition found him a little too sadistic and bloodthirsty.

[Dragon Ball Fan]

and wile the things those people as a whole did were still wrong, from the way I see it, since slavery was "normal" then, you have to look at individual slave owners and ask "were these people bad even by that standard?"

If they treated them well, they wouldn't have kept them as slaves. Denying people the most basic human rights isn't good treatment. Even the most "benevolent" slave owner still had absolute power of life and death over the human beings they owned.

Is it such a big leap to say "If you do really, really evil things, you are an evil person"?

I would still compare it to Christopher Columbus, who even other colonialists thought was a monster.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I still don't know how the Spanish government is supposed to fit into this. Are they being compared to SJWs today?

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

You didn't answer my question, one way or the other.

[Dragon Ball Fan]

even if slave owners weren't punished for mistreating slaves, some were undoubtedly worse then others and some were better then others. slavery is still wrong but you can't claim all slave owners were Always Chaotic Evil.