They are NOT Native Americans. They are INDIANS

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, reason10 said:

Here's a way you can derive some comfort in all this. Recognize that YOU PERSONALLY never owned a slave and never invaded a country to take it over. You never resided in a country whose government did such a thing (unless you live in Africa or China today) so your tax dollars were not used in such a fashion.

No I never personally did these things but my government and public institutions I'm liable for did. It just is what it is.  I derive my comfort from knowing many of my fellow Canadians want to do what's right.

[Aristides]

5 hours ago, reason10 said:

India didn't exist in 1492 when Columbus made that voyage. It was known as Hindustan. Columbus met the Caribbean natives and named them In Dios, a poor Spanish attempt to call them Children of God. From In Dios came INDIANS. 

From a poor Spanish attempt to call these people Children Of God, we have today the BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS.

If you read anything that doesn't permit coloring, just refer to it as your first book.

Europeans knew about and traded with the Indies for over 300 years before Columbus.

Alexander the Great reached the valley of the Indus in 326 BC.

Edited December 3, 2022 by Aristides

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, reason10 said:

I"m not familiar with Canadian centuries old conditions. I think in terms of American issues.

Terminology may differ from country to country but the conditions and issues, especially from the perspective of people who were oppressed are all too painfully similar. 

[reason10]

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

Europeans knew about and traded with the Indies for over 300 years before Columbus.

Alexander the Great reached the valley of the Indus in 326 BC.

There is no evidence that the Indies existed before 1492.  Left wing historians claim Columbus was looking for India, and named those Caribs INDIANS. That part has been totally debunked by the facts.

[Infidel Dog]

15 hours ago, eyeball said:

Something else that was happening as I said, was the development of principles and laws based on rights both individual and national.  That's what set us in opposition to the more brutal norms of ancient history. In the case of British Columbia the earliest governors England sent here were given clear instructions to seek legally binding treaties with indigenous people that amongst other things extinguished their sovereignty and title to the land.  They did not succeed and soldiered on anyway in near defiance of the evolution of laws that would one day bind them even more tightly to their stated principles.

Let's look at the first governor of BC then to see if at least one of us can get a clue to what you're talking about.

Richard Blanshard 1849-1851.

"

Blanshard's short tenure proved unhappy from the start, largely because of the enormous power and influence wielded by the Hudson's Bay Company and its autocratic Chief Factor, James Douglas. Indeed, prior to Blanshard's appointment, there had been serious consideration given by the colonial office to appointing Douglas governor, but concerns over conflict of interest prevented it.

Blanshard arrived to a colony in which the land had been given as a ten-year lease to the Hudson's Bay Company, with Douglas given a mandate to attract settlement. Almost the entire non-First Nations population were Company employees, answerable to Douglas, and Blanshard was prevented from setting up a colonial assembly by the fact that so few of them met the qualifications of electors, i.e., land ownership. Inevitable jurisdictional conflicts arose between Douglas and Blanshard, and the colonial office, too, took Blanshard to task for indiscriminate retributions taken against the First Nations population near present-day Port Hardy. The absence of any real power, combined with health concerns and the enormous cost of living drove Blanshard to resign; he abandoned the colony in September, 1851 after just one and a half years there."

And Blanshard was succeeded by the Hudson Bay Company's James Douglas.

So who exactly are you claiming your moral superiority over? Blanshard? The British Government? Douglas? The Hudson's Bay company?

Personally I explain that section of our history this way: Things happened.

And now every time I turn on a Vancouver Canucks game some chubby, smiley, claimed ancestor dressed in pointy straw hats and blankets is welcoming me to the "unceded land of the Musqueam/Salish nations.

And I still don't get your point.

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, reason10 said:

There is no evidence that the Indies existed before 1492.  Left wing historians claim Columbus was looking for India, and named those Caribs INDIANS. That part has been totally debunked by the facts.

FFS, you say you know something about history? Have you never heard of Marco Polo or the Silk Road? Venice and Genoa were the major naval powers in the Mediterranean and became fabulously rich trading with the Indies through the Middle East and Ottoman Empire for two centuries before Columbus. de Gama found the first sea route to the Indies in 1497 but Europeans had been trading overland for centuries.

Edited December 3, 2022 by Aristides

[Infidel Dog]

And again the term, "Indian" in reference to the geographical area beyond the Indus River started getting popular post Columbus.

Was that term or something like it already being used because of this claimed in the OP:

Quote

Abbey writes that “Columbus knew he was nowhere near India” and that he was so charmed by the people he found in the Caribbean–so sweet, happy, blessed –he called them Los Gentes en (or in ) Dios , meaning “the people in God.” This is what Columbus wrote to Ferdinand and Isabella, Abbey reports, and the name Indios …

You nor I nor the OP actually know for certain. Stop pretending you do.

Edited December 3, 2022 by Infidel Dog

[reason10]

7 minutes ago, Aristides said:

FFS, you say you know something about history? Have you never heard of Marco Polo or the Silk Road? Venice and Genoa were the major naval powers in the Mediterranean and became fabulously rich trading with the Indies through the Ottoman Empire for two centuries before Columbus. de Gama found the first sea route to the Indies in 1497 but Europeans had been trading overland for centuries.

Columbus made it to the New World in 1492. DaGama made it to ASIA in 1497. At the time, there was no India, just Hindustan. I've documented that many times in this thread.

Let's be real here. It's STILL embarrassing that Columbus's bad Spanish skills with In Dios led to naming a large group of diverse tribes, with nothing in common. It's not quite as stupid as suggesting he was looking for India and just named those Carib folks Indians. (That has already been debunked.)

For you left wing goose steppers with Bat Guano for brains, Columbus didn't have the advantage of going online and getting a GPS to lead him to Hindustand. None of the explorers were endowed with any superior navigational skills or technology. It was a different time from today.

(See, this is why normal educated people LAUGH at liberals. They act like all of history is the same as today.)

[eyeball]

23 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

And I still don't get your point.

Do unto others yadda yadda...

The point couldn't be any clearer now than it was 2000 or 500 years ago.

Maybe you just don't want to get it.

[Aristides]

17 minutes ago, reason10 said:

Columbus made it to the New World in 1492. DaGama made it to ASIA in 1497. At the time, there was no India, just Hindustan. I've documented that many times in this thread.

Let's be real here. It's STILL embarrassing that Columbus's bad Spanish skills with In Dios led to naming a large group of diverse tribes, with nothing in common. It's not quite as stupid as suggesting he was looking for India and just named those Carib folks Indians. (That has already been debunked.)

For you left wing goose steppers with Bat Guano for brains, Columbus didn't have the advantage of going online and getting a GPS to lead him to Hindustand. None of the explorers were endowed with any superior navigational skills or technology. It was a different time from today.

(See, this is why normal educated people LAUGH at liberals. They act like all of history is the same as today.)

You really are an id-yit. Do you think they changed the name of the place just because deGama found a sea route to a place they already knew about?