Columbus shouldn't be considered a hero.

Thank you. This round will be your logical errors and my rebuttals. LOCIAL ERRORS "In this statement the con is pretty much saying that Columbus can be excused for endorsing the enslavement of Native Americans because it was common at this time" No, I am saying Columbus did not start the slave trade, Native Americans had slavery a long time before Columbus was born, and this means you can`t pin Columbus for starting a slave trade. " This would like giving Hitler a pass since anti-Semitic behavior was common at the time period" This is also saying Washington was bad because he had slaves and slaves were wrong, even though it was a part of everyday life to him, JFK is bad for supporting the petrodollar, even though it`s a part of everyday life back then and even now, King Arthur was bad for killing his wife, although a king was expected to do that, Mark twain was bad for using n*gger in his books, although it wasn`t a bad word at his timeline, Patton was bad for slapping a solider, even though back then, this was what any general would do (ptsd wasn`t studied at this point),and Douglass Macarthur was bad because he wanted to do something Truman didn`t want him to do, even though Koreans and Japanese wanted him to do it. " To be honest there is not much to point out here besides the fact that the con compared an airborne disease that was impossible for the natives to realize that they were ingesting with a product that was voluntarily use. " It was not voluntarily use, Many Europeans did not know what smoking meant, and were amazed when they first encountered it. It was not until years later since native tell the Europeans Tabasco was bad for your health. source: http://nativeamericannetroots.net... REBUTTALS "After reading this I hope you understand that Native Americans first instinct was not to fight but rather to make peace" Oh really? I would like my opponent to explain the Indian attack of 1622. The Powhatan's killed 347 settlers in all - men, women, and children. Not even George Thorpe, a prominent colonist well known for his friendly stance towards the Indians, was spared. The Powhatans harsh treatment of the bodies of their victims was symbolic of their contempt for their opponents. The Indians also burned most of the outlying plantations, destroying the livestock and crops. The only natural thing colonist did was being stunned by the massacre. The settlers immediately withdrew to the fort and to other easily defensible locations. In addition to the loss of life, the colonists also lost valuable crops and supplies necessary to survive the winter. Ironically, during the winter of 1622-23 the colonists were forced to trade with the Indians for corn and supplies and even with these provisions many went hungry. The mortality rate during the winter of 1622-23 climbed due to malnutrition and disease - over four hundred settlers died the Indian attack of March 22,1622, constituted a watershed in history of the Jamestown settlement. Need another example? Take the attack on Seattle. On Sunday, October 28, 1855, Indians attacked and killed settlers in south King County and in Thurston County. Then, Indians ambushed U.S. Army Lieutenant Slaughter and killed him on Brannan"s Prairie near the future Auburn. Chief Seattle (178?-1866), his daughter Angeline (1820-1896), and Curley or Curly Jim warned Seattle's 50 or so white residents that an attack was imminent, but only after the two strikes came. Chiefs Owhi and Coquilton reconnoitered the lines, disguised as friendly Indians, on the night of January 25. Sporadic exchanges of fire continued until 11:45 a.m. when American indians, to fat and un-resistant to do otherwise, sat and ate. The settlers used this time evacuate women and children to the ships. Sawmill owner Henry Yesler won upon his Duwamish consort, Susan , to take refuge with their infant daughter aboard the ship, despite her objections. When settlers attempted to retrieve arms and valuables from their abandoned homes, the Indians resumed firing. It was clear the barbaric, violent, and stupid american indians were out for nothing more than blood lust. Desultory exchanges then resumed and continued all afternoon. Troops fought in honor, while rouge natives fought in unjust, barbaric, and disgraceful ways. Tons of natives deserted. When scouts reported that the Indians were preparing to light fire to settler dwellings, as they wanted more blood lust like every disgusting group, the Decatur shifted its fire to the homes, damaging several. By 10 p.m. All firing stopped. The next morning found the attackers cowardly away along with whatever settler stock, foodstuffs, and other property they could take. Two settlers were killed, Milton G. Holgate and Christian White. Colonists were completely innocent. source: http://www.virtualjamestown.org... source: http://www.historylink.org... "Rebuttal #1: The con . . ." throughout the world . .". In this statement the con. . .Pretty much . . .Saying because it was common at this time. . .This would like giving Hitler a pass. . .We know this . . .]They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane... Columbus supported . . . Pro still was never able to state any proof or defense that natives were innocent of slavery, in fact, they were not. The sad reality that some Native Americans, (in particular, the Creek, Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole, or "the Five Tribes") also participated in chattel and race-based slavery, was rarely acknowledged in the historical annals. The truth is, Several groundbreaking studies recognized the momentous repercussions of this practice for Native and African American populations alike during the antebellum era and down to the present day. My opponent instead uses basis that "slavery was bad even though no one knew it was" and "Columbus wanted slaves just like natives want slaves. However, Columbus is evil." source: https://notevenpast.org... " Greed: One of the many reasons why Columbus should not be considered a hero(not to mention the reasons above) is because of his greed" ( some emotional arguments stating about how harsh ONE of his many interactions are. Not in reality. People in England and Spain HAVE tried to convict Columbus from this basis, but evidence says they all ended in fails. While jailed for six weeks before the trail began, the king ordered there release, meaning he was tried fairly, and he was innocent. That means he is Innocent. Therefore, you cannot say Columbus was a greedy fat-cat, weak debaters and lawyers tried to convict him for this, but in the end, he was proved innocent. source: https://normancooper.wordpress.com...