Tainos Assigns Blame
By Arvin Wu
I blame Columbus and Columbus’s men for the whole crime. Tainos is not guilty because we would have been charged for murder if we killed Columbus, wouldn’t have been able to stop the crime, and most of all, didn’t cause it.
First, although we did notice that Columbus and his men are very greedy and stole a lot of our treasures, we didn’t fight them because killing them is crime, too. If we killed them, Tainos would be charge of murder, and we do not want that. Tainos’s indictment is that we did not kill Columbus and his men to prevent the whole massacre from happening. But if we did, then Columbus and his men wouldn’t have committed the crime, and we wouldn’t have been granted amnesty for killing Columbus to save ourselves. We couldn’t have predicted that he would done such horror.
Second, we wouldn’t have been able to stop Columbus and his men in any way. If we killed Columbus and his men, we can’t be sure that other explorers wouldn’t discover America and lead other conquistadors here, ending us up with the same tragedy. If so, what is our use of killing Columbus and his men, since the discovery of the new world is destiny? Even if Columbus is short of men, we wouldn’t have been able to kill him. Guns, Germs, and Steel. These are the three advantages of people from the Old World that we do not have. Their guns are mighty weapons, and their steel swords are even deadlier. Without such powerful, deadly weapons, even though we have more men, there is still a great chance that we would be defeated. Also, bringing germs that we are vulnerable to while them being immune to, even if we tried to kill them, we may all get sick before we finish all of them up. They can still defeat us and run away. There are multiple examples, when even though the conquistadors are short in men, they defeat the Native Americans. Look at Cortes: he had merely 600 men, and he slaughtered the Aztecs and got away with it. Look at Pizarro: he had less than 200 men, yet he escaped an army of 80,000 men after slaughtering many of them. Now, Columbus had a few thousand men. If 200 conquistadors can escape from an army of 80,000 with no casualty, it is definitely true that a group of a few thousand conquistadors can escape a few hundred thousand Tainos. Even if we had killed a most of them, the few survivors can still escape and report the discovery.
Third, if Columbus and his men were not evil, malign murderers, they wouldn’t have committed such crime. After all, the power of not killing is wielded by Columbus and his men, not Tainos, and neither do we have the ability to prevent such tragic event.
In conclusion, Columbus and his men are responsible for the tragic murder of millions of Tainos.
By Arvin Wu
I blame Columbus and Columbus’s men for the whole crime. Tainos is not guilty because we would have been charged for murder if we killed Columbus, wouldn’t have been able to stop the crime, and most of all, didn’t cause it.
First, although we did notice that Columbus and his men are very greedy and stole a lot of our treasures, we didn’t fight them because killing them is crime, too. If we killed them, Tainos would be charge of murder, and we do not want that. Tainos’s indictment is that we did not kill Columbus and his men to prevent the whole massacre from happening. But if we did, then Columbus and his men wouldn’t have committed the crime, and we wouldn’t have been granted amnesty for killing Columbus to save ourselves. We couldn’t have predicted that he would done such horror.
Second, we wouldn’t have been able to stop Columbus and his men in any way. If we killed Columbus and his men, we can’t be sure that other explorers wouldn’t discover America and lead other conquistadors here, ending us up with the same tragedy. If so, what is our use of killing Columbus and his men, since the discovery of the new world is destiny? Even if Columbus is short of men, we wouldn’t have been able to kill him. Guns, Germs, and Steel. These are the three advantages of people from the Old World that we do not have. Their guns are mighty weapons, and their steel swords are even deadlier. Without such powerful, deadly weapons, even though we have more men, there is still a great chance that we would be defeated. Also, bringing germs that we are vulnerable to while them being immune to, even if we tried to kill them, we may all get sick before we finish all of them up. They can still defeat us and run away. There are multiple examples, when even though the conquistadors are short in men, they defeat the Native Americans. Look at Cortes: he had merely 600 men, and he slaughtered the Aztecs and got away with it. Look at Pizarro: he had less than 200 men, yet he escaped an army of 80,000 men after slaughtering many of them. Now, Columbus had a few thousand men. If 200 conquistadors can escape from an army of 80,000 with no casualty, it is definitely true that a group of a few thousand conquistadors can escape a few hundred thousand Tainos. Even if we had killed a most of them, the few survivors can still escape and report the discovery.
Third, if Columbus and his men were not evil, malign murderers, they wouldn’t have committed such crime. After all, the power of not killing is wielded by Columbus and his men, not Tainos, and neither do we have the ability to prevent such tragic event.
In conclusion, Columbus and his men are responsible for the tragic murder of millions of Tainos.