Unfortunately, the channel's owner disavowed that video. He couldn't name anything in it that was wrong. Rather, he basically said that defending Columbus was unjustified because of all the bad things he brought to the natives regardless of his intent. Which, translated, means he got scared of the internet mob and they badgered him into submission.
Your comment confuses me. He didn't take the video down and he didn't identify any faults with it, but you claim that he "disavowed" it. What does that mean? If he gave in to the internet mob, he'd have taken it down, right?
He made another video called something like "Columbus in Context" where he basically said that although the first video was true, his arrival ushered in so much bad stuff that Columbus shouldn't be celebrated or defended.
Great link. Thanks for letting me know about that YouTube channel.
Unfortunately, the channel's owner disavowed that video. He couldn't name anything in it that was wrong. Rather, he basically said that defending Columbus was unjustified because of all the bad things he brought to the natives regardless of his intent. Which, translated, means he got scared of the internet mob and they badgered him into submission.
Your comment confuses me. He didn't take the video down and he didn't identify any faults with it, but you claim that he "disavowed" it. What does that mean? If he gave in to the internet mob, he'd have taken it down, right?
He made another video called something like "Columbus in Context" where he basically said that although the first video was true, his arrival ushered in so much bad stuff that Columbus shouldn't be celebrated or defended.
Thanks for follow up. I'll check it out.