Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour


Submitted on
October 8, 2012
Image Size
1.6 MB


23 (who?)
Columbus Day 2012 by Party9999999 Columbus Day 2012 by Party9999999
Add a Comment:
Pandaren-Chaplain Jan 6, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Conquistadors -
Problem, pagans?
Natives -
joeisbadass Jan 4, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Well he did discover the Americas
CyberEagleWarrior Jan 11, 2013  Student Interface Designer
I would support renaming Columbus Day to something that properly gives remembrance to the indigenous peoples who suffered.
Kennewick Man and his people didn't suffer, they were already dead, had been for a long time. And for all we know, even his and his might not have been indigenous. Perhaps they stole the land from someone else before your ancestors stole from them and we stole it from them.


I have a feeling you'd not be happy renaming it "Kennewick Man Day" - how about "Previous Owners Day" That'd cover everyone who owned it before the last group of land thieves took possession.
earlgrayfascist Oct 14, 2012
Karl Marx:

"The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way. " New York Daily Tribune of March 22, 1853

"The chief mission of all other races and peoples, large and small, is to perish in the revolutionary holocaust." Die Neue Rheinische Zeitung NZR January 1849

Scientific materialism. Deal with it.
Marx is talking about the capitalist system, here is the rest of the that quote
"But can there be anything more puerile more short-sighted, than the views of those economists who believe in all earnest that this means nothing but adapting society to the acquisitive propensities of capitalists both landlords and money lords."

And the part about 'revolutionary holocaust' isn't from Marx, it's something that has been added by idiots like you

Your quote mine has caved in, deal with it.
earlgrayfascist Oct 16, 2012
totally irrelevant and moot refutation 2/10 you are not a marxist.
Marx's analysis is scientific - the workers will take the means of production not because it is moral, or they have rights, it is because they are eventually going to be stronger and take it all by force, and the same applies to everything in history in an evolutionary basis working up to that point AKA might is right. Class and race are one and the same in this, and at that time white proletarians were the outcome of that evolution beating all others, his message really was addressed only to white workers.

Same same analysis goes for all other socialists of the pre-modern era; war of the worlds is just one example of racial struggle that comes to mind - inspired by our elimination of the tazmanians. Jack London's the Iron Heel on which the turner Diaries was based is also a good example.

If you were a student of marx, you would know that he supported colonization where more advanced civilizations took over others. As you are not a student, how do you know it is a false citation, You all vehimently deny it I will ask you why ommits the souce of that quotation.
It's not irrelevant, he's talking about capitalism you moron.
Class and race are two different things, class is based on the economic conditions that a person live in, race is a pseudoscientific concept based on the level of melanin
The Communist Manifesto says Workers of the World Unite, not Europeans unite, World, that is all working people, so how it works.

Marx didn't support colonization, he said that capitalism would carried out imperialists actions because it can make money out of it, it is not carried out for racial reason, Britain's oldest acts of imperialism were carried out against the Irish. Main land Europe's first actions of impeiralism was against the Slavic peoples.

I don't have to listen to the words of someone whose ideology was crushed in the ruins of Berlin 70 years ago.
earlgrayfascist Oct 24, 2012
Socialism is inconcievable as anything other than the eventual outcome of a capitalistic process; ever increasing methods of production, and the crushing of economic units into single corporate bodies - which are the bodies of dead businesses taken over by the power of capital. Socialism is progress, it abolishes private property! so it is not a reversion to smallholdings, but puts the total means of production into the hands of workers. It isn't complicated, it is darwinism and an end process.

"Without violence nothing is ever accomplished in history."

Likewise Colonialsm was the outcome of this capitalistic process and the process at that of the most advanced groups. Lenin's 'Imperialism' to which you allude makes no distinction; capitalism is imperialism, imperialism is capitalism - and Socialism is the end product of capitalism.

He said workers of the world unite, but was referring to only those workers who were poised to take the means of production.

Marx and Engels didn't support colonialism and exactly the theory proposed here? think again

"In America we have witnessed the conquest of Mexico and have rejoiced at it. It is to the interest of its own development that Mexico will be placed under the tutelage of the United States."

I reserched a few threads on revleft sites and they don't seem to contest this assertion that Marx supported colonialism.

"Is it a misfortune that magnificent California was seized from the lazy Mexicans who did not know what to do with it?"

There is no way we will ever agree because we fundamentally will never agree on anything and I will not harass you on this topic any more. I just don't think you are consistant or scientifically minded - point made for what it is worth.
Add a Comment: