Evidence that can be used to modify or refute what Stannard said about Columbus would be (D) examples of long-term benefits for people in Europe and Asia that resulted from the voyages by Columbus.
<h3>What did Stannard think of Columbus?</h3>
David Stannard thinks very lowly of Christopher Columbus as a result of the latter's crimes in North America which included the killing and mutilating of Native Americans.
David Stannard believed that the exploration of the Americas brought only long-term pain to Native Americans so a view that would refute this would have to show descriptions that Native Americans enjoyed some long term benefits thanks to Columbus.
Find out more on Christopher Columbus at brainly.com/question/15581111
#SPJ1
I can't really answer this for you because this is YOUR opinion but here's what I would've said; Yes, I would have because of the extreme hardships the militia men had to go through. During that winter, many soldiers had suffered the consequences of going through and not quitting the journey but if I were one of them, I would've quit. Even though I know that I have to fight for the country, I would not have been able to go through with the lasting consequences. Men had to walk through treacherous snow which also was cold and wet, this was not a good environment for soldiers to be in.
Answer:
non violence? I personally dont think ppl should resort to violence, it would make a good argument if your asking
