JBE

May 17th, 2011 at 12:42 PM ^

I do, but Columbus has a special place on it, and the fact that it was commonplace doesn't excuse it, and doesn't make him any less of a POS.

From the anthropologist Jack Weatherford's book:

His marauding band hunted Indians for sport and profit - beating, raping, torturing, killing, and then using the Indian bodies as food for their hunting dogs. Within four years of Columbus' arrival on Hispaniola, his men had killed or exported one-third of the original Indian population of 300,000. 

 

Joined: 08/18/2008

MGoPoints: 19316

Blue in Yarmouth

May 17th, 2011 at 12:50 PM ^

I had a long retort to this, but it got way too political which is a no no here. I will just say you have valid points and I don't condone what Columbus did, but I recognize that it happened more than 500 years ago where times were far different so I also don't hold a grudge.

You certainly have the right to think he is a shit though. 

Joined: 02/18/2009

MGoPoints: 6522

JBE

May 17th, 2011 at 1:01 PM ^

Fair enough. But often it has to do with family background.  For many people the actions of Columbus and people like him that took place 500 years ago still have a tremendous effect on the now, and this, coupled with his continued glorification and the continued glorification of certain events, is why grudges are often held.   

Joined: 08/18/2008

MGoPoints: 19316

Blue in Yarmouth

May 17th, 2011 at 1:20 PM ^

and it is actually a discussion I would like to have if not for board rules. My own family is from Wales in the UK. The English ruled over Wales for many years and did many of the things common for that period (like they did to the Scots as well). This wasn't even ancient history either. When my grandmother was growing up they weren't even allowed to speak their native tongue in public. 

The fact that these things happened in those days doesn't make it acceptable per se but it does add some context in my opinion. I don't like that those things were done to my ancestors, but because I know enoug about world history to know that this is how the world worked back then, I don't hold a grudge against the english either. I also wouldn't seek compensation today for something that never happened to me, but to my ancestors many years ago. This is where the debate starts getting too political so I will leave it at that. 

Edit: I am not lumping you in that last group by the way. 

Joined: 02/18/2009

MGoPoints: 6522

JBE

May 17th, 2011 at 3:34 PM ^

This discussion is definitely an interesting one, as is the question about compensation/reparations.  

I know that It's short sighted to ignore the context in which these events took place, and I understand today's ethical/moral standards cannot be applied to that world wholesale. The criticism/anger/grudge at Columbus is more so a desire to destabilize the common constructions of who and exactly what he was and what he represents - pioneer, hero, what have you. It is more so an attack on what Columbus symbolizes, which can be taken far beyond Columbus himself, than an attack on Columbus the man, although he was no doubt a complete asshole. For many, Columbus symbolizes a long standing oppressive culture that, although positive changes have recently been made, is still oppressive to certain peoples today.  

Sometimes actions and policies of the past are so horrendous, and the cultural trickle down effect so severe, that that policy/action still has a significant effect on the present, and when this past bleeds so profusely into the now, it's very hard to forgive certain cultural entities for past actions, even though they may be trying to reverse the attitude now. Does that mean hold a grudge against the entire extended and current culture of 500 year old asshole, like, as you mentioned, the Welsh holding a grudge every living English woman, child, and man? No, of course not. But it also shouldn't mean to forget, or fully forgive, either, especially when the representation of that 500 year old asshole, and the cultural attitude that comes with him, is constructed in a way that still symbolizes, for many people, a great time in history, when it should actually symbolize a long standing attitude of oppression To this day many people encounter very tangible, personal manifestations of this ideology of marginalization, oppression, and, in extreme cases, violence.  Now, does that mean these people should be compensated?  I don't know.  Although I do have some opinions on the matter that I will leave out, for obvious reasons, namely that I have gone too far already. 

All in all, there is a lot of good discussion to be had, and I appreciate your insight on the matter, and it's another roundabout rationalization of why I love to tremendously dislike that team in Columbus.            

Joined: 08/18/2008

MGoPoints: 19316

jmblue

May 17th, 2011 at 3:45 PM ^

For many, Columbus symbolizes a long standing oppressive culture that, although positive changes have recently been made, is still oppressive to certain peoples today.

Is there a culture anywhere in the world that isn't oppressive to someone? Human nature really doesn't change from one part of the world to another. The issue I have with your indignation is not necessarily that it is unjustified, but that it is selective. In every corner of the world, people have done despicable things to each other.  There is no extant human society anywhere in the world that was not founded by "assholes."

If you are living in the United States - and are not of 100 percent Native American ancestry - you're here because of "assholes" that conquered this land and created a new society here.  I have a feeling that you aren't willing to pack up and head to another continent.  Isn't it a little hypocritical to enjoy the fruits of Columbus's labor while condemning him?  

Joined: 11/07/2008

MGoPoints: 102720

JBE

May 17th, 2011 at 4:12 PM ^

I agree that, "there is no extant human society anywhere in the world that was not founded by 'assholes.'" The key to my argument is that it's important to know they are assholes, so that one day a society may be forged or reimagined without the need to kill or displace people in the process. A dreamer's dream, I know. 

"If you are living in the United States - and are not of 100 percent Native American ancestry - you're here because of "assholes" that conquered this land and created a neo-European society here.  I have a feeling that you aren't willing to pack up and head to another continent. Isn't it a little hypocritical to enjoy the fruits of Columbus's labor while condemning him?"

I don't know where to start with this.  First and foremost, many times Native peoples were infused with European blood by no choice of their own, so they are definitely not hypocritical if they are not 100% Native American and don't embrace, or even acknowledge, the European culture as a reason for their existence.  Secondly, Columbus didn't do much besides sail, and dock, and walk around, and maybe do some killing, and ship some slaves back home, so no, I don't believe these so-called American fruits are directly of his doing.  He found a land mass, not install the beginnings of a government.  Thirdly, these American fruits are so-called, because they are very subjective.  One person's land of opportunity may be another's hell, depending on where and to whom you were born, and oftentimes if you want to leave, you need money to do so, and not every American has that. 

 

Joined: 08/18/2008

MGoPoints: 19316

jmblue

May 17th, 2011 at 4:30 PM ^

First, there is no such thing as a "Native person infused with European blood."   That "one drop of blood" nonsense needs to be retired.  Such a person is racially mixed, with ancestry from both Europe and the Americas.  

Second, you're really splitting hairs here.  Earlier, you personally blamed Columbus for the deaths of one-third of the population of Hispaniola (even though he wasn't even there for most of that time) and now you're arguing that he just sailed and didn't do much else.  It was because of the success of his voyage that others followed - and he provided the blueprint for the explorers/conquerors that followed.  You can substitute Captain John Smith or anyone else for Columbus - they did mostly the same things.

Finally, you're dodging my last question.  I don't care what some hypothetical "other" thinks.  Do you, personally, feel bad that the United States exists and wish it wouldn't have been founded?   If not, then yes, you are enjoying the fruits of his labor.  History isn't black and white, with clear-cut villains and heroes.  It's lots and lots of different shades of gray.  

 

Joined: 11/07/2008

MGoPoints: 102720

Blue in Yarmouth

May 17th, 2011 at 5:25 PM ^

I would like to sit down with a scotch with the two of you and enjoy this debate a lot further. Often times I come to this blog to get away from the seriousness of the world, but I also have very little time to have discussions issues like this as being a Dr. and having four 3 year olds I rarely have time for such debates. I think you both make great arguments and I have enjoyed being involved in this sharing of information. Both of you shared your stance very well too, I might add.

Joined: 02/18/2009

MGoPoints: 6522

JBE

May 17th, 2011 at 7:14 PM ^

First, you're right. That person would technically be racially mixed, but many people purposely choose not to acknowledge or embrace parts of their ancestry for obvious reasons. That was tongue in cheek. But you're technically correct.

Second, I didn't blame Columbus for Hispaniola, the excerpt said, "his men" as well. And in my last response I definitely mentioned he did "some killing", and by some, I meant a solid amount.

Finally, I don't agree with the premise that you can't enjoy the so-called fruits of America and condemn Columbus at the same time. 

I feel bad about how the United States came to exist, namely the treatment of various races of people, and I believe aspects of this unfortunate mentality still linger today. On the other hand, I feel good that some Americans have challenged the Eurocentric ideologies Columbus and other people have exhibited over time, namely notions of cultural superiority. So, basically, I feel bad how it came to exist, but at least there is hope to gain an understanding in that existence. One reason to love America is the possibility of a complete condemnation of the type of awful things Columbus did, as it pertains to the modern world.  

So perhaps the "fruit" of his labor was the eventual country forged on the land mass he happened on, and that this country now has an environment where people can openly question the way the "fruits" came about in the first place.  

But perhaps, had this land remained undiscovered by Europeans, there still would be a free people with free thought on this tract nonetheless? 

Also, I am aware that history is a slippery creature, and that black and white, good and bad, exist only in gray, and that context is important.  You're right, I cannot say that Columbus was a villain because my lens has been cracked by time and space, but the negative aspects that remain in American culture stemming from his world I believe could be considered villainy.   

Joined: 08/18/2008

MGoPoints: 19316

STW P. Brabbs

May 18th, 2011 at 12:10 AM ^

is a teleological fantasy.  'Columbus sailed to the Caribbean and then sometime later the United States happened, so if you condemn Columbus you hate America."

Certainly, if not Columbus someone else would have sailed to the other side of the Atlantic with the authority of one sovereign polity or another.  And maybe they would have done less of the torturing and killing for sport business.  And no one knows whether Explorer B's exploits may have resulted in a different United States or not.  It's silly to try to extrapolate from one even to an extremely complex phenomenon that came to formal fruiting nearly three centuries later.  A lot of new shit came to light in the interim. 

Joined: 08/27/2008

MGoPoints: 3823

jmblue

May 17th, 2011 at 2:10 PM ^

While I don't disagree that Columbus's men committed some atrocities, it's worth noting that these events took place at a time when serfdom - if not outright slavery - was widespread in Europe.  It's not like the average European was living a comfortable middle-class existence at the time.   (If they were, there wouldn't have been huge numbers of them willing to make a dangerous overseas voyage to an unknown land just to start a new life.) In the Americas, European explorers essentially tried to recreate social conditions that they knew of in their home countries.  

Also, the biggest killer of Native Americans by far was disease.  Disease also killed a huge number of European and African settlers (which is often forgotten), but there were simply more of them available to "export" to the Americas to replace those that died.

Joined: 11/07/2008

MGoPoints: 102720

STW P. Brabbs

May 18th, 2011 at 12:14 AM ^

I don't know who usually forgets that disease killed a lot of Europeans in the New World, though maybe you're on stronger ground when claiming that people ignore the deaths to Africans by disease. 

But the reason this morbidity is less noteworthy is because it was ... less morbid.  Smallpox was a novel bug in the Western Hemisphere, which is why it wiped out such a huge percentage of the native population. 

Joined: 08/27/2008

MGoPoints: 3823