Happy Columbus Day!

Spread the love

Loading

This is the latest popular image that seems to be making its rounds amongst my liberal friends on Facebook…

Conquests and Cultures:

Another cliché among the American chattering class is that the European discovery of the Western hemisphere was an unmitigated disaster for the native peoples. Columbus Day is now an occasion for mourning and self-flagellation. But, Sowell points out, there were benefits as well as costs. Diseases that ravaged the natives were spread by whites—ruthless conquistador and benevolent missionary alike—but so was the ability to combat all disease. Liquor led to much drunkenness, but European manufactured goods, such as cloth, were superior to the products the Indians could produce themselves, and they gladly traded to get them. There certainly was inexcusable brutality against the Indians, but, given the degree of brutality that had existed among Indians for centuries, establishing the Western idea of the rule of law undoubtedly reduced the prevalence of violence in the long run.

The fact that cultural contact gave some benefits to the Indians is no justification for forced resettlements, reneging on treaties, or massacres. Sowell makes no such argument. He merely observes that history is a very mixed bag of causes and effects.

It’s no longer politically correct, and hasn’t been for decades, but…Happy Columbus Day!

In fairness, Columbus was an exceptional sailor and entrepreneur who was obsessed, as so many were at the time, with finding a quicker and more cost-effective route from Europe to China and India. He bumped into America because it was in the way.

So Columbus’ motivation was self-interest. He did not explore to improve humanity, but he didn’t do it to inflict catastrophe either.

I’m not even sure why we celebrate/recognize Columbus Day at all since it only peripherally has anything at all remotely to do with North America…

0 0 votes
Article Rating
15 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Good to see this included:

given the degree of brutality that had existed among Indians for centuries, establishing the Western idea of the rule of law undoubtedly reduced the prevalence of violence in the long run.

Before ”Dances With Wolves,” and all the other revisionist history of Indians in the Americas we toured museums where Indian artifacts proved that human sacrifices were common, where any battle between two migrating tribes was settled when the losers were massacred (some in nasty ways) by the winners.
Tribal life was short, maybe thirty to thirty-five years.
The only thing more brutal than the tribal wars were the power struggles within some tribes.
Again brutishly nasty murder sprees.

So, yeah, I tend to agree.
American natives are better off having come under the influence of European thinking than had they not.

Try reading the “People’s History of the United States”, by Howard Zinn, for the rest of the ‘real’ story—forgetting for a moment that the author’s political opinion is diametrically opposed to yours (you may call him a Socialist, Communist, or Marxist), but instead examining only the facts that you’re not taught in schools.

You think Zinn is a source of truth…for anything? Wow. Why don’t you read Hitler’s writings on Jews? Just as non-fictional and un-bigotted as what Zinn has written.

Aimless Obama walks alone

“The reports are NOT good, disturbing even. I have heard basically the same story four times in the last 10 days, and the people doing the talking are in New York and Washington and are spread across the political spectrum.

The gist is this: President Obama has become a lone wolf, a stranger to his own government. He talks mostly, and sometimes only, to friend and adviser Valerie Jarrett and to David Axelrod, his political strategist.

Everybody else, including members of his Cabinet, have little face time with him except for brief meetings that serve as photo ops. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner both have complained, according to people who have talked to them, that they are shut out of important decisions.

…If the reports are accurate, and I believe they are, they paint a picture of an isolated man trapped in a collapsing presidency

He has failed
He has no vision
He has no message
He has no viable path forward
He has no economic accomplishments
He has wrecked the economy with 0bamacare
He is flailing wildly and American voters have stopped listening to him

0bama’s BEST accomplishment is this:
He exposed the utter FAILURE of the liberal progressive ideology

For that, we’re grateful.
…but now it’s time to kick these liberal failures out of office in 2012!
:mrgreen:

Herman Cain for President – 2012. 😎 .

Try reading 1491 and 1493 written by Charles C. Mann. (Not to be confused with Michael Mann who hides the decline in global temperature.) As the dates would indicate, the first book is about the Americas and the population here before Columbus and the latter book about the impact. Both books cite considerable sources.

@Liberal1 (objectivity):
The late Howard Zinn admitted to a particular left-leaning brand of revisionist history.
When asked by Tavis Smiley:
“What do you say to those who might argue that someone like Howard Zinn is simply throwing a wrench into solid American history with his particular brand of scholarship? That he’s really just trying to rewrite history to reflect a liberal agenda?”

Howard Zinn answered: They’re absolutely right. [Laughter]
———————-
———————-

When you read a classically written history book you find footnotes referencing quotes from original sources, a bibliography which also includes more recommended (but dry, original source) reading.
Every newer edition tells the reader when and where changes have been made, even WHY those changes were made.
(Like an archeological dig revised our knowledge, for one example.)
And, in the forward, you can learn what the slant of the writer/compiler is.

This is all very different compared to reading a revisionist history book like all of Zinn’s works.
There are few footnotes to original writings.
The bibliography includes mostly 2nd hand sourcing instead of original.
And very importantly, when newer editions come out the older ones’ version of events simply disappear.
You would have to keep all editions to see what changes had been made.
You would have to compare each edition page-to-page to find changes.
And you would be getting no explanation of why the changes were made.

(Was I supposed to simply call Zinn a commie so you could smugly disagree with me?
Sorry to disappoint you.)

Columbus was actually an obscure figure for centuries.

Columbus fell into obscurity 500 years ago because he was a d!ck, basically. Whatever his talents as a navigator and promoter, he ran Hispanola (“Viceroy and Governor of the Indies”) as a tyrant, and executed numerous Spanish settlers (from noble families in some cases) as well as Indians. Word of his incompetence and brutality traveled back to Spain and so angered the Spanish establishment and he was not only arrested and removed as governor of the island, but forbidden to set foot on it again. He was made a non-person in the offical historical record of Spanish colonial activities.

Columbus launched a later, quite unsuccessful expedition to Panama and on the way back was shipwrecked on a small island near Hispanola. He sent word to the governor of Hispanola asking for rescue. Although it was rather nearby, the governor refused, and Columbus ended up having to return to civilization entirely on his own, barely surviving.

In colonial times the British tended to downplay Columbus and promote Cabot as an early explorer. Columbus was promoted more as an important figure after American Independence.

@ Nan G

So, yeah, I tend to agree.
American natives are better off having come under the influence of European thinking than had they not.

Yeah, nothing like the Hundred Years War, War of the Roses, Anglo-Hanseatic War, Cornish Rebellion of 1497, or France’s Long War. The Europeans were much more civilized.

The Europeans treated each other about as badly as they treated the Indians, and about as badly as the Indians treated each other.

Wm T Sherman
Yes sir, that’s all I was after. Being part injun myself, I’m happy with the way things turned out. But there is no need to qualify the invasion of the Americas with something as trite as, “they were better off for it.” During the time Columbus landed in America, England, France, and Spain were out to conquer new lands, whether they were freshly discovered or had been known for centuries. That’s the way it was. Military conquest during that time was just a fact of life.
I would put a link to the YouTube video with Eddy Izzard and “Do you have a Flag?” but the language is a bit dicey. Still hilarious though.

By modern standards, Europe in 1492 was a scary, dangerous, not terribly cvilized place. The State Department would issue a travel advisory today.

I caught some program on the History Channel (somewhat questionable at times) suggesting that the ancestors of modern “Indians” displaced earlier peoples in North America. Some of whom may have come across the Pacific or skittered around the north Atlantic Arctic ice sheet during the last ice age. It was interesting, since these folk were linked to the some Cherokee tribe, and I have a fraction of that myself. 😉

@Wordsmith: Dude I think it’s wrong and I’m a teacher. I am a disabled veteran who has worked all my life. Got a problem with that?? Your cute little paragraphs only display your ignorance. Try reality vs. a sound bite.