i thought it is commonly acknowledged that imperialism (and by extension, colonialism) is wrong, according to modern international norms of sovereignty and self-determination. therefore, it shouldn't surprise anyone that chavez is suggesting that aura of glory which surrounds the entire age of conquistadors be consigned to the scrap heap. and while the perpetrators of imperialism often find it hard to rewrite their own history books to condemn these acts, it could hardly be expected that the victims would sing its praises today. let me cite a few examples: 1) Babylon/Rome conquer Israel in the Bible 2) Mongols conquer Eastern Europe 3) Ottomans conquer Greece 4) Christian Europe conquers the world 5) China subjugates Central/Southeast Asia 6) Manchus/Japanese/Western powers subjugates China in each of these, the losers portray the event as catastrophes leading to cruel oppression, while the winners portray the event as glorious accomplishments even today. simple historical subjectivity at work.
i didn't know that the spanish and portuguese were responsible for genocide when they came to the americas. you could say their diseases were but they weren't. it would have been interesting to have seen how things would have played out if the disease factor was reversed...meaning the indians had diseases that would kill the euros. i think the indians only gave one disease to the euros...syphillis. but hey it would have also been interesting to see how many people would have been saved if bush sr. took out saddam the 1st time around. and any number of other scenarios one can think of.
Au Contraire....The Native Americans are getting their sweet revenge on us till this day....we turned the corn they gave us into corn syrup >>> causing a steady increase in fat, obese americans (hell even our own Dakota had to go on Atkins!!) >>> heart disease becomes #1 killer >>> americans drop like flies one by one, slowly but surely
I have to disagree with the general anti-Columbus consensus on this board. While he was no moral man, and while there was a lot of evil as a result of his actions, there was also a lot of good. First of all, landing in the "New World" was an amazing accomplishment in itself. As a human achievement it has to rank among some of the greatest. Second, it paved the way to the creation of America. Not directly, but it led to later Western countries migrating over and creating what would become an successful experiment in democracy. Also, let's not act like the Native Americans had some sort of paradise here. To think that they had some idyllic, peaceful, and natural existence here is pure fantasy. They were probably at constant war with each other and probably lived at a level of poverty much worse than in the Western World. While they had many great civilizations and accomplishments worthy of great note, in the end they did not last as long as Western civilization did, and not just because the West destroyed them. I think we can be realistic about the man yet acknowledge the greatness of his accomplishments.
Well said, Mr. Clutch. That was the most even-handed, realistic post I've seen about our Italian navigator and his voyages. I'm glad I'm not the only one who likes the results of his voyage.
The first recorded celebration of Columbus Day in the United States took place on October 12, 1792. Organized by The Society of St. Tammany, also known as the Columbian Order, it commemorated the 300th anniversary of Columbus's landing. The 400th anniversary of the event, however, inspired the first official Columbus Day holiday in the United States. In 1892, President Benjamin Harrison issued a proclamation urging Americans to mark the day. The public responded enthusiastically, organizing school programs, plays, and community festivities across the country. Columbus and the Discovery of America, Imre Kiralfy's "grand dramatic, operatic, and ballet spectacle," is among the more elaborate tributes created for this commemoration. The World's Columbian Exposition, by far the most ambitious event planned for the celebration, opened in Chicago the summer of 1893. Over the following decades, the Knights of Columbus, an international Roman Catholic fraternal benefit society, lobbied state legislatures to declare October 12 a legal holiday. Colorado was the first state to do so on April 1, 1907. New York declared Columbus Day a holiday in 1909 and on October 12, 1909, New York Governor Charles Evans Hughes led a parade that included the crews of two Italian ships, several Italian-American societies, and legions of the Knights of Columbus. Since 1971 Columbus Day, designated as the second Monday in October, has been celebrated as a federal holiday. In many locations across the country Americans parade in commemoration of the day. http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/oct12.html
Yawn. So now it's even-handed to make sure we're nice enough to Columbus? He does have his own holiday after all. His crimes against the natives are systematically covered up and ignored at every level of schooling, while his accomplishments are loudly lauded. Nobody here has suggested that they wished America hadn't happened -- only that the American people are woefully misinformed as to the whole picture with regard to Columbus. He is considered to be one of our greatest heroes. And the flat fact is he was a rat b*stard of the highest degree. I'd really think in a country like America people would at least pretend they wanted to know the truth. And I would be wrong to think that. Our national anthem should be "Don't Worry, Be Happy." bama and Mr. C either didn't read the Zinn stuff Cohen posted or they read it and then did what they do with any discouraging news of Bush's policies -- plugged their ears and hummed a happy tune. This country wouldn't be where it is without slavery either. Maybe we should have a holiday honoring slave owners for all the good they did for America.
Columbus commited the acts himself. Samuel Eliot Morison, the Harvard historian who was Columbus' admiring biographer, acknowledged this. He wrote: "Whoever thought up this ghastly system, Columbus was responsible for it, as the only means of producing gold for export.... Those who fled to the mountains were hunted with hounds, and those who escaped, starvation and disease took toll, while thousands of poor creatures in desperation took cassava poison to end their miseries." Morison continues: "So the policy and acts of Columbus for which he alone was responsible began the depopulation of the terrestrial paradise that was Hispaniola in 1492. Of the original natives, estimated by modern ethnologist at 300,000 in number, one-third were killed off between 1494 and 1496. By 1508, an enumeration showed only 60,000 alive...in 1548 Oviedo (Morison is referring to Fernandex de Oviedo, the official Spanish historian of conquest) doubted whether 500 Indians remained. What a hero, move over Jesus.
1) many people against the war wanted Saddam out. The issue was the most thought perhaps not a military approach, and certainly not a unilateral military approach w/o UN backing, was the best way to do it both for our people and for the people of Iraq. 2) As for reading history--someone is correct many European powers have had brutal colonist histories--but for some reason our continent is less willing to learn from it and apply it to future potential conflicts on foreign soil. Very uncool Ziom. I may agree with less than 1/4 of DD views/argument support in this thread--but yeah I think he is doing the right thing regarding the casino $ for his situation yet a move most in his situation wouldn't. So props to you DD for putting your wallet in line with your views!
I did in fact read the Zinn stuff, and I thought I made clear that I didn't not think Columbus a moral man, and I said we can value his accomplishments (ie discovering the New World for the West) but not the man. Did you read my post? I don't think slavery was integral for our country to exist. If the slave trade was stopped at the inception of our country we probably would have had pretty much the same result.
I said he was not a moral man, and we can celebrate his accomplishments without saying he was a great person.
Yes, I did read it, Mr. Clutch. And, since it's been a few days, I just read it again. The "general anti-Columbus consensus" is an attempt to balance his accomplishments (which are well-known to any American who ever attended any school whatsoever) with what can only be regarded as his heinous crimes (which are not taught in virtually any US school). There is incredibly little danger that an unflattering portrait of Columbus -- still regarded as a great, great man by more than 99% of Americans -- will take root as a result of this thread or Howard Zinn's book. It absolutely should, but it won't. And, as someone else pointed out, the evil was a DIRECT result of his actions. He was the one that perpetrated it. You make it sound like others took up his charge and behaved badly. He was the first and the worst of the bad behavers. You then follow with a bunch of 'probably's' about Native Americans which have -- to the best of my knowledge -- no basis in fact or history and exist in your post only to soften the devastating impact of Columbus's actions. You say they "probably" were at constant war, they "probably" lived in a state of terrible poverty and you insinuate that they probably would have died off on their own were they not subject to Columbus's genocide against them. You make these points, again, to make it look less bad that Columbus led the charge in wiping them out. First you say they had a lousy life and then you say they would have died off anyway. As far as I know you have no basis for these assumptions. In fact, Columbus's own diaries (quoted in the Zinn) suggest quite the opposite. And in your latest post you suggest that slavery was not an important factor in the growth of our nation and that the result would have been the same without it. Wha??? Who would have done the work? And who would have paid for it? I'm not a historian, nor a student of history, so I'll leave it to someone else to point out what a huge impact the free labor of slavery had on the early prosperity of this country. Of course, I could also turn your logic around and say that without Columbus, and without wiping out a peaceful race, America would "probably" be in the same position it's in now. Someone else "probably" would have discovered the Americas. And we "probably" wouldn't have needed to enslave, rape and murder the peaceful occupants who welcomed Columbus and his men with open arms, by his own account, to colonize here.
Your objections to this thread suggest that you not only want to celebrate his accomplishments but also seek to downplay his wrongdoing. No one in this thread suggested the discovery of the continent was not an accomplishment. We only sought to highlight his incredibly little known crimes.
don't drink the water By: Dave Matthews Band Come out, come out, no use in hiding Come now, come now, can you not see? There's no place here, what were you expecting? No room for both, just room for me So you will lay your arms down Yes I will call this home Away, away you have been banished Your land is gone and given me And here I will spread my wings Yes I will call this home What's that you say? You feel the right to remain? Then stay and I will bury you What's that you say? Your father's spirit still lives in this place, Well I will silence you Here's the hitch, your horse is leaving, Don't miss your boat, it's leaving now And as you go I will spread my wings Yes I will call this home I have no time to justify to you Fool you're blind, move aside for me All I can say to you, my new neighbor Is you must move on or I will bury you [chanting] Now as I rest my feet by this fire Those hands once warmed here But I have retired them I can breathe my own air And I can sleep more soundly Upon these pour souls I'll build heaven and call it home 'Cause you're all dead now. And I live with my justice And I live with my greedy need Oh I live with no mercy And I live with my frenzied feeding And I live with my hatred And I live with my jealousy Oh I live with the notion That I don't need anyone but me Don't drink the water Don't drink the water Blood in the water Don't drink the water Don't drink the water Don't drink the water There's blood in the water Don't drink the water Blood in the water You'll all be dead
I am not sure if you are correct about his heinous crimes not being taught at schools. I certainly was aware of them. I don't know when, but I think it was high school that I first learned them. And if 99% of Americans do regard him as a great man, it is because of his good accomplishments, not because of his genocide. Let's not act like Americans go around praising the wiping out of cultures! Yes, I agree. I don't think he was a moral man. I did not mean to say he did not participate. If, in analyzing the culture of the Native Americans, we see his actions in a different light, then so be it. I don't think it really reduces the horribleness of what he did, that was not my point. We regularly talk about the weaknesses in Rome that lead to the collapse of Roman civilization. We do the same for the Muslim or Chinese empires of old. I don't see why we can't talk about the weaknesses in Native Americans that lead to them to be easily susceptible to be conquered. That's what I was doing, analyzing them in the same way we analyze other cultures and empires. "Their culture was an oral culture, not a written one" (from Zinn). How advanced can a culture be, how much progress can it make without writing? It is no surprise they were quickly conquered by small armies. ( Now that I think about it, maybe it really isn't relevant to the discussion, if we are narrowly talking about the moral character of Columbus, but if you want an understanding of why those things happened then it's worth thinking about, even though it seems like something Zinn doesn't want to get into at all.) As far as the assumptions I made, well I don't have specifics, that's why I admittedly made assumptions. I'll try to look them up though. The problem I have with Zinn is he portrays the Native Americans as peaceful and prospering, if at all. Does it not matter if they had little in the way of civilization and progress? I guarantee you they had their share of wars, genocide, poverty, human sacrifice, etc. That's been true of human existence everywhere. I don't really think slavery was integral to our economy, or that we couldn't have simply adjusted. There are many developing economies that don't use slaves and have done fine in rising out of the ashes. Maybe someone else has more info. on this. Either way, we celebrate the positive accomplishments of Thomas Jefferson and other despite the fact that they supported slavery adn owned slaves, and that's all I am saying in regards to Columbus. Yes, someone else "probably" would have colonized America, but we still give credit to the person who actually did it. Someone likely would have found out Einstein's achievements also, or invented the automobile, or written a Bill of Rights, etc.
No I don't want to downplay his wrongdoing. My intent to look at the wiping out of the culture in a different perspective, perhaps a more realistic perspective. Are they really little known? I was quite aware of them.
