Sorry, but virtually insupportable. We came into several conflicts in our formative years, and though we now look on them as inevitable American conquest, there were several times where we did face defeat/were defeated, but had the population base/economic power to recover. The basis for that population and economy for the majority of our early years was slavery. Look at the principle economic areas of the early American years, and you will see that most of them relied heavily on slavery, especially far and away the most successfull of the early states, Virginia. To suggest that we would have been able to overcome the natives, invade lands occupied by the Mexicans/Spanish, etc. without the vast income derived by virtue of slavery is without support. Simple mathematics will tell you that, short of slavery, that would have meant that a very high degree of our residents who were freed to be military/economic/educational etc. contributors would instead have had to be menial labourers, with the inherent high death rates that involved. This would have had a further and severely negative effect on our birth rates. But moreover, it can be refuted on this one issue: the Louisiana Purchase. Not only did slavery help generate the high price that was required to purchase it, that immeasurably extending our national and economic base, but it did something much more important to American interests; it kept the British in Europe. Had Napoleon not been able to acquire that wealth it would have very likely made his ability to wage war much more tenous, and he would have either resolved an unfavourable treaty, or forced a decisive conflict much earlier; either way, one of the European powers would have then been triumphant. Were it Britiain, they would certainly have then turned thier eyes towards the US, and absolutely no military historian I have ever read has suggested that we could have withstood the might of the British Army and Navy...we barely beat them off when they only gave a token effort, embroiled as they were in their primary conflict with the French in Europe. Had they secured that zone of conflict at that time, we would have been next, and we would have been facing the full brunt rather than as an afterthought. Had Napoleon won, it is recorded that his next priority was in the New World, predominatly in the Caribbean, but also on the American continent. That does not necessarily mean that he would have come into conflict with the US, as we were on friendly terms, but he would still have been in possession of the majority of what became the United States, including much of the more profitable and arable land whose 'opeing up' lead directly to our rise in stature. We also would have had the most powerful military presence in the world as our direct neighbour...and who knows how that would have ended. Again, to take out slavery from our early development is to suggest that Barry Sanders would have done just as well on one leg. He, like the argument, wouldn't have stood for long.
Your experience is not the usual one. The crimes of Columbus, to the best of my knowledge, are still not in school history books or curriculums. You must have had an especially progressive teacher somewhere along the way. The vast majority of Americans regard Columbus to be a hero for two reasons: one is his accomplishments, two is that they do not know of his crimes. Of course people don't praise genocide, but they don't condemn it either when they don't know about it. Frankly I'm not sure what you're defending. Again, no one has suggested Columbus didn't accomplish a difficult feat. What people have said here is that there are a great many bad things about him as well. As such, a holiday dedicated to honoring him should be a controversial topic. Are you suggesting it shouldn't be? Are you in favor of including the whole story about Columbus (and not just his 'heroic' deed) in our history books? If so, I don't see what your problem with this thread is. Or are you for continuing to omit his crimes from American history books? If so, your agreement that Columbus was "not a moral man" is pretty hollow. As for the Native Americans, I disagree with your suggestion that an 'uncivilized' people somehow deserves to be wiped out. Or that the presumed inevitability of a particular people's end means that it's somehow less evil to murder them. I don't think you really think these things, but I don't understand why you would include this idea in your thesis, except to downplay the seriousness of what Columbus did. It's funny to me how Columbus and his men justified their genocide with the ideas that the Native Americans were 'uncivilized' and lacked religion. Murder (and worse, genocide) is among the least civilized or Christian acts I can imagine. I also consider rape, enslavement and theft to be uncivil and un-Christian. And, call me a lefty (I am one), but the holy grail of progress neither erases nor softens those offenses in my eyes. For the sum total of Columbus's accomplishments, he less deserved a holiday than life in prison followed by eternal dishonor. I'm going easy on him, by the way, as I support neither the death penalty nor the concept of an eye for an eye. p.s. I promise you you're wrong about slavery, but I'll leave it to better educated people to correct your assumptions.
In response to MacBeth's post I say again it is clear that the acts of slave traders and owners were of tremendous value to this nation and its progress. Even though we now regard both slavery and genocide to be evil, I suggest again that we institute a holiday honoring the good that those slave traders and slave owners did for our great country. What? You don't like slavery? Well, you must not like America then... If you can't honor slavery, you must not appreciate the freedoms this country affords us... Okay? Okay.
I think history has shown that Slavery played a huge part in the development as did child labor, monopoly, and all sorts of things that we don't 'celebrate'.
No, I didn't have a progressive teacher. I had a regular public school education. Who knows. Do you have a link or something I can read about high schools omitting his crimes? I am just defending the idea that we can celebrate this day, for the feat of discovering the New World, and the amazing skill,courage, technology,etc. that it took to achieve it. I have no problem really with it being controversial, or not liking Columbus the man. Did I say this thread shouldn't have been started? I do have a problem if people suggest that this shows how the West is evil, oppressive, etc., and use it to attack the West (something quite common in academia). Of course I don't favor continuing omitting his crimes. Why would you think I favor omitting anything? I don't think we should omit a critical look at Native American culture either. If in fact, their were reasons Native Americans were so weak, would you favor omitting that? No they don't "deserve" to be wiped out. Definitely not! The point of including that was to get the whole story, not just part of it, as Zinn gave. Those were different times, and as we know from the collapse of such empires as the Roman empires, there are weaknesses within a culture that make them susceptible to be wiped out. To ignore that part about Native Americans is just willful ignorance, and pehaps some people just want to maintain a fantasy about their culture. He talks about the Native Americans not having a written history as if that's a good thing, when in fact it likely limited learning and progress. I am not downplaying his crimes. Just giving the whole perspective. I don't see what is wrong with it. We regularly talk about the corruption of Rome, does that mean all it's people deserved to be wiped out by barbarians? Of course not. Fair enough, that is your opinion.
I agree that it did. Was it integral to America's success? I don't know. I would say our system of government was far more important. (I only got halfway through Macbeth's thread, I will finish it up). I'm confused though. Why are we talking about slavery again? We don't celebrate slavery anymore than we celebrate genocide. But we still celebrate the men who were involved in those actions.
