I'm a little surprised by this Howard Zinn-like take. Do you also think Washington and Jefferson should not be honored, because they were slavers?
Both the accomplishments and the negatives have to be put in historical context. Unfortunately, abolitionism wasn't really a thing in the 15th century.
As Bill Maher put it, you're not better than George Washington because you have gay friends and he didn't. If he lived today, he'd have gay friends.
"How did this awful conqueror and slaver ever become an icon of “Western civilization“?" This is a very simplistic view. Until the late 18th and 19th (especially in Britain and US) abolitionist movements, slavery was a widely practiced and accepted institution (See Cambridge World History of Slavery volumes). There is such a large volume of work on this. As for conqueror, those were the ones that followed Columbus. So what was he supposed to do when he discovered the "new" lands--pretend like he did not. Western technology was expanding at such a rapid rate that it was virtually inevitable someone would discover the Americas--and therefore virtually inevitable that western diseases would spread can destroy much of the native American population. Medical technology was still way behind. For another view on this, see "Not Stolen: The Truth About European Colonialism in the New World" by Jeff Fynn-Paul.
Agree. And the Europeans conquered North America because they possessed superior technical and organizational capabilities. We can all respect Agrarian cultures, but Agrarian cultures cannot sustain large populations and they cannot produce technical innovation.
The great irony is those must critical of European conquest of Agrarian societies, love their technology and would never give it up. They fail to see the connection that in an Agrarian society, they would not have a smartphone nor the data centers necessary to support the digital media they use to convey their dissatisfaction with European conquest.
I'm really confused on what you are asserting here. It seems like you are asserting that by criticizing Christopher Columbus, and suggesting he should not have a holiday, one is therefore also criticizing the European conquest of the Americas. Further, it seems that you are implying that said European conquest of the Americas, including said slavery since that is the part we were talking about here, is justified because of the technological innovation that we have made since? Are you saying that if the European Conquest of the America's never happened we would not have smartphones or data centers?
"slavery was a widely practiced and accepted institution"
YES! But don't we want to celebrate as our icons people who were able to break from the terrible traps of the pre-enlightenment? Columbus was simply more effective than others at doing bad things. I'd rather celebrate those who took us in a better moral direction. E.g., Washington & Jefferson were slavers, but they took us from monarchy into a limited democracy that was able to grow. That's at least directionally correct.
" As for conqueror, those were the ones that followed Columbus. So what was he supposed to do when he discovered the "new" lands--pretend like he did not."
I mean, it seems like the criticism that Bryan is bringing up is not the part where Christopher Columbus discovers the Americas and tells everyone about it.... it seems like the problem is the part where Christopher Columbus starts rounding up people and shipping them by the boatload as slaves. (And a handful of other atrocities he committed.) This is also patently false. Columbus did plenty of conquering, torturing, and atrocitiz-ing himself, particularly during his governorship of Hispaniola: (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/aug/07/books.spain)
"Western technology was expanding at such a rapid rate that it was virtually inevitable someone would discover the Americas--and therefore virtually inevitable that western diseases would spread can destroy much of the native American population."
The argument that someone else would have done it if not for him has no bearing on the morality or justice of his actions. So if I steal your car it is ok so long as someone else was going to do it inevitably anyway? Nobody is holding Columbus personally responsible for the toll of smallpox on American civilization, though that certainly is a tragedy. Bryan is simply saying we should not have a holiday for someone who was considered morally abhorrent even by the standards of his own time, let alone by our modern ideals.
I said it was a simplistic view of Columbus. Saying something is simplistic is not the same as saying it is wrong. It needs more nuance.
If the Guardian is one your sources, then you might want to do your own fact checking. You need to do more research than that. Your line "Columbus did plenty of conquering, torturing, and atrocitiz-ing himself..." is unintentionally comical. What is the line over which someone goes above before it is categorized as "plenty"? Anyway, read the book I mentioned, do some research.
Are you saying that because it is simplistic it is wrong? Or are you just trying to sidestep making any actual claims or assertions that could be disproven while trying to sound wise by stating that something could be more nuanced since it is always possible for something to be more nuanced?
Unrelated: Your comment is a very simplistic view since it failed to encapsulate all the history and context of this particular subject. Am I doing it right? Do I seem wise?
Bryan was pretty clear throughout the rest of his post that his issue with Columbus was the way he dramatically expanded slavery. This is pretty difficult to argue with, since Christopher Colombus personally instituted the Encomienda during his governorship of Hispaniola, and shipped 500 slaves to Spain, as Bryan mentions in his post. ( James Lockhart and Stuart Schwartz, Early Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 138: «The encomienda in its early heyday granted a lifetime monopoly on the utilization of temporary Indian labor in a given area to one Spaniard, the encomendero.)
Obviously you didn't read the article, since it is simply a summary of historian Consuelo Varela's analysis of Francisco de Bobadilla's report on Christopher's governorship of Hispaniola, where 23 testimonies were collected on how Columbus tortured, mutilated, and killed the natives, including rounding up over 1500 of them for enslavement in one specific event. But ya, who knows where the line is on "plenty" of attrocities. Even though Columbus was reviled and ousted as governor even by his peers at the time, how could we possibly make any conclusions about someone's morality if they come from a different culture?
I'm sure you have done "plenty" of research on the matter. lol
It seems to me that the anti-Columbus advocates are partially to blame for elevating Columbus! What they did was make the argument all about Columbus and whether he was good or evil and how much credit he deserves for European conquest of North America.
Imagine instead of creating the anti-Columbus "Indigenous Persons Day" a movement was made to replace Columbus Day with "Explorers Day" or "Discovery Day". And then make the day about the explorers who discovered and created awareness of other lands. Shift the day away from the question of conquest and make it about the innate human desire to explore and discover. And recognize Space is the next frontier for exploration and discovery.
You tell me you are celebrating "Indigenous Persons Day" and I will defend Columbus and the European conquest of North America. Change it to "Explorers Day" and we can hopefully have a productive conversation about the many explorers who demonstrated the courage and ingenuity to venture beyond their horizon in order to discover and map that which they could only first imagine.
Columbus Day used to be a regional holiday, mostly driven by Italian identity. The more Progressives complained and pushed their indigenous alternative the louder the defenders of Columbus became.
A better answer to "Columbus Day" would have been to put the focus directly on the positive he represented. This would have been his spirit of exploration and discovery. The better alternative to Columbus Day would have been Discovery Day or Explorers Day.
Charles "The Hammer" Martel, grandfather of Charlemagne and victorious commander at the Battle of Tours 732AD. By raising an army and defeating an invading muslim horde less than 200 kilometers from Paris, Martel probably saved Western civilization in a way no other single individual can match. He also has the coolest historical figure nickname that I know of.
Bryan, Bryan, Bryan. “Clean hands” sounds so progressive. I’m all for honest history, but to fail to give a pass to men like Columbus only incites the left and encourages woke ideology. Morality is, has been, and will continue to be man’s greatest achievement (and Western Civilization’s too). But if we limit our celebrations of men to only the perfectly moral, we won’t be enjoying any parades or holidays.
I think the bigger issue is that the anti-Columbus claims are simply false. He was not a conqueror. He was not pro-slavery. He was a religious explorer who wanted to convert the natives to Christianity. He actually stands out as a great defender of human rights.
I mean.... all of those things are obviously false. Columbus literally conquered Hispaniola as "governor" and enslaved the people there, who he attempted to ship back en masse to Spain for a profit....
Wait, I think i just caught the tail end of the joke flying over my head, it is honestly hard to tell satire from non-satire sometimes these days.
Nope. The other Spaniards in Hispaniola enslaved people there. Columbus did not. Columbus did not even want to levy a tax on the natives, but was forced to by the other Spaniards. The treatment of the natives was a continuous source of tension between Columbus (whose motivation for exploration was Christian evangelism) and the other Spaniards who had come seeking gold and conquest. This conflict was the reason the other Spaniards eventually did a soft coup against Columbus, put him in chains and sent him back to Spain.
Probably but I like to give honest opponents the benefit of the doubt (meaning that their position has some validity). But even if (and I’m also well read on Columbus) Columbus in the worst light should not be vilified for be no better than the average man of his day (even though I’m a big fan of his).
Show me the hero with clean hands, and I will point you to the conqueror who made his achievements possible.
This is not a defense of conquest, but a recognition of how civilizations are built. One of the cases of "the Woke are more correct than the mainstream."
Adam Smith
I'm a little surprised by this Howard Zinn-like take. Do you also think Washington and Jefferson should not be honored, because they were slavers?
Both the accomplishments and the negatives have to be put in historical context. Unfortunately, abolitionism wasn't really a thing in the 15th century.
As Bill Maher put it, you're not better than George Washington because you have gay friends and he didn't. If he lived today, he'd have gay friends.
"How did this awful conqueror and slaver ever become an icon of “Western civilization“?" This is a very simplistic view. Until the late 18th and 19th (especially in Britain and US) abolitionist movements, slavery was a widely practiced and accepted institution (See Cambridge World History of Slavery volumes). There is such a large volume of work on this. As for conqueror, those were the ones that followed Columbus. So what was he supposed to do when he discovered the "new" lands--pretend like he did not. Western technology was expanding at such a rapid rate that it was virtually inevitable someone would discover the Americas--and therefore virtually inevitable that western diseases would spread can destroy much of the native American population. Medical technology was still way behind. For another view on this, see "Not Stolen: The Truth About European Colonialism in the New World" by Jeff Fynn-Paul.
Agree. And the Europeans conquered North America because they possessed superior technical and organizational capabilities. We can all respect Agrarian cultures, but Agrarian cultures cannot sustain large populations and they cannot produce technical innovation.
The great irony is those must critical of European conquest of Agrarian societies, love their technology and would never give it up. They fail to see the connection that in an Agrarian society, they would not have a smartphone nor the data centers necessary to support the digital media they use to convey their dissatisfaction with European conquest.
I'm really confused on what you are asserting here. It seems like you are asserting that by criticizing Christopher Columbus, and suggesting he should not have a holiday, one is therefore also criticizing the European conquest of the Americas. Further, it seems that you are implying that said European conquest of the Americas, including said slavery since that is the part we were talking about here, is justified because of the technological innovation that we have made since? Are you saying that if the European Conquest of the America's never happened we would not have smartphones or data centers?
"slavery was a widely practiced and accepted institution"
YES! But don't we want to celebrate as our icons people who were able to break from the terrible traps of the pre-enlightenment? Columbus was simply more effective than others at doing bad things. I'd rather celebrate those who took us in a better moral direction. E.g., Washington & Jefferson were slavers, but they took us from monarchy into a limited democracy that was able to grow. That's at least directionally correct.
" As for conqueror, those were the ones that followed Columbus. So what was he supposed to do when he discovered the "new" lands--pretend like he did not."
I mean, it seems like the criticism that Bryan is bringing up is not the part where Christopher Columbus discovers the Americas and tells everyone about it.... it seems like the problem is the part where Christopher Columbus starts rounding up people and shipping them by the boatload as slaves. (And a handful of other atrocities he committed.) This is also patently false. Columbus did plenty of conquering, torturing, and atrocitiz-ing himself, particularly during his governorship of Hispaniola: (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/aug/07/books.spain)
"Western technology was expanding at such a rapid rate that it was virtually inevitable someone would discover the Americas--and therefore virtually inevitable that western diseases would spread can destroy much of the native American population."
The argument that someone else would have done it if not for him has no bearing on the morality or justice of his actions. So if I steal your car it is ok so long as someone else was going to do it inevitably anyway? Nobody is holding Columbus personally responsible for the toll of smallpox on American civilization, though that certainly is a tragedy. Bryan is simply saying we should not have a holiday for someone who was considered morally abhorrent even by the standards of his own time, let alone by our modern ideals.
I said it was a simplistic view of Columbus. Saying something is simplistic is not the same as saying it is wrong. It needs more nuance.
If the Guardian is one your sources, then you might want to do your own fact checking. You need to do more research than that. Your line "Columbus did plenty of conquering, torturing, and atrocitiz-ing himself..." is unintentionally comical. What is the line over which someone goes above before it is categorized as "plenty"? Anyway, read the book I mentioned, do some research.
Are you saying that because it is simplistic it is wrong? Or are you just trying to sidestep making any actual claims or assertions that could be disproven while trying to sound wise by stating that something could be more nuanced since it is always possible for something to be more nuanced?
Unrelated: Your comment is a very simplistic view since it failed to encapsulate all the history and context of this particular subject. Am I doing it right? Do I seem wise?
Bryan was pretty clear throughout the rest of his post that his issue with Columbus was the way he dramatically expanded slavery. This is pretty difficult to argue with, since Christopher Colombus personally instituted the Encomienda during his governorship of Hispaniola, and shipped 500 slaves to Spain, as Bryan mentions in his post. ( James Lockhart and Stuart Schwartz, Early Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 138: «The encomienda in its early heyday granted a lifetime monopoly on the utilization of temporary Indian labor in a given area to one Spaniard, the encomendero.)
Obviously you didn't read the article, since it is simply a summary of historian Consuelo Varela's analysis of Francisco de Bobadilla's report on Christopher's governorship of Hispaniola, where 23 testimonies were collected on how Columbus tortured, mutilated, and killed the natives, including rounding up over 1500 of them for enslavement in one specific event. But ya, who knows where the line is on "plenty" of attrocities. Even though Columbus was reviled and ousted as governor even by his peers at the time, how could we possibly make any conclusions about someone's morality if they come from a different culture?
I'm sure you have done "plenty" of research on the matter. lol
"Are you saying that because it is simplistic it is wrong? " I just said the opposite. 🤣
You definitely need to read up on your history not simple cut-and-paste lines.
Norman Borlaug?
Ludwig von Mises.
Columbus did something of “worldhistorical” importance, which deserves to be commemorated even though he does not have clean hands.
For a counterpoint to the anti-Columbus narrative, I strongly suggest you read "The Enemies of Christopher Columbus" by Thomas Bowden.
https://www.amazon.com/Enemies-Christopher-Columbus-Thomas-Bowden/dp/1889439363/ref=sr_1_1?crid=9YC1S180DKRR&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.Y9-KvWCgMYRzdJmJU5pStHAqVjlxZ0NqpOlinGeRKKYTSsSxktn5GjmwvHuae8sXyeIbVMzS6HntWBlkALRuDO9hY_VAM2oXwQm9inTYQ8fbBy16EUwcRSNCRHYgJiG1YYpYkkyniQqQHdioVJU7Ap7HgQ-StJJZLPE3_PItrbYClBQX_iW49l9Z6bR6WyZL9--auWjN_t1sEtuXidLTaD7efj-gSC9vcIVpGc2rkKE.VCTQB7KtMszULLbvXgi70LJKykm_w8YxrcOL5rO1dEk&dib_tag=se&keywords=the+enemies+of+christopher+columbus&qid=1729091938&sprefix=the+enemies+of+christopher+columbus%2Caps%2C156&sr=8-1
Jesus, on Dec 25th.
Most anti-Columbus claims are just lies.
Howard Zinn made up fake Columbus quotes.
Columbus did not support slavery. In fact, he actively opposed it and he hanged Spaniards who mistreated Amerindians. https://www.amren.com/features/2020/10/what-sort-of-man-was-columbus/
It seems to me that the anti-Columbus advocates are partially to blame for elevating Columbus! What they did was make the argument all about Columbus and whether he was good or evil and how much credit he deserves for European conquest of North America.
Imagine instead of creating the anti-Columbus "Indigenous Persons Day" a movement was made to replace Columbus Day with "Explorers Day" or "Discovery Day". And then make the day about the explorers who discovered and created awareness of other lands. Shift the day away from the question of conquest and make it about the innate human desire to explore and discover. And recognize Space is the next frontier for exploration and discovery.
You tell me you are celebrating "Indigenous Persons Day" and I will defend Columbus and the European conquest of North America. Change it to "Explorers Day" and we can hopefully have a productive conversation about the many explorers who demonstrated the courage and ingenuity to venture beyond their horizon in order to discover and map that which they could only first imagine.
I earnestly can't tell if this is satirical or not.
Columbus Day used to be a regional holiday, mostly driven by Italian identity. The more Progressives complained and pushed their indigenous alternative the louder the defenders of Columbus became.
A better answer to "Columbus Day" would have been to put the focus directly on the positive he represented. This would have been his spirit of exploration and discovery. The better alternative to Columbus Day would have been Discovery Day or Explorers Day.
1500s- Shakespeare
1600s - Isaac Newton
1700s - Scottish enlightenment (Hume, Smith)
1800s - American Founders (Washington, Jefferson, Madison)
1900s - Manhattan Project, Gordon Moore,
Charles "The Hammer" Martel, grandfather of Charlemagne and victorious commander at the Battle of Tours 732AD. By raising an army and defeating an invading muslim horde less than 200 kilometers from Paris, Martel probably saved Western civilization in a way no other single individual can match. He also has the coolest historical figure nickname that I know of.
Bryan, Bryan, Bryan. “Clean hands” sounds so progressive. I’m all for honest history, but to fail to give a pass to men like Columbus only incites the left and encourages woke ideology. Morality is, has been, and will continue to be man’s greatest achievement (and Western Civilization’s too). But if we limit our celebrations of men to only the perfectly moral, we won’t be enjoying any parades or holidays.
I think the bigger issue is that the anti-Columbus claims are simply false. He was not a conqueror. He was not pro-slavery. He was a religious explorer who wanted to convert the natives to Christianity. He actually stands out as a great defender of human rights.
I mean.... all of those things are obviously false. Columbus literally conquered Hispaniola as "governor" and enslaved the people there, who he attempted to ship back en masse to Spain for a profit....
Wait, I think i just caught the tail end of the joke flying over my head, it is honestly hard to tell satire from non-satire sometimes these days.
Nope. The other Spaniards in Hispaniola enslaved people there. Columbus did not. Columbus did not even want to levy a tax on the natives, but was forced to by the other Spaniards. The treatment of the natives was a continuous source of tension between Columbus (whose motivation for exploration was Christian evangelism) and the other Spaniards who had come seeking gold and conquest. This conflict was the reason the other Spaniards eventually did a soft coup against Columbus, put him in chains and sent him back to Spain.
https://www.amren.com/features/2020/10/what-sort-of-man-was-columbus/
Probably but I like to give honest opponents the benefit of the doubt (meaning that their position has some validity). But even if (and I’m also well read on Columbus) Columbus in the worst light should not be vilified for be no better than the average man of his day (even though I’m a big fan of his).
Show me the hero with clean hands, and I will point you to the conqueror who made his achievements possible.
This is not a defense of conquest, but a recognition of how civilizations are built. One of the cases of "the Woke are more correct than the mainstream."
As George Orwell said:
"Those who “abjure” violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf."
"A humanitarian is always a hypocrite"
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/11/07/rough-men/
Salk, mills.
Isaac Newton.