A Columbus Day Thought

Bergamot | October 8, 2007, 5:18pm | #

Breaking news: conservatives are hypocrites. Also, so are liberals.

Eryk Boston | October 8, 2007, 5:23pm | #

Does it follow that the multi-culturalists are advocating moral and cultural absolutism by condemning Columbus?

joshua corning | October 8, 2007, 5:46pm | #

The problem, as I've explained before, is that Columbus was a pioneer of slavery and barbarism.

Columbus invented slavery and barbarism?

I guess he must have discovered Cuba in one million BC.

fyodor | October 8, 2007, 5:47pm | #

Yes, because we all know that barbarity and slavery didn't exist in the western hemisphere prior to the arrival of Columbus, right?

So that makes it okay?

That hypothetical question may serve well to condemn any condemner of Columbus who refuses to condemn Indians/Native Americans who likewise enslaved their fellow human, but it hardly takes Columbus off the hook nor addresses the hypocrisy of anyone who criticizes Columbus's critics on the basis of moral relativism, the latter being the point of the post.

joshua corning | October 8, 2007, 5:54pm | #

Columbus and the Native Americans were barbarous and enslavers...one beat the other and history was made.

I am sure glad they are all dead and I live now in a culture that finds their's grotesque.

How is that for multi-cultural tolerance?

anomdebus | October 8, 2007, 6:03pm | #

Or, perhaps they are just celebrating the event that opened up the Americas to European settlement.
I, for one, would not have existed if not for it. It seems weird to me to denigrate something that made your own existence possible. Not that there's anything wrong with that..

The Wine Commonsewer | October 8, 2007, 6:11pm | #

It's not Columbus Day anyway. This is a CONgressionally mandated three day weekend where Americans make only the slightest pretense of giving a crap about Columbus discovering America.

Aside from that, life in 1492 was barbarian, not just in Spain or the New World, but across the entire planet.

Nor was Columbus a pioneer of slavery or barbarism, that is ludicrous on it's face given that slavery existed since time began and the barbarism of the Crusades, just to use one example, predated Columbus by a couple hundred years.

Columbus did one BIG thing, he sailed to what we now call the New World and found a bunch of locals who were celebrating NOT HAVING BEEN DISCOVERED YET DAY on the beach.

That is a big deal. Nobody ever did that before. Like going to the moon or Lindy flying across the Atlantic, it was a huge milestone. That's why he's an important player in history.

And yes, the Vikings beat him to it but they didn't videotape it, so not too many people noticed.

matthew hogan | October 8, 2007, 6:16pm | #

I think relativism is wrong, but we have to judge it by the context of its period.

Toxic | October 8, 2007, 6:30pm | #

Does any historical figure have any chance of being anything but a villain if judged in todays light? I'd bet Shakespeare had some pretty retro ideas about gender, race, government, and all sorts of things that would mark him a grade A asshole if he was around today.

Stevo Darkly | October 8, 2007, 6:38pm | #

There is a difference between saying, "That action is not right!" and saying, "The person who did that action is an immoral person!"

Before judging whether a person is morally culpable for an action, you do have to consider whether it is likely they knew they were doing something wrong. The prevailing moral attitudes in the time and place where the person lives/lived, and the general sense of what's right and wrong to which that person is exposed, is relevant to making that judgment of personal culpability, and hence, morality. It is not necessarily relevant to whether the specific behavior is right.

Basically, it doesn't make a lot of sense to blame Krog the Cromagnon for being a sexist. He probably didn't know any better. It might make more sense to blame Rashid the modern-day Saudi Arabian for being sexist, as he is more likely to be exposed to modern ideas than Krog, but to some extent Rashid's blame is mitigated by the attitudes all around him, growing up and living in his own culture.

It makes more sense to morally blame Bob, the 20-something resident of 2007 New York City, for his sexism. It's unlikely that you can claim he never knew any better.

That doesn't necessarily mean that sexism itself is right, in any time or any place.

It makes sense to yell at Bob to try to reform him. It makes sense to try to reform Rashid, but in this case you're more likely to make headway if you understand where he's coming from culturally.

It doesn't make sense to try to reform Krog at all, since he's long dead. You don't want people today to be like Krog. But that doesn't mean he was evil, in terms of knowing what was wrong and doing it anyway.

Syloson of Samos | October 8, 2007, 6:56pm | #

One thing to be kept in mind is that the criticisms of Columbus were in very many ways a necessary corrective after a long period in which Columbus was mainly viewed as an unalloyed hero.

Stevo Darkly,

You may wish to check out this story on a recently discovered document regarding Columbus' time in office.

Regis Carnifex | October 8, 2007, 7:03pm | #

As far as a search for heroes goes:

Why don't we have day of remembrance for Joshua Norton I, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico? I'm pretty sure he never enslaved anyone.

Taktix® | October 8, 2007, 7:05pm | #

But didn't Hitchens do a number on her? [Mother Theresa]

No, but Penn and Teller did...

Taktix® | October 8, 2007, 7:16pm | #

Where? Link? Mystery commenter, come back!

Syloson of Samos | October 8, 2007, 7:28pm | #

Lamar,

During his own lifetime Columbus was viewed by many as a tyrant (as the link I provided illustrates).

Number 6 | October 8, 2007, 7:51pm | #

David Crawford-Look up the term non sequitur. Re-read your post. Reflect and learn.

Jesse Walker | October 8, 2007, 7:55pm | #

Or, perhaps they are just celebrating the event that opened up the Americas to European settlement.

Does anyone really believe that Europeans would never have settled America if it weren't for Columbus? That no one else -- maybe someone who wasn't a mass-murdering slaver -- would have crossed the ocean instead?

After we admit that CC was a bad dude, what then? What would Caplan have us do?

He'd have us recognize that he's a bad dude, same as we do for Mao or Mussolini or Leopold & Loeb.

David E. Gallaher | October 8, 2007, 8:01pm | #

"He'd have us recognize that he's a bad dude, same as we do for Mao or Mussolini or Leopold & Loeb."

Okay CC is a bad dude, but you need to speak to my bosses at the bank. They told me to take today off. What was I gonna say?

Is that relativism too?
Should I have flagellated myself today?
(What if I did?)

Syloson of Samos | October 8, 2007, 8:13pm | #

Jesse Walker,

Or let me put this differently, imagine a largely immune Aztec and Inca* population encountering the Spanish. Even granting the Spanish their native allies the contest would have been far more difficult for the Spanish and would perhaps have at the very least resembled the hundred year or so war the Spanish fought against the Mayans.

*Yeah, both were mutli-ethnic empires, but you get my point.

The Wine Commonsewer | October 8, 2007, 8:17pm | #

Boxing Day isn't about people punching each other silly for 12 rounds until somebody collapses to the canvas with permanent brain damage.

Did somebody use the term barbaric?

crimethink | October 8, 2007, 8:21pm | #

Anyway, the two viewpoints are not contradictory. It's possible to condemn the evil practices of an age and at the same time honor the people who happened to live in it. My guess is that people who have a problem with that are the same people whose heads explode at the mention of "hate the sin, love the sinner".

The Wine Commonsewer | October 8, 2007, 8:24pm | #

Cesar, you have to be more clear. It took me fully five minutes to figure out who you were poking in the eye.

Well, maybe I need to take dense lessons.

The Wine Commonsewer | October 8, 2007, 8:31pm | #

Actually, I think it was the Italian community last century that was largely responsible for creating Columbus Day.

I, for one, wouldn't be dissing Gillespie's clan. Dose guys got relatives in Joisey.

Syloson of Samos | October 8, 2007, 8:49pm | #

crimethink,

It is also possible to condemn the evil practics of an individual. In the late 18th century (to use two of your examples) there was a lot of debate regarding the merits, morality, etc. of slavery. Washington and Jefferson made some rather conscious choices (for the time being we'll accept that such a thing as free will exists) regarding those debates and wrote about such in their private correspondence.

Jesse Walker | October 8, 2007, 9:15pm | #

By your logic we shouldn't admire anybody who discovered or invented anything because of the likelihood that somebody at some point in the future would have discovered or invented that same thing at a later date.

What is it about this topic that turns off people's reading comprehension circuits? I never said anything of the kind. You can admire Columbus for his seafaring skills if you want. You can admire Mao's poetry and Mussolini's sleek bald head. You can point out that if it weren't for Leopold & Loeb, Hitchcock never would have made the fine film Rope. You can track down some wonderful people whose parents never would have met if it they hadn't been fleeing Pol Pot. Go wild.

But don't claim that the choice was between Columbus arriving and no European settlement at all. Because that's just extremely unlikely.

J mo | October 8, 2007, 9:40pm | #

Jesse,

So it's likely that some righteous individual would have discovered America? I would say that is extremely unlikely.

iih | October 8, 2007, 9:43pm | #

David E. Gallaher:

Hah! (You are joking right? Based on what I've read written elsewhere in H&R -- as recently as last weekends comment regarding racism -- I think the answer is "yes".)

Jesse Walker | October 8, 2007, 10:04pm | #

So, we honor George Washington for his military prowess, but not for his central role in the Revolution?

To repeat myself: "What is it about this topic that turns off people's reading comprehension circuits?"

It might help to go back and reread the comment I was originally responding to.

Jesse Walker | October 8, 2007, 10:12pm | #

see Presentism

But this isn't Presentism. As Syloson pointed out, Columbus was criticized in his own day as well as recently. The evils of slavery and mass murder are not a recent discovery.

SIV | October 8, 2007, 10:26pm | #

Well, given that the Basques were fishing off of North America and landed on occassion during the 14th century...

SoS,

That would be early /mid 15th century I believe- still before Columbus.

The Spanish weren't just "lucky" with their encounters with Native American Civilizations.
They were spectacularly "good" at it.

SIV | October 8, 2007, 10:42pm | #

jesse,

I didn't read the comments before commenting

The modern Columbus haters were not relying on
the document SoS refers to as it did not come to light until last year.They are engaging in presentism,particularly in light of the History of Spanish conquest and exploration of the New World.

Paul | October 8, 2007, 10:45pm | #

But don't claim that the choice was between Columbus arriving and no European settlement at all. Because that's just extremely unlikely.

Right, like the guy who discovered the Mississippi. Like they wouldn't have eventually found that anyway...

Warty | October 8, 2007, 10:57pm | #

The Spanish weren't just "lucky" with their encounters with Native American Civilizations.
They were spectacularly "good" at it.

This is correct. The Spanish had a couple hundred years of experience in brutality, and they put it to good use in the New World.

SIV | October 8, 2007, 11:11pm | #

SoS,
got a cite on Portugese fishing/seafaring near NA in 14th century? A quick look at a timeline showed they didn't find the Azores until early 15th.

I had always taken the contemporary attacks on Spain in the New World as being based on their Spanishness and Catholicism rather than actually violating the day's standards of civilized exploitation and conquest.

Right Wing Conspirator | October 8, 2007, 11:20pm | #

SIV is right, Columbus was a great man for introducing these savages to civilization, if a few got killed the process who cares? It ended their stupid savage existence.

The Wine Commonsewer | October 8, 2007, 11:28pm | #

Disease was the major factor in the Spanish conquest

The proposition has been put forth elsewhere that within 150 years after Columbus came to the new world that 85% of the locals were dead from disease or dismemberment.

My point is that that don't leave very many Indian chicks to marry those icky Spaniards whose children became the Mestizos.

Mo | October 8, 2007, 11:36pm | #

SoS,

Disease and political turmoil aside, Pizarro and Cortez were spectacularly outnumbered by professional armies.DeSoto's initial handling of challenges in the South East of NA was equally, if not more,impressive.

Isn't that like saying, Russian Army aside, Ike really kicked the shit out of the German Army?

Oh wait, that's the History Channel.

Guy Montag | October 9, 2007, 12:52am | #

Thank goodness I can now condemn Mohammad for promoting slavery! as well as every other culture on the planet at the time until whitie made the first efforts to abolish it!

Now, let us praise Columbus for beginning the sugar industry in the Americas. That real sugar that Radley likes, not the HFKS(?) that he hates.

BTW, beet sugar is not chemically distinguishable from cane sugar.

parse | October 9, 2007, 8:18am | #

Columbus and the Native Americans were barbarous and enslavers...one beat the other and history was made.

I am sure glad they are all dead

Joshua, the Native Americans are not all dead. (And I don't think they were all barbarous and enslavers--it's amusing to see how quickly some commenters on this libertarian blog sink into collectivism when it suits them.)

dhex | October 9, 2007, 10:51am | #

The Spanish weren't just "lucky" with their encounters with Native American Civilizations.

no, i'd say lucky is an adequate description of their adventures with the mexica. had the aztec regime not been so brutal with the surrounding states, and had monteczuma 2 not been such a self-absorbed pussbunny, the original uprising would have gone down in flames.

VM | October 9, 2007, 11:16am | #

The day the first enlightened European person colonized?

LEIF ERICSSON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stevo Darkly | October 9, 2007, 1:07pm | #

The link provided up yonder by S of S convinces me that Columbus, even by the standards of his own time and culture (even allowing that things were more crude and violent back then), was indeed a douchebag.

I hereby move that we continue to observe Columbus Day, but rename it El Dia de la Douchebag, to keep everyone happy.

joe | October 9, 2007, 5:35pm | #

But, hey...hippies, huh?

It's the same reason we have to keep drugs illegal - to show them hippies who's boss!