Some in the Catholic Church would love to canonize Christopher Columbus as a saint, while Liberals and Native Americans seek to depict him as a brutal xenophobe.
The truth is quite a bit more complex, but we shall explore the absurdities attending the Liberal hatred of the controversial Italian explorer. Besides, with the Columbus Day closings, you have free time on your hands to read about why you’re off today.
1. Columbus’ expedition virtually wiped out the Taino natives
Certainly the Spanish under Christopher Columbus‘ governorship acted brutally in some instances, but they could not know that the Taino were not immune to Small Pox, which the Spanish sailors had unwittingly carried over as hosts from Europe. (Surely a point the organizers of the 2010 Columbus Day Parade in NYC have overlooked.) Estimates place the Taino population in what is present day Haiti at about 250,000 in 1492 (some estimates put the number as high as 1,000,000). By 1517, that number dropped to about 14,000. Many would have us believe that systematic Spanish genocide and slavery caused the population decline (which was a factor), but just as Small Pox had ravaged Europe, it wreaked havoc on the New World where the natives had no immunity.
2. Columbus inaugurated the Age of Slavery in the Atlantic and Americas
There is a degree of truth to this assertion since Columbus did bring hundreds of Taino’s back to Seville in 1495, and African slaves were soon brought to Columbus’ colony to work the gold mines. But, the truth is that Columbus no more introduced slavery to the Atlantic nations than Wall Street pioneered the concept of croney capitalism (speaking of which, yes, some banks are open on columbus day). Lagos, Portugal was the location of the first African slave market, opening its doors for business in 1444 when Christopher was a lad of six years old.
It should also be noted that Native Americans were not some cohesive group of utopian angels — a long lost remnant of Man before the Fall. They engaged in inter-tribal warfare and alliances long before Europeans set foot on the West Indies or the North American continent proper. The difference is that the Native American form of slavery was small scale and not dominated by the Western or Christian ideas of racial superiority. The reason Columbus gets all the credit for this is because of the Spanish and, indeed, European talent for keeping records and establishing bureaucratic systems.
Slavery was thus alive and well on both sides of the Atlantic before Columbus landed in Haiti.
3. Columbus was the pimp of the New World
In 1500, Columbus wrote to a friend: “A hundred castellanoes are as easily obtained for a woman as for a farm, and it is very general and there are plenty of dealers who go about looking for girls; those from nine to ten are now in demand.” Another letter written by Columbus’ friend Michele de Cuneo (in 1492, before the expedition reached the New World) reads “Columbus was rewarding his lieutenants with native women to rape.”
From these letters it has been deduced that Columbus was something of a New World pimp, auctioning off women to his men for sexual pleasure. Surely this behavior must have occurred to an extent, but was it systemic and carried out with great relish by Columbus? No one can know for sure, yet the charge is leveled at Columbus by his detractors as if it is indisputable fact.
4. Columbus and his men tortured the Tainos who resisted slavery
Bartolome de Las Casas, one of Columbus’ men (who later became a Catholic preist) wrote that the Spaniards “thought nothing of knifing Indians by tens and twenties and of cutting slices off them to test the sharpness of their blades… My eyes have seen these acts so foreign to human nature, and now I tremble as I write.”
De las Casas is held up by many Columbus critics as some beacon of light amongst rapacioius and sadistic Spaniards. The reality is that de las Casas owned his own slaves and was interested in using African slaves instead of Native American slaves. Further, his account of the colonization of the West Indies could be seen as a self-serving–events filtered through his perception and more subjective than objective. It’s not likely that de las Casas conjured his imagery out of thin air, but we do know that people have a prediliction towards self-aggrandizement and exaggeration.
5. Columbus did not discover America
Yes, the Natives were well-established for about 12,000 years before Columbus weighed anchor, and Leif Ericson had a settlement on Newfoundland 500 years before Columbus arrived. But, Columbus was the first to make European settlements permanent, which led us inexorably to this point in history.
Why then do so many look upon Christopher Columbus as an aberrant evil? The man was a bastard, to be sure, and maybe a genocidal maniac, depending on the veracity of accounts such as de las Casas’. Without the hubris attending his expedition, the entire course of history might have been different. America would not exist as we know it: territories rearranged, no United States of America, no Thomas Jefferson and his transcendant ideals of democracy. No diffusion of those ideals across the world, for better or for worse.
If there was no Columbus to rape and pillage the New World, then surely there would have been someone else to take his place. Some other name to act as a lightning rod. In fact, as we well know, there were a number who followed Columbus, up and down the American continents engaging in similar behavior. Men whose quest for wealth, power and influence took them to mankind’s darkest psychological territories.
Perhaps what Columbus’ critics see in the explorer is their dark reflection staring back at them from the abyss of human evil, and they want to exteriorize their own tendencies into a totem. Exorcise their own demons as it were. To suggest — if only to themselves — that America and the world have moved beyond such barbarity, when, in fact, they know that 518 years hasn’t lessened the peculiar shadow of the human psyche manifested in wars both domestic and international, social and economic.
What they see in Christopher Columbus is but the prologue to the birth of modern civilization, which has reached its apotheosis in the technological capacity for war and death on a massive scale, and the subjugation of the world’s population by that other instrument of slavery: the wage.
Columbus is simultaneously terrorist and imperialist, which makes him no different than any other Western personality up to and including current government and business leaders. To single him out as a unique form of evil–that we have somehow moved beyond his atrocities–only distracts us from the reality that we are still led by men who are no better than Columbus, just better at hiding it.
October 11, 2010 at 7:12 pm, The7Sticks said:
I'm no liberal by any means, but I certainly do despise Columbus Day because it's just another excuse for a federal holiday to be a major inconvenience. I have a dad in the hospital and it's very difficult for me to get there when bus service is limited. In addition, I live on a fixed income, and when all the banks and post offices are closed, it is very difficult to take out money to cover grocery shopping, especially when you're debit card is in the process of being replaced by mail.
October 11, 2010 at 7:20 pm, FourteenNinetyWhat? said:
And too think, all this time I thought I hated Columbus day because all my friends that work at financial institutions get the day off when I don't.
Gosh, i feel like such an idiot.
Thanks DJ Pangburn, your absurdly generalized article has sent me on the right path to hating this day the way a proper liberal should.
October 11, 2010 at 7:33 pm, Fizzy said:
Why do Conservatives hate gays? See, I can generalize too!
October 11, 2010 at 10:22 pm, R-Dub said:
Because they're fags.
October 11, 2010 at 7:40 pm, Zebenzer said:
Most powerful leaders of the time were brutal xenophobes. If that is what you want to hang your hat on with the legacy of Columbus, then you are looking for a reason to hate, just like a true xenophobe.
You can tell the truth, but dont apply todays standards for behavior that was not only normal, but expected. That is why things change….
October 11, 2010 at 8:04 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:
Zebenzer,
I never suggested that this wasn't the case. Columbus wasn't doing anything particularly out of the ordinary. Even so, people don't think that we should celebrate Columbus Day, and I would have to agree (being that it is absurd to celebrate the man and his methods). That said, his behavior is not an aberration. Colonialist, and later American officials and businessmen haven't exactly evolved into beings of higher moral character.
I don't know exactly how you took the logical jump that I'm looking for a reason to hate or that I'm a “true xenophone.” Please clarify, if you would.
I'm not attempting to apply 2010's standards of behavior to Columbus' time, or vice versa. (Although you must admit that there is no definite standard of behavior in 2010. America differs from Saudi Arabia as much as Russia differs from Iceland.) I'm merely suggesting that there are certain inclinations written into human behavior that can never be eradicated, only evolve.
As you yourself noted, xenophobia was the norm amongst leaders in 1492 (we're only using that date as a specific date and case). It has merely been pushed into more private quarters instead of dancing out in the open for all to see.
Xenophobia still exists, and it still exists in America (you see it most prominently in the religious right). But, I would argue that it is not restricted to them, and that it can be found even amongst Liberals and people who like to culvitate an air of worldliness.
October 11, 2010 at 8:05 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:
Meant “true xenophobe” not “true xenophone.”
October 11, 2010 at 7:49 pm, Faith said:
Oooo! I always knew I was a liberal. But I had NO idea there were so many reasons to hate Columbus day. What a discovery! Thanks for the education! Now I have to ask: do you know Jesus? Because when you defend this type of person with an argument that basically boils down to: 1) anyone would have done it, if given the chance. And 2) If you don't like it, and won't celebrate it, it's just because you haven't come to terms with your own dark side. It seems like you are the PERFECT candidate for a tete a tete with the Holy Spirit. Hasn't anyone told you that you don't HAVE to be beholden to your “dark side????” Did you miss out on “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you?” And who told you the 6th Commandment doesn't apply when there's money to be made? Ahhh, us liberals and our persnickety Ten Commandments…always lording it over others as if we're somehow better than the next guy for hating mass murderers and thieves. Let me provide you with a refresher course: http://youtu.be/5Kp8yXDpNaQ That should make it easy for you to understand why I would never celebrate Columbus coming to the America.
October 11, 2010 at 8:30 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:
Let me dissect your response, Faith…
1) I do not know Jesus. He lived 2,000 years before my time. I've read the ideas attributed to him, and thus know him about as well as I know Homer or Aeschylus.
2) If you had read carefully, you would know that I am not defending Columbus. Quite the contrary, I think he's a piece of shit, just as I think many of our current world leaders (political, economic and religious) are pieces of shit. I am situating him on a continuum that includes an entire range of bad behavior from leaders back to the very first days of civilization, right on up to our present times.
3) I've come to terms with my own dark side because I am human and situated within that continuum as well (though, naturally, I haven't gone about acting like a Columbus or Hitler, and so forth). And I will own the dark side of my psyche and not blame it on an attempt by a little red guy with a tail and horns trying to corrupt my soul. Everything that I do, both good and bad, has its origins in my decisions, and my decisions alone.
4) Thank you, but I don't need a tete a tete with the Holy Spirit. The universe is mindblowing enough without that ghost animating everything.
5) I don't need anyone to tell me that I needn't be beholden to my dark side. Every day I wake up and go about my day with right intention and action, is a day I celebrate the ability of the self to transcend that human tendency that would have me persecute those with different views of life, or of the human tendency to exert power and establish systems of control (whether political, social, economic or religious).
6) No, my mommy and daddy taught me about the Golden Rule. I'm quite alright on that front. I can thank the Ancient Egyptians and Greeks for that maxim.
7) I'm quite aware that one shouldn't kill for any reason. I'm hardly a proponent of a just war. Don't need a commandment from a bearded Egyptian prince that killing someone would be a hideous act against nature.
I, too, find it ironic that we're communicating on this website because of Columbus.
October 11, 2010 at 10:25 pm, R-Dub said:
Faith must be a man hating dyke.
October 11, 2010 at 7:49 pm, DavidC said:
I find it interesting that the hatred of Columbus Day seems inexorably tied to “Liberals” to some. I don't actually know of many liberals who “hate” or bitterly despise Columbus Day. Rather, I see people who find honoring this individual man as a national hero to be in poor taste – a far cry from bitter hatred of a bank holiday.
If this is a factor to distinguish Liberals from Conservatives though, with liberals being those willing to step back and give an honest appraisal of a historical figure's character, and conservatives paying homage to a man without question out of blind patriotism and unquestioned traditions, then I feel Liberals should feel this to be a great compliment.
Of course I this is not so black and white a division of political affiliation tied to absolute love or hatred of Columbus Day, which is itself pretty much my point.
October 11, 2010 at 8:17 pm, ANON said:
You are an idiot!
October 11, 2010 at 8:19 pm, Adrian Z said:
If we have a holiday for Columbus, shouldn't we have one for ALL mass murderers?
I invite folks to read my blog post on the subject:
http://adrianzupp.blogspot.com/2010/10/shouldnt-we-celebrate-charles-manson.html
Thanks,
Adrian Zupp
October 11, 2010 at 8:41 pm, Lourenço Damas said:
Historian: Columbus Was a Portuguese Agent
By Alexandra Vilchez
CHARLOTTE, North Carolina – The life of Christopher Columbus remains largely shrouded in mystery because he was in fact a James Bond-style secret agent for King John II of Portugal.
That is the thesis of the book “Colon: La Historia Nunca Contada” (Columbus: The Untold Story) by Portuguese historian Manuel Rosa, who lives in Durham, North Carolina.
Beginning this week, the historian will present his book in Badajoz, Spain, and will take part in several conferences in Portugal and Brussels.
Rosa began studying the discoverer in 1991 after reading a book claiming that Columbus married a woman of the Portuguese nobility.
“I realized that the whole story had been invented by historians, that in truth Columbus was a ‘secret agent’ like James Bond for King John II of Portugal, and that he fooled the Spanish royalty with the promise that he could reach India sailing west,” he said.
According to Rosa, the Spanish explorer convinced Spain’s King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella to open a new route to the “false India” to clear the way for the Portuguese to round Africa and reach the real India, where there were deposits of gold.
Since a rivalry existed between Castile and Portugal to achieve hegemony over the Atlantic trade route, in 1483 Isabella planned the assassination of John II with the aid of two highly placed Portuguese nobles, nephews of Columbus.
This moved the Portuguese king to work out a conspiracy with the help of the admiral, who infiltrated the court of Castile accompanying his traitorous nephews.
For Rosa, the most controversial part of the story is where Columbus originally came from. Most theories accept the idea that he was born in the Italian city of Genova, and that he was a “very poor” weaver who rose to become a captain.
“Colon married Filipa Moniz 15 years before becoming famous, something that would not have been possible for a plebeian because she was a Portuguese noblewoman who lived in an exclusive monastery and was commander of the military order of St. James of the Sword in that country,” he said.
The author adds in his book that Columbus was a Portuguese nobleman, son of Poland’s King Wladyslaw III, who lived in exile on the Portuguese island of Madeira after a battle with the Turks.
The historian presents in the book nine documents related to the discovery of America that were “overlooked” by Portugal, including the image of the document proving that Felipa Moniz was a member of the order of St. James.
Rosa followed closely the DNA analysis of Columbus’s bones, which was compared with those from blood samples of Portuguese individuals including Duke Duarte of Braganza.
The genetic identification of the skeletal remains showed that none of the Colombo family in Italy, France or Spain had DNA compatible with Columbus’ bones, so that it was “impossible that the admiral was the Italian Cristoforo Colombo, Genoese by blood.”
“He could not have been Italian because he never wrote a letter in that language, all were in Spanish with Portuguese phrases, which shows that it was his first language. And in a letter to Ferdinand and Isabella he called Portugal ‘the land of my birth,’” he said.
Some academics like Antonio Vicente, a professor at the University of Lisbon, say that Rosa’s book is the “first to be written about Columbus without being influenced by previous accounts and which develops each hypothesis point by point.”
The weightiest commentary comes from Joaquim Verissimo Serrao, a Portuguese historian and recipient of the 1995 Asturias Prize for Social Sciences, who wrote the book’s prologue.
“Rosa has woven a story about the discoverer of the New World, in a work of revision that deserves to be described as serious and diligent…he has given himself up completely to the greatest dream of his life. And that dream is the new biography of Cristopher Columbus,” Verissimo writes. EFE
October 11, 2010 at 8:41 pm, Lourenço Damas said:
The history of the discoverer needs a complete re-write.
October 11, 2010 at 8:57 pm, Joe said:
If we left it to the liberals this country would cease to exist, they have done their best to re-write history to their believes despite facts. We are in the economic situation we are in due to the fact that between them and the EPA we cannot produce products in this nation, we can't grow food, we shut water off to the areas were crops once grew to protect a smelt. We have become a service nation and at that we will fail from within. Unless you have your head in the sand that is where we are headed at this time.
We might want to get some American pride back, and be the nation we were that made us the place were people still fight and die to come to. Maybe some of these folks should have to live in the countries that we have defended and the ones still run by dictators were the government controls everything. That is were we are being taken now, total government control. When that happens desent ceases to exist. They would not be free to send even a comment to a paper — think about what your parents and thier parents did to make us great. If they want to be a world citizen there are many places in the world to live. I have been to 17 countries and none compare to the USA.
October 12, 2010 at 12:03 am, Jmbhs said:
what a waste of time. good god. It pains me that millions of talented people are out of work, but Pangburn gets paid to go milk the liberal/vs/conservative cow once more with for such drivel. What the hell is the North American continent proper?!?! Arggghhh! And way to downplay the bestial, church-sponsored sense of superiority the Europeans carried with them as they brutalized the natives. Oh, no, the big difference between the types of slavery was bookkeeping. And bureaucracy. Yeah.
October 12, 2010 at 1:51 am, Truthbeknown said:
This was about the shallowest and feeble-minded articel I've ever read. The writer is truly full of himself. Reminds me of one of those bloated white pigfuckers that look Rush Limbaugh in an ad for canned meat. Truly ridiculous.
October 12, 2010 at 1:56 am, Hatetheidiots said:
The author describes Columbus as a bastard and a genocidial maniac, but is unable to understand why he deserves to be viewed as an abberent evil? What an idiot the author of this tripe is. Puffer fish, bloated pig, fat boy in the baloney and cheese bin. What an absolute moron.
October 12, 2010 at 7:34 am, D. J. Pangburn said:
I will refrain from condescending about your reading comprehension abilities, because I'm quite sure that you realize I said Columbus wasn't aberrant evil. He is not some anomalous blip on the human moral progression.
The article is essentially about how people forget that humanity hasn't progressed far beyond Columbus' actions. Even a cursory glance at the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st century would provide ample evidence for this position.
But, again, I'm sure you gathered this from your reading of my article.
October 12, 2010 at 6:59 am, Magnocd said:
You forgot an important fact that is not generally known. Chritopher Columbus was NOT FROM ITALY! He was actually from Catalonia in Spain and he did not read or speak Italian. He was from a wealthy family that fought against the Spanish crown in a war so he was quite anxious to keep his past a secret otherwise he could get no funding for his voyages. They have already done all of the research and DNA testing to prove it without a doubt. There was a Christopher Columbus from Genoa, Italy who was a woolweaver but he could not have been the famous explorer. BTW the voyages were not about proving that the Earth is round as that was already generally accepted to be true at that time.
October 17, 2010 at 8:46 pm, John Q. Rapist said:
“From these letters it has been deduced that Columbus was something of a New World pimp, auctioning off women to his men for sexual pleasure. Surely this behavior must have occurred to an extent, but was it systemic and carried out with great relish by Columbus? No one can know for sure, yet the charge is leveled at Columbus by his detractors as if it is indisputable fact.”
See, this is what I keep trying to explain to people. Sure, I raped a few women but it wasn't systematic and while I enjoyed it, I don't think I really “relished” it. And yet everyone acts like I'm such a bad guy. I wish you had been my defense lawyer.
October 20, 2010 at 5:16 pm, Glenn Beck Questions Evolution But The Real Question is: Does a Bear Shit in The Woods? | Death and Taxes said:
[...] a myth that when Columbus approached the shores of the Americas, the Natives were unable to see his ships. The European ships [...]
November 22, 2010 at 2:31 pm, Mind Bending of Muslim Children in The UK | Death and Taxes said:
[...] minds of children goes with the territory of primary education. My public school education involved Christopher Columbus, and all of the enslavement, rape, and cultural destruction was surely left out of my lesson plan, [...]
December 16, 2010 at 1:52 pm, Aishah Bowron said:
Shut your bloody mouth !. Christopher Columbus is a fucking murderer. He isca bad guy who terrorized Indians. He exploited, enslaved, murdered and chopped them up and fed those poor innocent people to his animals.
February 03, 2012 at 7:06 pm, Anirb said:
F word this & that. The Tainos & Canibs who Columbus met both practiced cannibalism. Columbus had no control over those on the Islands. He asked Spain to send good Catholics-what he got were Hidalgos who were good Catholics but he also got condemned criminals incl. those on death row.
But let’s debunk the idea of the American Indians being peaceful savages. I don’t agree with everything the Spaniards did but they treated the Amerindians better to @ worse no different than the way Amerinidans treated eachother. AMerindians were often violent-they had their own territory & when they wanted land, they just took it from another tribe by violent means. The Amerindians also had human sacrifices & cannibalism which both the Tainos & Canibs had. What happened to the Amerindians in the end is the lesser of 2 evils & sometimes the Spaniards did good things for the Amerindians. BTW, I’m not Spaniard, but we need to debunk the idea of the peaceful savage.
March 03, 2011 at 8:21 pm, unicorn said:
while I do not have an opinion on whether or not the holiday should be celebrated, I am writing a term paper on the subject and I am looking for sources from articles such as this. I do not know if this is actually a good article because i feel that many of the points made do not disprove the ideas of the liberals. this is a complicated issue and i dont think it is solved or explained well in this articel
March 03, 2011 at 8:21 pm, unicorn said:
while I do not have an opinion on whether or not the holiday should be celebrated, I am writing a term paper on the subject and I am looking for sources from articles such as this. I do not know if this is actually a good article because i feel that many of the points made do not disprove the ideas of the liberals. this is a complicated issue and i dont think it is solved or explained well in this articel
October 11, 2011 at 3:40 pm, John Martin said:
Columbus: The Harbinger of Death.
by John Martin on Monday, October 10, 2011 at 9:18am
A
Catholic friar who accompanied Columbus wrote a warning to the Spanish
King in 1552. He hoped to save what he saw as the rape and pillaging of
the “New World” Columbus had stumbled upon. In an excerpt from his
writings entitled “A short Account of the Destruction of the West Indies”, the friar, Bartolome De Las Casas wrote: “When
the Spanish first journeyed there, the indigenous population of the
island of Hispaniola stood at some three million; today, only two
hundred survive. The island of Cuba, which extends for a distance almost
as great as that separating Valladolid from Rome, is now to all
intents and purposes uninhabited; and two other large, beautiful and
fertile islands, Puerto Rico and Jamaica, have been similarly
devastated. Not a living soul remains today on any of the islands of
the Bahamas, which lie to the north of Hispaniola”—”A Short Account of the Destruction of the West Indies”—De Las Casas. Bartolomé
de las Casas’ wonderfully described the residual devastation, genocide
and enslavement of any indigenous people who Columbus came in contact
with. Bartolome eloquently documented the horrible extinction of entire
kingdoms and tribes that were laid to waste by the ostensibly benevolent
Columbus. He and his men imported the scourge of European disease i.e.
smallpox, STD’s, influenza etc. to a region of the planet that was
relatively disease free. It was smallpox that did the most insidious
damage and claimed the most lives of the Native people. After Columbus
returned to Europe he reported to the Queen of Spain of a glorious land
in the “new world” that was ripe for the taking. Columbus came back to
Hispanola and the genocide and crimes against humanity began. Columbus
was not some benign explorer looking for a shorter route to the West
Indies. He was an evil conduit of death. This is why the informed people
today see no reason to pay homage to a man who was responsible for the
deaths of millions of indigenous peoples who were already living in
North America for thousands of years. Columbus should not be given
credit for any type of discovery. Since people had been inhabiting
North, South and Meso-America for centuries. What Columbus is
responsible for is the involuntary annihilation of millions of Native
men, women, elders and children. Thank you Bartolomé de
las Casas’ for opening the eyes of people living today. And for telling
the story of Columbus the way it actually went down. Columbus did not
give the “new world” anything but disease and suffering. Why would
anyone want to celebrate an horrible man who is simply known to the
Native Community as a mass murderer and a malicious harbinger of death?Abolish Columbus Day! John MartinEnrolled member,Oglala, Lakota
February 06, 2012 at 4:40 pm, Anirb said:
November 24th, 2010 by John T. ReedIt has become fashionable and politically correct for whites to beat themselves up for having stolen the land of Native Americans when we arrived in the Western hemisphere. In ultra liberal places like Berkeley, CA—about 20 miles from my house, they call Columbus Day Indigenous Peoples Day and we are supposed to feel bad on Thanksgiving because the Indians were so nice to the Pilgrims, then we stole their land.Excuse me.‘Not their way’The Native Americans did not have deeds to any land in North America. Readers will say well, that was not “their way.”Oh, and what, pray tell, was “their way?”Violent conquestIn fact, “their way” was violent conquest. In other words, they operated almost exactly like modern-day street gangs. They had their territory. They sought to expand it and did so by murdering neighboring (streetless at the time) street gangs—bashing heads with tomahawks, stabbing, shooting arrows into vital organs. They were also into kidnapping. Just a lovely group of innocent primitives before the evil white man arrived and corrupted them.That was also the way of our European ancestors. It was “their way” for everybody on earth thousands of years ago when there were no countries, only tribes. Then there became two ways: violent conquest of nations by other nations coinciding with deeds supported by the rule of law within each country.And that was the situation in the 1400s, 1500s, 1600s, 1700s and 1800s in the whole world.In other words, the Native American way, violent conquest by tribes, was everybody’s “way” thousands of years ago. And it was their way AND partially our way between when Columbus discovered America in 1492 and around 1900.When we arrived in the western hemisphere, the only way of acquiring land was violent conquest. That was the Native American way everywhere in the hemisphere. There was no rule of law.And to the early European visitors to America, that was also their way with regard to foreign lands. When an Indian tribe wanted land, they just took it from another Indian tribe, or tried to. Europeans did the same with regard to land outside the borders of their own rule-of-law country.So Native Americans have no complaint about how whites took their land before 1900. Those whites were just following the “When in Rome, do as the Romans do” rule.We wonThe real complaint of the American Indians is not that we used violent conquest to take their land, but that we won. Hell, winning is how they got it before we got here.As soon as they saw we were winning, they suddenly wanted to do things our way, that is, get deeds.And so they did, to reservations. They still have them.Seems like the whites could have said, “No. You guys were OK with violent conquest before we started winning the battles. We are OK with violent conquest as a way of acquiring foreign lands like America. “We’re happy with your violent conquest approach, thank you. If you want a deed, join our side, get a job or otherwise earn some money then buy some land like we do.”The Civilized Tribes
Here is a quote from Wikipedia about the Five Civilized tribes:The Five Civilized Tribes were the five Native American nations: the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole, which were considered civilized by Anglo-European settlers during the colonial and early federal period because they adopted many of the colonists’ customs and had generally good relations with their neighbors.Isn’t that a nice story? You would think a liberal would like it. Among the customs they adopted were working at jobs and buying farms and businesses. In other words, they got deeds. Trail of TearsTrue, the Cherokees had their deeds taken away and were forced to leave the East Coast and walk to Oklahoma in the Trail of Tears—even though they sued (very liberal) and won at the U.S. Supreme Court level. But generally, the Indians who switched to the rule of law, rather than the rule of ancient conquest, got to keep their deeded land.The deeds to reservations essentially recognize, and convert to rule of law, successful violent conquests by American Indians from before the white-man days. Arguably, the various Indian tribes could claim that their lands were stolen from them by other Indian tribes before the White man arrive. Why don’t they? Double standard. We white men know that well. Basically, everyone wants the rule that maximizes their amount of land, e.g., first come first served; high-water mark of their group’s conquests; tribal territory the day before the white men took some of it; etc.That’s a bunch of pure selfishness and the notion that it is morally superior is equally pure liberal bullshit!By the way, I am part Cherokee.Happy Thanksgiving.
February 06, 2012 at 4:40 pm, Anirb said:
November 24th, 2010 by John T. ReedIt has become fashionable and politically correct for whites to beat themselves up for having stolen the land of Native Americans when we arrived in the Western hemisphere. In ultra liberal places like Berkeley, CA—about 20 miles from my house, they call Columbus Day Indigenous Peoples Day and we are supposed to feel bad on Thanksgiving because the Indians were so nice to the Pilgrims, then we stole their land.Excuse me.‘Not their way’The Native Americans did not have deeds to any land in North America. Readers will say well, that was not “their way.”Oh, and what, pray tell, was “their way?”Violent conquestIn fact, “their way” was violent conquest. In other words, they operated almost exactly like modern-day street gangs. They had their territory. They sought to expand it and did so by murdering neighboring (streetless at the time) street gangs—bashing heads with tomahawks, stabbing, shooting arrows into vital organs. They were also into kidnapping. Just a lovely group of innocent primitives before the evil white man arrived and corrupted them.That was also the way of our European ancestors. It was “their way” for everybody on earth thousands of years ago when there were no countries, only tribes. Then there became two ways: violent conquest of nations by other nations coinciding with deeds supported by the rule of law within each country.And that was the situation in the 1400s, 1500s, 1600s, 1700s and 1800s in the whole world.In other words, the Native American way, violent conquest by tribes, was everybody’s “way” thousands of years ago. And it was their way AND partially our way between when Columbus discovered America in 1492 and around 1900.When we arrived in the western hemisphere, the only way of acquiring land was violent conquest. That was the Native American way everywhere in the hemisphere. There was no rule of law.And to the early European visitors to America, that was also their way with regard to foreign lands. When an Indian tribe wanted land, they just took it from another Indian tribe, or tried to. Europeans did the same with regard to land outside the borders of their own rule-of-law country.So Native Americans have no complaint about how whites took their land before 1900. Those whites were just following the “When in Rome, do as the Romans do” rule.We wonThe real complaint of the American Indians is not that we used violent conquest to take their land, but that we won. Hell, winning is how they got it before we got here.As soon as they saw we were winning, they suddenly wanted to do things our way, that is, get deeds.And so they did, to reservations. They still have them.Seems like the whites could have said, “No. You guys were OK with violent conquest before we started winning the battles. We are OK with violent conquest as a way of acquiring foreign lands like America. “We’re happy with your violent conquest approach, thank you. If you want a deed, join our side, get a job or otherwise earn some money then buy some land like we do.”The Civilized Tribes
Here is a quote from Wikipedia about the Five Civilized tribes:The Five Civilized Tribes were the five Native American nations: the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole, which were considered civilized by Anglo-European settlers during the colonial and early federal period because they adopted many of the colonists’ customs and had generally good relations with their neighbors.Isn’t that a nice story? You would think a liberal would like it. Among the customs they adopted were working at jobs and buying farms and businesses. In other words, they got deeds. Trail of TearsTrue, the Cherokees had their deeds taken away and were forced to leave the East Coast and walk to Oklahoma in the Trail of Tears—even though they sued (very liberal) and won at the U.S. Supreme Court level. But generally, the Indians who switched to the rule of law, rather than the rule of ancient conquest, got to keep their deeded land.The deeds to reservations essentially recognize, and convert to rule of law, successful violent conquests by American Indians from before the white-man days. Arguably, the various Indian tribes could claim that their lands were stolen from them by other Indian tribes before the White man arrive. Why don’t they? Double standard. We white men know that well. Basically, everyone wants the rule that maximizes their amount of land, e.g., first come first served; high-water mark of their group’s conquests; tribal territory the day before the white men took some of it; etc.That’s a bunch of pure selfishness and the notion that it is morally superior is equally pure liberal bullshit!By the way, I am part Cherokee.Happy Thanksgiving.