« You Know Better | Main | Congressional Scratch »
October 09, 2006
Happy Columbus Day
It's sort of odd to take a day off in supposed celebration, rather than apology, for a murderous, brutal, rape-happy colonizer. Not to be a downer about it, but the dude was pretty loathsome.
October 9, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
You know what has always bothered me similarly? The poetic use of "Columbia" as a romantic name for America.
Posted by: jhupp | Oct 9, 2006 12:53:13 PM
As terrible as he and what he represented was, the fact remains that without him and what he represented there would be no United States of America. I'll let others decide if that would be a good thing. To extend this line of thought, I personally think the Founding Fathers were nuts to rebel against Britain, that it wasn't morally justified, that it was criminally insane to try, and that it was a miracle that it worked. It hadn't occurred to me to apologize to the British, but maybe we should next July 4th. (I think of this when I think of our harebrained adventure in Iraq too.)
The Columbus Day celebration was instituted before the fuller story we now have was widely known, of course, but even now the idea is to celebrate the events that led to the founding of the country. If you can't do that without being depressed by the mass slaughters and other evils involved, which I sympathize with, there aren't many holidays you'll be able to enjoy, including religious ones.
Posted by: Sanpete | Oct 9, 2006 2:10:29 PM
"If you can't do that without being depressed by the mass slaughters and other evils involved, which I sympathize with, there aren't many holidays you'll be able to enjoy, including religious ones."
How many Americans actually "celebrate" these national holidays? It's a nice day off work/school or rationale for a big sale.
Posted by: CParis | Oct 9, 2006 2:34:49 PM
My professor at college taught us that there were three words to remember when studying the Spanish/Portuguese explorations-colonizations of the new world,
Gold, Glory, and God....in that order.
In other words, God took third position in relation to earthly material goods.
Happy whatever day
Posted by: marcus | Oct 9, 2006 2:47:16 PM
Feel free to call this my birthday (observed), since I was actually born on October 12 - my birthday (traditional).
However, I don't appreciate Osama bin Laden's gift to me back in 2000: the attack on the USS Cole. I appreciate even less his gift to my brother in 2001: the 9/11 attacks. If he ever sets off an attack on September 23rd, my other brother's birthday, my whole family is going after him.
Posted by: Joseph | Oct 9, 2006 3:16:46 PM
Yea, so horrible that at a time that was lived by rival tribes pushing each other around, Columbus was both successful and went back to Spain in irons.
The people who's "property" as "stolen" maid no claim to the property to begin with and the people whining about it do not want anybody to own any property anyway.
Posted by: Guy Montag | Oct 9, 2006 3:29:46 PM
made*
Posted by: Guy Montag | Oct 9, 2006 3:44:09 PM
Who wasn't a "murderous, brutal, rape-happy colonizer" 500 years ago? Or didn't aspire to be? It's facile to hold someone who lived five centuries ago to today's moral and political standards. Few would pass Ezra's test: not Genghis Khan, not Hadrian, certainly not Montezuma or Atahualpa, hardly anyone of note in history.
If Ezra is implying that European colonization of the Americas was a bad thing, maybe he should come out and state that plainly. Until then, Happy Columbus Day to everyone, in honor of a visionary man who vastly improved the world.
Posted by: Orkon | Oct 9, 2006 4:05:07 PM
Here's what the War Nerd has to say about the subject. Marcus, I don't think your college professor would want you to read this.
http://www.exile.ru/2005-July-01/war_nerd.html
Posted by: Orkon | Oct 9, 2006 4:16:18 PM
Few would pass Ezra's test: not Genghis Khan, not Hadrian, certainly not Montezuma or Atahualpa, hardly anyone of note in history.
And we don't have holidays for any of them, either.
Posted by: Christmas | Oct 9, 2006 4:35:58 PM
Anyone else ever read that book about the Chinese naval expedition that came to California in 1421?
Posted by: sprocket | Oct 9, 2006 4:40:06 PM
No Christmas, but Genghis Khan is revered by Mongols, Montezuma by Mexicans, Atahualpa by Peruvians, Shaka by the Zulu, Columbus by Americans, and so on ad infinitum. There weren't many Noble Savages around, sorry Ezra.
So again, Happy Columbus Day to all. Unless someone has a counterargument, in which case, I'm listening.
Posted by: Orkon | Oct 9, 2006 4:41:31 PM
As terrible as he and what he represented was, the fact remains that without him and what he represented there would be no United States of America.
Yes, because he was the only person sailing around the world at the time. And also because the United States traces its political and even its racial lineage back to Spain and Italy because of Columbus.
Truly the man's influence upon the founding of the USA by a bunch of Englishmen living thousands of miles away from the West Indies and almost 3 centuries later cannot be overstated.
Columbus Day is a stupid holiday. People were already here. There were some quite advanced civilizations that had already ceased to be by the the time he got here. There is even good evidence that other European explorers got to North America long before Columbus, and possibly South Pacific peoples got to South America long before him as well.
Posted by: Stephen | Oct 9, 2006 4:44:21 PM
There weren't many Noble Savages around, sorry Ezra.
Who said anything about "noble savages"? Someone doesn't have to be "noble" for their genocide to be wrong. Jesus Christ.
Posted by: Christmas | Oct 9, 2006 4:45:57 PM
Shorter Guy Montag: Watch me rationalize away the seizure of the First Peoples' lands without compensation, in order that schmibertarian white men like me can assert their absolute property rights without having to answer awkward questions about the source of that property.
Posted by: paperwight | Oct 9, 2006 4:48:41 PM
Paperwight:
You have to address your double standard. Was historical genocide, attempted genocide, and ethnic cleansing immoral only when whites did it to other groups, or when anyone did it? In other words, do you put Genghis Khan, Shaka Zulu, and Atahualpa into the same category as Columbus, or are the first three somehow OK while Columbus is evil?
Keep in mind, too, that the only reason Genghis, Atahualpa, and Shaka did not kill more people and take more land than they did is that they were unable to.
Posted by: Orkon | Oct 9, 2006 4:54:53 PM
Orkon, I don't know where you're getting this idea that Ezra's position ("Columbus was a very bad person, therefore celebrating him is wrong") necessitates an embrace of Ghengis Khan. Columbus and Ghengis Khan were both very bad. The issue at hand is that one of those very bad men has a holiday, which is a mite fucked up.
Posted by: Christmas | Oct 9, 2006 4:59:47 PM
Christmas wrote:
"Who said anything about "noble savages"? Someone doesn't have to be "noble" for their genocide to be wrong. Jesus Christ."
Christmas, you've misunderstood my post. I'm not saying a tribe needs to be "noble" for their "genocide to be wrong." I'm saying that Ezra's implication that Europeans came and beat up on a bunch of peaceful tribes is wrong, and therefore placing Native Americans on a higher moral plane than their European conquerors is illogical.
Both tribes (Indians and whites) were equally savage and brutal; the only difference was in ability to conquer, where superior arms carried the day for the Europeans (not to mention the superior navigation technology that let them get there in the first place).
Was it immoral for the Moors to invade and rule Spain for eight centuries, or the Ottomans to try to capture Vienna? I'd like to see someone address this double standard. Until they do, again, Happy Columbus Day.
Posted by: Orkon | Oct 9, 2006 5:04:31 PM
Shorter Orkon: Might makes right. I demand condemnation parity!
Posted by: paperwight | Oct 9, 2006 5:15:50 PM
Ork -
So you're totally down with Japanese nationalists celebrating the rape of Nanking? Or Mongols celebrating Genghis driving POWs ahead of his forces as arrow fodder? Or neo-nazis celebrating the Holocaust?
I recognize that things were different 500 years ago...but at what historical distance does it become OK to venerate people who wiped entire nations from the earth? We're not putting the Native Americans on a higher moral plane when we say that wiping them out was wrong - we're putting ourselves on a higher moral plane when we recognize some of our barbarous forebears for what they were while others (Zulu, Japanese, Mongols, etc.) do not.
Yeah, being the bigger person sucks sometimes.
Posted by: Kylroy | Oct 9, 2006 5:16:58 PM
Christmas writes:
"Columbus and Ghengis Khan were both very bad."
Now we're getting somewhere. You must also then concede that any warrior or tribe in history who ever slaughtered another group and tried to take their land is also "very bad" then, too, correct? Including all Maya, Inca, and Aztec emperors; virtually all African tribal leaders, especially of tribes that persist to this day; as well as almost any tribe anywhere in the world that still exists, since by definition they or their ancestors very likely had to wipe out other tribes in order to still be surviving to the present day.
So, unless you have an argument that allows the various other warring groups I've outlined above to be placed in a different category from Genghis Khan and Christopher Columbus, both of whom you've labeled as "very bad," then we have virtually no tribe on Earth that has moral legitimacy based on the test set by Ezra.
If you have a counterargument to that, I'm open to hearing it. Otherwise, we go back to my basic point: Ezra's labeling Columbus a mere genocidist is facile. Everyone was either committing or trying to commit genocide all over the world until fairly recently, and they still are in lots of places. The only fair way to assess someone like Columbus or Genghis Khan is to take into account their benefits to mankind, not merely their massacres. Ezra doesn't do this.
And no, I don't want to live in a completely amoral world, and we don't live in one now. But judging the past by 2006 standard is a mug's game.
Columbus and Genghis Khan must be regarded, by any measure, as great men.
Posted by: Orkon | Oct 9, 2006 5:17:17 PM
No paperwight, might doesn't make right in 2006. But in 1200 and 1500 it did, and that's just the way the world was. Evolving morality is a well-known concept.
Now that I've answered your (short) argument, perhaps you could answer my question upthread posed directly to you? Namely:
"Was historical genocide, attempted genocide, and ethnic cleansing immoral only when whites did it to other groups, or when anyone did it? In other words, do you put Genghis Khan, Shaka Zulu, and Atahualpa into the same category as Columbus, or are the first three somehow OK while Columbus is evil?"
Posted by: Orkon | Oct 9, 2006 5:19:15 PM
Kylroy writes:
"I recognize that things were different 500 years ago...but at what historical distance does it become OK to venerate people who wiped entire nations from the earth? We're not putting the Native Americans on a higher moral plane when we say that wiping them out was wrong - we're putting ourselves on a higher moral plane when we recognize some of our barbarous forebears for what they were while others (Zulu, Japanese, Mongols, etc.) do not."
Interesting, Kylroy. So, are there any tribes on Earth now who you feel do *not* have to be ashamed of their ancestors? There are only a few places on the planet where the currently ruling tribe was also in power, say, 1,000 short years ago. At some point, whoever's in power now kicked out (=genocide) whoever was in power before. And if they're ashamed of it, some other tribe will be happy to rush in and exploit that (as we're seeing in the West nowadays with illegal immigration).
Certainly no one can condone the atrocities of the 20th century, and it's hard to find the historical line when you start judging acts of tribal violence less harshly. Not a line, really, more a continuum.
But 1492 is way before any such line can be reasonably drawn; the simple reality is that progress at that time heavily relied on tribal warfare that was total and genocidal. Genghis Khan spread law and science and meritocracy throughout Asia; this was progress. He also killed millions of people. I wouldn't accept any form of progress nowadays that resulted in such carnage, but 500 years ago it was the way of the world.
Someday, Ezra can write a post on *why* the world is largely no longer like that, and who we have to thank for it.
Posted by: Orkon | Oct 9, 2006 5:28:16 PM
The celebration of Columbus day is not the celebration of death or slavery. It started out as a celebration by Italians of a great Italian explorer. Like it or not he had cemented his place in history as the first to bring european commerce and civilization en masse to the americas.
Things that were done by him were moral and legal in the standards of the day. Like it or not natives were not truly considered human, just as animals were mindlessly slaughtered, and heretics were tortured. The norms of the day justified all of it.
Columbus did not invent the insitution or market for slavery, or the methods for subduing the people he 'conquered' they were institutions of spanish exploration before he became a part it. Nearly all western powers enslaved each other, raped each other, killed each other, and tortured any heretics that they came across. Doesnt mean that I want to sit down and have a beer with him, at the same time it doesnt mean I want to hand my house over to some Indian chiefs descendant.
Columbus however did have the vision, the ambition, and the ability to mount a large expedition to 'new' lands against heavy institutional opposition, and make those expeditions pay handsomly in terms of money, religious converts, and conqured lands.
We celebrate the day as to commemorate the roots of our past. Are they historically accurate roots? No, not anymore. This very conversation however lies within the spirit of that celebration as we look back, study, and learn about our earliest history here.
Many states and towns celebrate their founding. Not too many of them put up posters of the prostitutes, slave traders, indian killers, or mafia hitmen who founded their towns either. Even if they do they arent celebrating the morals and lifestyles they chose, but the fortitude and vision they had in founding their given areas.
The people in the past treated each other like crap, everywhere. Our grief, shame, or pride wont help or change any of that. We can however look back, celebrate the good things that were done, and do better with what we have today.
Posted by: david b | Oct 9, 2006 5:32:27 PM
Columbus and Genghis Khan must be regarded, by any measure, as great men.
No they don't. By any reasonable modern standard they're slavers and murderers on a mass scale, and there's no reason to judge them by any other standard. One could argue that by the standards of a kill-happy fifteenth-century conquistador Columbus wasn't so bad, but we are not evaluating him as fifteenth-century conquistadors. We're evaluating him as post-enlightenment occupants of a twenty-first century liberal democracy where genocide is generally frowned upon.
Posted by: Christmas | Oct 9, 2006 5:34:03 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.