Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
A Columbus Day Thought
Economist Bryan Caplan, author of our October cover story on "The Four Boneheaded Biases of Stupid Voters," thinks he sees some cognitive dissonance in some defenders of Columbus Day from multi-culti relativists:
Critics of multi-culturalism often mock its proponents for (a) cultural relativism and (b) disrepecting Columbus. The problem, as I've explained before, is that Columbus was a pioneer of slavery and barbarism. The only way to excuse his behavior is to say "Oh, you can't judge Columbus by our standards. In those days, people thought that slavery was OK. Everyone was doing it."
If that excuse makes sense to you, you're a cultural relativist. Change your heroes, or change your meta-ethics!
|10.8.07 @ 5:18PM|#
The Vikings beat Columbus anyway. Where do you think all of the Viking Moose came from?
|10.8.07 @ 5:21PM|#
Yes, because we all know that barbarity and slavery didn't exist in the western hemisphere prior to the arrival of Columbus, right?
|10.8.07 @ 5:23PM|#
Does it follow that the multi-culturalists are advocating moral and cultural absolutism by condemning Columbus?
|10.8.07 @ 5:34PM|#
I find myself more concerned about what it says about Canadians that they're celebrating Thanksgiving on Columbus Day! Are they thankful for his heritage of slavery and oppression?? I thought they were supposed to be the NICE Americans!
|10.8.07 @ 5:39PM|#
I thought they were supposed to be the NICE
Americans!,/i>
How nice can a group of people who celebrate Boxing Day
be?
|10.8.07 @ 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.
Ashish George|10.8.07 @ 5:47PM|#
Caplan is right. Bartolome de las Casas, a Spanish priest who
witnessed Spanish brutality, was a critic of the practices well
before Columbus's legacy was revised.
David Crawford--
I'm not sure what your point is. It's true that the New World
wasn't a paradise pre-1492, but just because cruelty and savagery
existed before Columbus's arrival--and we know they did--that
wouldn't absolve or mitigate the cruelty and savagery of the
Spanish themselves. The inner city might see a lot of homicides,
but doesn't excuse the dude from the suburbs who gets his jollies
by shooting into the ghettos indiscriminately.
Also, most multiculturalists don't believe all cultures are equal
by any stretch of the imagination. If they did, they wouldn't argue
for civil rights, women's rights, etc. in their own societies; the
idea of progress wouldn't make sense. What multiculturalists do
believe is that we can learn something from other cultures and that
we should tread cautiously when trying to introduce changes in
other societies. That is, I dare say, a sentiment that has been
supported by the events of the last six years.
fyodor|10.8.07 @ 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.
|10.8.07 @ 5:48PM|#
I think it's more in celebrating something about a historical figure who, by today's (and let's hope the correct, I'm no relativist) moral standards can be found wanting in ways many in his time were. So Columbus was both brave and an enslaver. In the same way people can celebrate Robert E. Lee's courage and brilliance on the battlefield without excusing the fact that he fought for an abhorrent cause. Junking everyone unless they were absolutely correct on everything, even in defiance of their own societies and common thinking, is a pretty tyrannical criteria...
|10.8.07 @ 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?
fyodor|10.8.07 @ 5:55PM|#
Mr. Nice Guy,
The obvious answer to that is that we'll remember that on Robert E.
Lee Day!! :-)
Oy, I shouldn't get into this debate cause ultimately who cares
about all this symbolism anyway? I think it's an interesting point
that Columbus's defenders seem to be employing classic cultural
relativism, but at the same time, let's be real. Columbus Day
advocates are not defending his crimes any more than people who
employ Soviet iconography in their fashion are necessarily
defending that regime's crimes. It's all a lot of hot air people.
Spew windbags, just don't spew on me...
|10.8.07 @ 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|10.8.07 @ 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.
|10.8.07 @ 6:15PM|#
I think the phrase "vae victis" puts this little controversy into perspective. My how times have changed.
|10.8.07 @ 6:16PM|#
I think relativism is wrong, but we have to judge it by the context of its period.
|10.8.07 @ 6:17PM|#
Columbus-hate is another facet of the same psychological flaw
that causes people to:
* Demand 'perfect' Presidential candidates and consider even minor
character flaws to be career-ending defects. See: some evangelicals
saying they won't vote Republican if Giuliani is nominated.
* Demand 'pure' libertarianism from libertarians. If you don't
denounce vouchers, you're a CRYPTO-STATIST!
* Respond to any argument that includes the thought of Thomas
Jefferson with '... but he owned slaves!'
* Look for evidence that Martin Luther King was secretly a
philanderer.
People aren't perfect. Some of them are really, really far from
perfect. Some of them are downright bad. That doesn't mean we
shouldn't acknowledge their positive achievements.
Or, to put it in as extreme an example I can think of: Just because
you believe the Nazi party had the best aesthetics, doesn't mean
you've given Hitler your moral sanction.
|10.8.07 @ 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.
Edward|10.8.07 @ 6:35PM|#
Was Columbus worse than Che? I mean, in terms of the number of victims. In our search for heros with clean hands, we may be reduced to Mother Theresa. But didn't Hitchens do a number on her?
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|10.8.07 @ 6:38PM|#
Isildur, there are many points in your post one can agree with.
However, even though the perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the
good, the bad should be, and in some cases, the good may be
seriously outweighed by the bad (in some cases so much so that any
positive achievements may be not really worth mentioning). Making
the perfect the enemy of the good is not the same as tolerating the
least awful.
Similarly, it may be that evangelicals find that Giuliani doesn't
agree with them on anything that they think is really
important. I don't know, myself, just guessing. If this is the
case, it's a perfect reason for them to not vote for him.
There's never a good reason to allow your vote to be a choice
between the lesser of evils, if that's really what you find you're
looking at. A libertarian would likely find something to disagree
with most candidates about but if the preference between two comes
down to "well, candidate A is just a little less horrible than
candidate B," you've got no good reason to vote for either. (Of
course there are plenty of good reasons not to waste your time
voting anyway, but that's a different question.)
And really, you shouldn't have kept the ring.
|10.8.07 @ 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.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|10.8.07 @ 6:42PM|#
As far as a search for heroes goes:
I can take them or leave them*. Try to be your own hero.
* - Except for Krog, he's one cool so-and-so with the clubs and the
smashing and the sabretooth tiger pelt.
Syloson of Samos|10.8.07 @ 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.
TLB|10.8.07 @ 6:59PM|#
After we admit that CC was a bad dude, what then? What would
Caplan have us do? Give everything back? Pay reparations?
See also:
mexica-movement.org
youtube.com/watch?v=_8Lri1-6aoY
Off-topic bonus: very good advice for Ron
Paul fans. (Note: I'm not being sarcastic).
|10.8.07 @ 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.
|10.8.07 @ 7:04PM|#
It seems others have made my point: there is a difference between cultural relativism and temporal relativism. Perhaps there is a better word than "temporal" but you get the idea.
|10.8.07 @ 7:05PM|#
But didn't Hitchens do a number on her? [Mother
Theresa]
No, but Penn and Teller did...
|10.8.07 @ 7:15PM|#
Taktix
Hitchens did too. And he did it first.
In fact P&T used him on their show.
|10.8.07 @ 7:20PM|#
Why is it that I am suspect of any argument that contains a hyphenated expression beginning in 'meta-'?
Syloson of Samos|10.8.07 @ 7:28PM|#
Lamar,
During his own lifetime Columbus was viewed by many as a tyrant (as
the link I provided illustrates).
|10.8.07 @ 7:51PM|#
David Crawford-Look up the term non sequitur. Re-read your post. Reflect and learn.
|10.8.07 @ 7:52PM|#
gaijin | October 8, 2007, 5:39pm | #
I thought they were supposed to be the NICE Americans!,/i>
How nice can a group of people who celebrate Boxing Day be?
Go to Williams Lake, BC on January 2nd. They celebrate "Wrestling
Day".
Jesse Walker|10.8.07 @ 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.
|10.8.07 @ 7:56PM|#
I'm just concerned Bryan Caplan doesn't hurt sales of his own
book by getting mired in this sort of shilly-shallying.
Everything is relative, eh, Bryan?
|10.8.07 @ 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|10.8.07 @ 8:07PM|#
Jesse Walker,
Well, given that the Basques were fishing off of North America and
landed on occassion during the 14th century...
Anyway, it should be noted that unlike other contacts between
Europe and North America the Spanish actually made settlements in
the Americas. Why that is a complicated matter, but no other
European nation really got going on settlement* until a hundred
years after the Spaniards. Really the Spaniards were quite lucky in
many ways; in particular regarding the historical accidents that
they fell into regarding the Incas and the Aztecs.
*There were some furtive attempts like a French colony in Brazil in
the 1540s and so forth, but they came to nothing.
Syloson of Samos|10.8.07 @ 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.
|10.8.07 @ 8:17PM|#
Hey Whacker, in Latin America Columbus Day is called "Dia de la Raza". Maybe you should look into SecretLinks this holiday may have with IllegalMexicans.
The Wine Commonsewer|10.8.07 @ 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?
|10.8.07 @ 8:18PM|#
Let's see, Washington and Jefferson owned slaves, Lincoln wanted to send blacks back to Africa...so why doesn't President's Day get this much protest?
|10.8.07 @ 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".
|10.8.07 @ 8:23PM|#
Jesse Walker,
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.
The Wine Commonsewer|10.8.07 @ 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|10.8.07 @ 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.
|10.8.07 @ 8:33PM|#
Actually, I think it was the Italian community last century
that was largely responsible for creating Columbus Day.
That reminds me, Does anyone remember the Sopranos episode
about Columbus Day? I think it gave a pretty good commentary on the
controversy surrounding it.
Syloson of Samos|10.8.07 @ 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.
iih|10.8.07 @ 9:01PM|#
Columbus came to fight the terrorists here instead of fighting them over there.
Jesse Walker|10.8.07 @ 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.
|10.8.07 @ 9:34PM|#
"Columbus came to fight the terrorists here instead of fighting
them over there."
How hard would it have been for native Americans to secure their
borders and their ports, for cryin' out loud!
They were slackers! Deserved what they got!
|10.8.07 @ 9:40PM|#
Jesse,
So it's likely that some righteous individual would have discovered
America? I would say that is extremely unlikely.
|10.8.07 @ 9:43PM|#
Jesse Walker,
So, we honor George Washington for his military prowess, but not
for his central role in the Revolution? There were many far better
generals before and since who no one knows about, and it's fairly
certain that, given its burgeoning population and wealth of
resources, the colonies would have eventually achieved independence
(or even wound up being the dominant part of the United Kingdom)
had it not been for him.
iih|10.8.07 @ 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".)
|10.8.07 @ 9:57PM|#
I don't see why we have to celebrate colombus's birthday. Afterall, we all enjoy the benefits of the invention 'wheel' without celebrating the neanderthal who invented the wheel.
Jesse Walker|10.8.07 @ 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.
SIV|10.8.07 @ 10:07PM|#
see
Presentism
on a related note: you can play like Captain Kirk talking the all
powerful computer into destroying itself by discussing female
genital mutilation and cultural relativism with a feminist cultural
anthropology grad student
Jesse Walker|10.8.07 @ 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.
Syloson of Samos|10.8.07 @ 10:17PM|#
I think Jesse Walker states my point more succinctly than I apparently could.
SIV|10.8.07 @ 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.
Gahan|10.8.07 @ 10:29PM|#
"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."
In fact, when Columbus brought Indian slaves from Hispaniola back
to Spain as a gift to Queen Isabella, she was disgusted with him
and ordered them to be taken back home and released.
It is ironic to note, however, that even Bartolome de las Casas
proposed bringing in African slaves as a more ethical alternative
to enslaving the Indians.
SIV|10.8.07 @ 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.
Syloson of Samos|10.8.07 @ 10:43PM|#
SIV,
No, the 14th century is correct.
The Spanish weren't just "lucky" with their encounters with
Native American Civilizations.
They were spectacularly "good" at it.
Disease was the major factor in the Spanish conquest. It (by
killing off the Incan ruler) for example created the turmoil which
had been roiling the Inca state prior to Pizzaro's arrival.
Paul|10.8.07 @ 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...
Syloson of Samos|10.8.07 @ 10:47PM|#
SIV,
Regarding the Spanish conquest, there were all manner of protests
and reservations concerning the activities of the Conquistadors
during the events in question, and these documents have been in the
hands of scholars for several hundred years. Indeed, they were used
by the English Protestants as a means to justify their efforts to
invade Spanish lands in the Americas during the Interregnum. That's
how Jamaica became a British colony in the 17th century.
|10.8.07 @ 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.
Syloson of Samos|10.8.07 @ 11:06PM|#
Warty,
Well, the Aztecs and Inca were equally brutal in warfare, though
(in the case of the Aztecs) their tactics differed by the need to
make the defeated into sacrifices.
SIV|10.8.07 @ 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.
SIV|10.8.07 @ 11:13PM|#
The Spanish had a couple hundred years of experience in
brutality
They had a few centuries of a "Muslim Problem" thats fo' sure.
Right Wing Conspirator|10.8.07 @ 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.
SIV|10.8.07 @ 11:21PM|#
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.
The Wine Commonsewer|10.8.07 @ 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.
|10.8.07 @ 11:34PM|#
The Spanish had a couple hundred years of experience in
brutality
They had a few centuries of a "Muslim Problem" thats fo'
sure.
Yeah, but back then it was the Muslims that tolerated Jews and the
Spanish that needlessly tourtured them.
|10.8.07 @ 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.
Syloson of Samos|10.8.07 @ 11:46PM|#
SIV,
The Basques aren't Portugese.
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.
Many of the attacks came from Spanish and Catholic sources.
...Cortez were spectacularly outnumbered by professional
armies.
Cortez was supported and aided by the native peoples that he
actively recruited along the way. They were easy to recruit as they
were not particularly happy to be under the thumb of the Aztecs.
Sans these allies and it is unlikely that either he or his men
would have escaped the bloody pitched battle at Tenochtitlan.
Guy Montag|10.9.07 @ 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.
Mad Max|10.9.07 @ 4:44AM|#
Here's an interesting piece of recent news:
"LONDON (Reuters) - Hair samples taken from child mummies suggest
the ancient Incas "fattened" up children chosen for ritual
sacrifice months before actually killing them, British researchers
said on Monday. . . .
"The researchers do not know exactly how all the children died,
though at least one was killed by a blow to the head.
"'It looks to us as though the children were led up to the summit
shrine in the culmination of a year-long rite, drugged and then
left to succumb to exposure,' said Timothy Taylor, a researcher at
the University of Bradford."
http://tinyurl.com/3yhr98
|10.9.07 @ 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.)
VikingMoose|10.9.07 @ 9:54AM|#
ambles on by. looks at some of the fearful fragile types. Sighs at them in pity. Sees something shiny, snorts happily, and returns to the wooded grove
dhex|10.9.07 @ 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.
|10.9.07 @ 11:01AM|#
Jess,
Since we are talking about reading too much into other people's
comments, I never said that the Americas would not have been open
to colonization without Columbus. To a degree, it is just an
arbitrary day, but what other day would we have? The day the first
enlightened European person colonized? (Note, I only mention this
since you felt it necessary to comment on the nature of Columbus in
your reply to me, when I referenced only the landing)
Sir commenter,
Columbus Day refers to the day of the landing, October 12 1492, not
the birthday of Columbus.
VM|10.9.07 @ 11:16AM|#
The day the first enlightened European person
colonized?
LEIF ERICSSON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|10.9.07 @ 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.
|10.9.07 @ 5:33PM|#
Not to mention, "Everyone was Doing It" is factually
incorrect.
There was no slavery in Spain. There was no slavery in Italy. There
was no slavery in the Carribean.
Columbus was a PIONEER in the development of the slave economy.
|10.9.07 @ 5:35PM|#
But, hey...hippies, huh?
It's the same reason we have to keep drugs illegal - to show them
hippies who's boss!
|10.9.07 @ 9:27PM|#
Granted, slavery has been practiced all over the world, including by the native peoples of the Americas. But the chattel slavery employed by European whites in the Americas, and pioneered by Columbus, was about the most brutal form of slavery in all of recorded history. So even if "everyone else was doing it" was a defense (which it isn't), Columbus went out of his way to make things worse, not better.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245