The Christopher Columbus Controversy
By Michael S. Berliner
Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights
Columbus Day approaches, but to the "politically correct" this is no cause for celebration. On the contrary, they view the arrival of Christopher Columbus in 1492 as an occasion to be mourned. They have mourned, they have attacked, and they have intimidated schools across the country into replacing Columbus Day celebrations with "ethnic diversity" days.
The politically correct view is that Columbus did not discover America, because people had lived here for thousands of years. Worse yet, it's claimed, the main legacy of Columbus is death and destruction. Columbus is routinely vilified as a symbol of slavery and genocide, and the celebration of his arrival likened to a celebration of hitler and the holocaust. The attacks on Columbus are ominous, because the actual target is Western civilization.
Did Columbus "discover" America? Yes--in every important respect. This does not mean that no human eye had been cast on America before Columbus arrived. It does mean that Columbus brought America to the attention of the civilized world, i.e., to the growing, scientific civilizations of Western Europe. The result, ultimately, was the United States of America. It was Columbus' discovery for Western Europe that led to the influx of ideas and people on which this nation was founded--and on which it still rests. The opening of America brought the ideas and achievements of Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, and the thousands of thinkers, writers, and inventors who followed.
Prior to 1492, what is now the United States was sparsely inhabited, unused, and undeveloped. The inhabitants were primarily hunter-gatherers, wandering across the land, living from hand-to-mouth and from day-to-day. There was virtually no change, no growth for thousands of years. With rare exception, life was nasty, brutish, and short: there was no wheel, no written language, no division of labor, little agriculture and scant permanent settlement; but there were endless, bloody wars. Whatever the problems it brought, the vilified Western culture also brought enormous, undreamed-of benefits, without which most of today's Indians would be infinitely poorer or not even alive.
Columbus should be honored, for in so doing, we honor Western civilization. But the critics do not want to bestow such honor, because their real goal is to denigrate the values of Western civilization and to glorify the primitivism, mysticism, and collectivism embodied in the tribal cultures of American Indians. They decry the glorification of the West as "Eurocentrism." We should, they claim, replace our reverence for Western civilization with multi-culturalism, which regards all cultures as morally equal. In fact, they aren't. Some cultures are better than others: a free society is better than slavery; reason is better than brute force as a way to deal with other men; productivity is better than stagnation. In fact, Western civilization stands for man at his best. It stands for the values that make human life possible: reason, science, self-reliance, individualism, ambition, productive achievement. The values of Western civilization are values for all men; they cut across gender, ethnicity, and geography. We should honor Western civilization not for the ethnocentric reason that some of us happen to have European ancestors but because it is the objectively superior culture.
Underlying the political collectivism of the anti-Columbus crowd is a racist view of human nature. They claim that one's identity is primarily ethnic: if one thinks his ancestors were good, he will supposedly feel good about himself; if he thinks his ancestors were bad, he will supposedly feel self-loathing. But it doesn't work; the achievements or failures of one's ancestors are monumentally irrelevant to one's actual worth as a person. Only the lack of a sense of self leads one to look to others to provide what passes for a sense of identity. Neither the deeds nor misdeeds of others are his own; he can take neither credit nor blame for what someone else chose to do. There are no racial achievements or racial failures, only individual achievements and individual failures. One cannot inherit moral worth or moral vice. "Self-esteem through others" is a self-contradiction.
Thus the sham of "preserving one's heritage" as a rational life goal. Thus the cruel hoax of "multicultural education" as an antidote to racism: it will continue to create more racism.
Individualism is the only alternative to the racism of political correctness. We must recognize that everyone is a sovereign entity, with the power of choice and independent judgment. That is the ultimate value of Western civilization, and it should be proudly proclaimed.
Michael S. Berliner is co-chairman of the board of directors of the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
52 comments:
Yes, calling Columbus for what he was and not wanting to celebrate the brutal colonization and violent suppression or elimination of any remnant of civilizations not possessing superior technology is a cry to toss overboard all western values and live in a hut-of-sticks and grub for worms to subsist.
Newsflash: A person can be selective of what constitutes the practice of good values - tossing out the chaff as needed - despite the bellows of giant angry straw men.
I could go for a Galileo Day or a Michelangelo Day or even a Giordano Bruno Day - keeping it Italian in respect of my heighbors - to celebrate triumphs of Western Civilization. See, embracing individual accomplishments while acknowledging the contribution of other cultures ain't so hard although I guess that makes me a racist.
I have talked to my ObamaNation sector committee chairman and have secured a special clearance into the FEMA camps for Mr. Berliner to atone for his crimes against Obama States of Multiculturalism. I have also made special provisions for his reeducation and eventual reintroduction into proper civilization.
Berliner’s willful ignorance shows in such sentences as, “Columbus brought America to the attention of the civilized world, i.e., to the growing, scientific civilizations of Western Europe.”
Objective (as opposed to Objectivist) anthropologists recognize that there were already civilizations in the Americas when Columbus arrived. Furthermore, the “scientific civilizations of Western Europe” still lagged behind the scientific achievements of the Arabian and east Asian worlds.
We can and should acknowledge the tremendous influence of Columbus’s explorations and those that followed him. The realization that there were new continents with ancient societies untouched by the foundations of medieval culture was a great shock to that system, and helped bring about the Renaissance in western Europe.
One doesn’t need to denigrate all non-Western civilizations to make that point. But Berliner obviously did, and it reflects poorly on him.
I agree with Mr. Bell. Berliner's sheer ignorance is even worse than that of Dr. Jensen below. I actually think this proves my original point: that many are still holding to the ridiculous "old school" interpretation of Columbus, and that to do so omits too many important historical facts.
Berliner's isn't ignorance at all, it's that it's a much longer view with equating America's discovery with the excesses of the Spanish [and thereby ignoring righteous men like Bartholome de las Casas], and the larger picture, the eventual march in the New World to human rights.
Berliner's strongest point is that civilization in the Americas was stagnant, and absent being "discovered," there would still be human sacrifice on this continent. His thesis follows from there.
The problem with swallowing the Howard Zinn view of history is that there is no longer view, only condemnation of the West. We can criticize the Spanish and other New World adventurers for their callousness and savagery, but that's not the whole picture, although the Zinn view is manifestly becoming the "official" view we're pumping to our kids.
Maybe the long view is to understand what has happened in the past so as not to repeat the errors in the present/future.
I don't disagree with that, JRB. However the ugly history of the European incursion into the New World strikes me more like what happens when men are outside the rules of civilization, as the Pizzaros, Caribbean plantation owners, etc. were.
Remember, "caribbean" comes from "cannibal." Altho the stories of the indigenous peoples being cannibalistic were overblown [or even fallacious], that was indeed the impression of Old World adventurers.
They were marauders like the Huns, it's so---however, there was much resistance to their acts back on the European continent.
Not that I have a lot of good to say about Europe. The reason our forefathers came to America was precisely because it wasn't Europe.
Ayn-Speak
We should honor Western civilization not for the ethnocentric reason that some of us happen to have European ancestors but because it is the objectively superior culture.
Underlying the political collectivism of the anti-Columbus crowd is a racist view of human nature. They claim that one's identity is primarily ethnic: if one thinks his ancestors were good, he will supposedly feel good about himself; if he thinks his ancestors were bad, he will supposedly feel self-loathing.
Ah yeahh, A is mutha-f-ing A. Columbus the Freedom fighter.
Actually, I usually find the Randian quacks arrogant, rightist, and prone to generalization, but at times they sound slightly Lockean, and that may redeem them, slightly.
There exists a sentimental sort of leftist-multiculturalism (seen in schoolmarms, for example) that suggests anything produced from western civ. is wrong and oppressive, and anything produced by non-western cultures or the 3rd world has value. That is not the case. Columbus appears to have been a bit of a tyrant, but he did bring the knowledge of Europe to the New World. Euclids and Aristotles --or Lockes and Newtons--were not known in the Aztec/mayan/Inca world.
Well, the one thing that's overlooked is that the Aztecs were themselves a conquering invader, having swooped down on what's now Mexico City only 100 or 200 years before the Spanish and imposing their human sacrifice, etc. and installing their own aristocracy/royalty on the indigenous.
I just visited some Mayan ruins this year and they too had adopted
human sacrifice.
http://videos.howstuffworks.com/discovery/30385-discover-magazine-mayan-human-sacrifice-video.htm
Hey, the 16th century sucked. Period.
As for the Randians, I fairly agree, except when they rendezvous with Aquinas and me at Aristotle.
[We agreed twice in one month, J. There's hope for us all yet...]
TVD writes:
The problem with swallowing the Howard Zinn view of history is that there is no longer view, only condemnation of the West. We can criticize the Spanish and other New World adventurers for their callousness and savagery, but that's not the whole picture, although the Zinn view is manifestly becoming the "official" view we're pumping to our kids.
That's a bit too much in my opinion. Howard Zinn is far from respected. In fact, I think most historians would put him alongside David Barton. Also, I don't think we should automatically insinuate that it is anti-European/Spanish to call Columbus a murderer. Nobody is denying the importance of his discovery. Instead, they are simply pointing out that he wasn't the prophet so many make him out to be.
You also mention the human sacrifice of the Indians. This is true, no doubt. And this was a part of...their RELIGIOUS ceremony. Also, didn't the Christians burn people as well? Quite enough "human sacrifice" to go around on both sides.
I think Burliner is showing a bit of ignorance in this matter. I don't think anyone (Howard Zinn being the only exception) would say that Columbus' discovery was a bad thing. Rather, the new historiography insists that we recognize painful truths as well. Columbus, the great explorer, discoverer and Christian, was a violent man with some negative traits. To point out such truths is NOT an outright rejection of his goodness, nor is it a liberal/secular endeavor to dilute history.
Was Christopher horrible? Yep! So what! Is america full of 'bad people'? Yep! Or to be more general...is the world full of 'bad people'? You Bet! generalities does mean specifics, so don't go ballistic. What I'm getting at is, when he came here was he full of zeal to be awed by new world greatness? NO!! He was after getting rich! When the shit head white men headed west did they want see the wonder of the Indians? NO! they want riches, power,& new homes. I could go on & on.
When the shit heads go from earth to new worlds will the MAJORITY go for the wonder of new discovery?? Yes?Quit watching star trek!!!Its FICTION!!! People will go out to get rich, power, and new homes and the natives?? Ask the Indians what will happen to them!! I have great faith in the people's ability to go forth and destroy.
But as Asimov once asked...
What is more beautiful...
A beaver Damn built by beavers for beaver purposes or Hoover dam built by people for people purposes? Ever notice how people who complain about terrible people are living on the trampled bodies of the oppressed people.
Also, didn't the Christians burn people as well? Quite enough "human sacrifice" to go around on both sides.
Make your case. I don't see the scale is remotely comparable, nor are the reasons comparable.
Where the West seldom used and soon abandoned the practice, the New World cultures were in full flame.
I mentioned Howard Zinn because he came to mind when I ran across this
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncol1.html
and it seemed quite comparable to your essay, except with more specific charges. [In fact one AC contributor resigned over your post, not that I meself mind a lively exchange of views, even if bordering on the hyperbolic.]
But if you comb Zinn's "history" for facts that prove Columbus a "murderer" [and your own essay, Brad], you come up with nothing but a mush like this from
"Samuel Eliot Morison, the Harvard historian who was Columbus’ admiring biographer, acknowledged this. He wrote: “Whoever thought up this ghastly system, Columbus was responsible for it, as the only means of producing gold for export…. Those who fled to the mountains were hunted with hounds, and of those who escaped, starvation and disease took toll, while thousands of the poor creatures in desperation took cassava poison to end their miseries.”
So the policy and acts of Columbus for which he alone was responsible began the depopulation of the terrestrial paradise that was Hispaniola in 1492."
"Whoever thought up this system" somehow mutates into "[Columbus] alone was responsible."
This is not history, this is polemic.
Anyone familiar with Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" or its many imitators like "Apocalypse Now" can certainly see what happened to the Spanish when they left civilization and hit the wilderness: they became savages themselves, and therein lies a cautionary tale. I have nothing good to say about 16th century Spain.
However, the United States' hagiography of Christopher Columbus pretty much ends with his brave [or crazed] voyage and the spotting of land in the Americas; the "discovery" part refers only to the fact that the New Worlders simply didn't know where they were and the Old Worlders "discovered" where they were.
Berliner's argument is this:
"Prior to 1492, what is now the United States was sparsely inhabited, unused, and undeveloped. The inhabitants were primarily hunter-gatherers, wandering across the land, living from hand-to-mouth and from day-to-day. There was virtually no change, no growth for thousands of years. With rare exception, life was nasty, brutish, and short: there was no wheel, no written language, no division of labor, little agriculture and scant permanent settlement; but there were endless, bloody wars. Whatever the problems it brought, the vilified Western culture also brought enormous, undreamed-of benefits, without which most of today's Indians would be infinitely poorer or not even alive."
Perhaps it's correct, perhaps not. But it should be confronted on its own terms.
Wow! If a contributor found my post to be so troubling that he/she had to resign then good riddance!
And no, this isn't simply an exaggerated issue. It IS a major historic issue. Scores of books have been written on it.
It's too bad that people here see it as an over-exaggerated, liberal conspiracy, or whatever else they think it is. God forbid I try to look at how the historiography has changed!
hmmm ... my perverse curiousity has been tweaked. Which of Brad's Columbus articles triggered the resignation?
Well, don't let the door hit you on the way out, dumbass!
If you found my stuff on Columbus offensive or problematic you have no business being here! This is HARDLY controversial stuff!
Oh, I see you deleted your comment! That will do!
Well, that was unnecessary, and a true loss.
You did charge Columbus with rape and murder
Usually these supporters are religious conservatives who, despite the record of murder, rape and violence, still credit Columbus with having performed God's holy errand.
without proving it, and you did conflate "religious conservatives" with one in particular, who is a Mormon, and who was expressing particularly Mormon views.
And no, this isn't simply an exaggerated issue.
IMO [and clearly one other], your treatment of it certainly was exaggerated, or at least polemic rather than evidential. Neither is this the first time a credential professional has left the building over such an approach.
Well, Ben, you ask a GREAT question. I have NO CLUE how everyone got so bent out of shape over a relatively simple and not at all controversial post. I guess some people think calling Columbus a murderer is completely out in left field (go figure). I don't know if it's the overly-sensitive nature of some people or what. I feel like I entered the Twilight Zone with this post. It's HARDLY the most controversial thing written here.
Again, I am completely at a loss as to how pointing out Columbus' less-than-noble characteristics is a bad thing. Maybe it's too much Glenn Beck these days, I don't know.
I am sad to see Mr. Zummo go though. His 2 posts were very insightful. Sadly, he doesn't like debate (even when the topic is something that is generally accepted by all).
And Tom, I have no clue why you got all upset over this stuff. When did I say Columbus' discovery should be completely ignored? Is calling him a violent man too far out in left field for you? Is pointing out the fact that many religious groups still revere Columbus while ignoring his atrocities doing damage to the study of history? I truly do not understand.
Sorry for the "dumbass" comment. My bad. My apologies to Mr. Zummo. Completely unacceptable. I worked a tough late night shift (I work as a cop) and I'm still a bit on edge.
Anyway, I am hoping we can build some common ground on a topic that AGAIN is NOT as controversial as we are making it out to be. Was Columbus' discovery a monumental event? Of course it was. But was he a violent man with at least some bad intentions? Oh hell yes!
I think we all agree on this stuff. So again, why the controversy?
This is HARDLY controversial stuff!
No, in today's academic environment it indeed is not. That's sort of the problem.
Well, don't let the door hit you on the way out, dumbass!
You stay classy. Take care.
Yeah...NOT controversial! Didn't realize I was going against the academic grain by pointing out the obvious!
Paul,
Please do make your case ... I don't know what you mean my academic environment, but I assume you're not favoring ignorance.
This article has to be the biggest piece of total bullshit that I've read in a long time. Of course, the author is an Objectivist, so I really shouldn't be surprised at his stupidity.
Wow ... Brad, you're apparently earning a reputation as a well educated and objective person. ;-)
It sure would be more interesting if someone offered and informed and objective opinion on your post(s).
Mr. Zummo has left the building and I agree with his reasons.
However, my informed and objective objections above stand unaddressed. Plenty to work with, and let's please let Mr. Zummo go in peace.
I actually didn't write this post. I wrote the 2 below. And I must Joe, even if Tom and I don't see eye-to-eye on this one that doesn't mean I'll let you throw him under the bus!
Everyone...EVERYONE needs to take a chill pill on this one. I think we're agreeing more than we realize...we're all just letting a few little mundane points get our panties in a knot.
Well, I don't agree with his reasons at all. Pretty lame to leave without giving a reason...and to let a small little post get the better of him. But yes, I'll let him (and anyone else who wants to leave over this seemingly irrelevant topic) go without another word.
Well, you didn't, exactly, Brad.
;-)
Basically, his greater reason wasn't the issue at hand so much---it's that time and circumstance don't permit his getting involved enough with rebuttals and discussions to be able to feel comfortable professionally with having his name associated such a diverse groupblog.
He tried to leave quietly and without a fuss; 'twas I who announced his departure, and it was my mistake to permit him to become an issue, the last thing he or any principled scholar wants.
I took Joe's attack as being on Berliner, not me, but thx for getting my back.
Well, then may we all wish him the best. From what you said it sounded like he was leaving over this discussion of Columbus, and I frankly thought that to be a lame reason.
But all is well! We'll either agree to disagree or agree that Columbus was both great and terrible...which is my final answer.
Yes, my comment was directed at Berliner, not anyone else. And I don't have a problem with the idea that Columbus' legacy is mixed; though I think that we have to take the bad seriously.
Joe, I apologize misunderstanding your context and for poking fun.
Tom, I apologize for mistaking Brad as the author of the post and complimenting him (back-handed as it was) when it should have been you ;-)
In all seriousness, I find each of you well informed and objective.
Paul,
After reading Tom's explanation for your departure, I also owe you an apology for the prodding. I understand how other commitments take priority over participation here (work before play and such)
ok, onto Berliner ...
Regarding Berliner's words and the comments that followed, I find the comments well reasoned, especially in comparison with portions of Berliner thoughts.
Regarding Berliner's point; "Columbus should be honored, for in so doing, we honor Western civilization."
I agree with this sentiment.
It simply is not necessary to embrace an individuals destructive influences when favoring an individuals constructive contributions. An individual can be honored of the good and shamed for the bad. Particularly if that individual represents one of the major achievements of his day.
Regarding Berliner's follow up; "But the critics do not want to bestow such honor, because their real goal is to denigrate the values of Western civilization and to glorify the primitivism, mysticism, and collectivism embodied in the tribal cultures of American Indians."
Nonsense, and a logical fallacy, I think. Columbus had some attributes that are disgraceful (imo). Pointing those out does not equate to an attack on Western civilization and/or is values.
At the same time, I do feel some regret for some instances regarding how the native north Americans were treated. However, on a large and general scale I don't see much of an alternative. Judging the appropriateness of the actions of those who settled north America by the standards to today doesn't make sense. Once the settler's arrived in this new world and discovered there were natives competing for the resources here, would it be practical to expect them to return to Europe? … if not is there any surprise that they would necessarily complete with the native inhabitants over land and resources?
Columbus appears to have been a bit of a tyrant, but he did bring the knowledge of Europe to the New World. Euclids and Aristotles --or Lockes and Newtons--were not known in the Aztec/mayan/Inca world.
Locke and Newton or their philosophical and scientific equivalents were also unknown in Columbus’s Europe, both of them coming along centuries later.
Columbus’s Europe did know about Euclid and Aristotle, but most of classical learning was preserved through the Middle Ages by Arabian scholars, not Europeans. The same Arabian culture which, in 1492, Isabella and Ferdinand were pushing off the Iberian continent.
bp, no apology necessary :-). I know my comments didn't really contribute anything to the discussion. I was just emoting I guess.
Mr. Bell, I think a deeper dig will find that the Muslim preservation of classical Greece is a tad overrated, although they did have Aristotle. But the West still had Plato, and the Christian tradition was quite hellenized: not only was Paul of Tarsus well versed in the Greek ways, but so was Judaism itself.
Further, by the 12th century or so al-Ghazali's "Incoherence of the Philosophers" had achieved primacy in the Muslim world, and although Ibn Rushd had written a cleverly titled rebuttal "Incoherence of the Incoherence, the mantle of Aristotelianism had passed quite organically to Christendom and Aquinas, where it found a more congenial home in its view of a "reasonable" God. [See logos in John 1 and its effect on Christian thought.]
http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/rep/H002.htm
As for Mr. Abbott's rejection of
Regarding Berliner's follow up; "But the critics do not want to bestow such honor, because their real goal is to denigrate the values of Western civilization and to glorify the primitivism, mysticism, and collectivism embodied in the tribal cultures of American Indians."
...it's one of those "what liberal media?" discussions. That there's an antipathy in the academy toward "dead white males" is a first thing, and disagreement on whether the sky is blue makes any discussion impossible.
We have a president who approvingly quoted his pastor's riff of "white folks’ greed runs a world in need," and in our current bizarro world, we pretend such sentiments don't even exist.
[A google found very little in the "mainstream media," and only Mickey Kaus at slate.com---scroll down---
http://www.slate.com/id/2187358/
even giving it an eyebrow raise outside the rightosphere. We ignored it and elected anyway.]
And Brad, as to your previous assertion that Howard Zinn doesn't have much influence in our schools and universities, I did a quick google and found numerous mentions of him being used as a reference. I just didn't feel like fighting about it, for the reasons I give Mr. Abbott above.
Better to spend one's time refuting the anti-Western thesis than the useless epistemological battle with those who maintain it doesn't even exist in the first place.
Christopher Columbus was charged with murder and rape, and I say it should be proved at the outset and not blandly asserted. His voyage of discovery---OK, "discovery"---which is all the USA as a link with, should not be conflated with the actions of the Spanish Kurtzes in the New World.
TVD writes:
Christopher Columbus was charged with murder and rape, and I say it should be proved at the outset and not blandly asserted. His voyage of discovery---OK, "discovery"---which is all the USA as a link with, should not be conflated with the actions of the Spanish Kurtzes in the New World.
Are you suggesting that Columbus was NOT a violent man and the he DIDN'T commit murder? I think this is a forgone conclusion, which is why it was "blatantly asserted."
I'm not sure what you are getting at here.
Tom commented: "...it's one of those "what liberal media?" discussions. That there's an antipathy in the academy toward "dead white males" is a first thing, and disagreement on whether the sky is blue makes any discussion impossible.
We have a president who approvingly quoted his pastor's riff of "white folks’ greed runs a world in need," and in our current bizarro world, we pretend such sentiments don't even exist.
There certainly are vocal individuals who position themselves on the left and blame society's past errors on the WASPs (and their culture) to their right ... Tom, please correct me if I've misinterpreted your point.
And I agree that Pastor Wright is a good example. Although I don't think there is a racial qualification to be on the left and blame the right aisle of today for errors of the past.
At the same time, there are WASPs to the right who promote similar logical fallacies. In order of appropriateness; Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck come to mind ... not that there is a racial or religious qualification for this group either (and I'm sure referring to Beck as a Protestant is controversial).
In my opinion each of these individuals are activists who are so focused on their goals that the application of improper methods becomes acceptable (perhaps necessary?). I see AC's past contributer OFT, as well as David Barton making the same mistake.
ok, I've certainly said enough to stir the pot, so I'd best stop now ;-)
Looking at Wikipedia, there is some critique of Columbus;
"More recent views of Columbus, particularly those of Native Americans, have tended to be much more critical.[45][46][47] This is because the native Taino of Hispaniola, where Columbus began a rudimentary tribute system for gold and cotton, disappeared so rapidly after contact with the Spanish, due to overwork and especially, after 1519, when the first pandemic struck Hispaniola, [48] European diseases. The native Taino people of the island were systematically enslaved via the encomienda system. The pre-Columbian population is estimated to have been perhaps 250,000-300,000. According to the historian Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdes by 1548, 56 years after Columbus landed, less than five hundred Taino were left on the island.[49] In another hundred years, perhaps only a handful remained. However, some analyses of the question of Columbus' legacy for Native Americans do not clearly distinguish between the actions of Columbus himself, who died well before the first pandemic to hit Hispaniola or the height of the encomienda system, and those of later European governors and colonists on Hispaniola
However, as noted it is not clear if Columbus, as an individual, was responsible or contributed directly toward the death toll.
Looking at the references, it appears to me that there may be a lack of evidence supporting murder and rape, but no lack of evidence for slavery.
Columbus distributed Indian captives among the colonists to work on their plantations and to serve as sex slaves. By 1496, Hispanola's surviving "free" natives had been rendered tributary -- obliged to bring in a quota of gold for every person over the age of fourteen.
Columbus's slaughter and enslavement of Indians troubled the pious Spanish monarchs, who declared in 1500 that the Indians were free and not subject to servitude...
...In addition to killing and enslaving the Taino, Columbus antagonized most of the colonists, who bristled at his domineering manner and hot temper. As a result, violent mutinies and more violent reprisals by Columbus induced the monarchs to revoke his executive authority in 1500.
~Alan Taylor, American Colonies, Pp. 37.
Both the online article, The Racialization of the Taino Indians 1480-1540 - The Extinction of the People Who Greeted Columbus, and the Wikipedia article on the Tainos associate the enslavement and death toll to the Spanish and to disease. I think it is apparent the Spanish were responsible for the fate of the Taíno people. However, it is not clear to me to what degree Columbus contributed.
One example where Columbus is mentioned by name is in the wiki article;
"On Columbus' second voyage, he began to require tribute from the Taínos in Hispaniola. Each adult over 14 years of age was expected to deliver a hawks bell full of gold every three months, or when this was lacking, twenty five pounds of spun cotton. If this tribute was not observed, the Taínos had their hands cut off and were left to bleed to death.."
The best book I have read on the History of Spain takes the Middle road. I commented on this several times in some of my exchanges with Frazer. Their were two different Spains at the time of exploration:
1. Castilian Warrior Culture produced from years of fighting the Moors. They tended to be rural, traditional and dogmatically religious.
2. Aragonian Renaissance Culture produced from the Italian Renaissance that had spread to the coastal parts of Spain. This culture, in my opinion, was the harvest of the seeds planted by Aquinas and company.
The latter had a school in Salmanca Spain in the early 1500's that promoted human rights. My readings, from what I remember state that Columbus taught there. He was part of the latter and the author of the book said it was the Castilians that came with him that did all the pillaging.
I think the the historians name was Elliot. When Ferdinand and Isabella married these two cultures warred for the soul of Spain and which culture would spread to the new world. We all know which culture won out. That is until many of these same ideas were rebirthed in men like Locke and helped found our nation.
Cortez was at this school and dropped out. Things could have been different if these Christian ideas would have won out against other Christian ideas.
Brad,
I only glanced at the posts because I was busy. But I think it is an important topic. Thank you for bringing this up. I think it is so central to the core of the subject of this blog that I tried to engage Dr. Frazer in a discussion about it.
I do think you are correct about the "Conservative Chrsitian" propensity toward murder in the Middle Ages and Age of Exploration. What I think you miss is that those who opposed these ideas were Christians as well. These were the intellectual ancestors of Locke and others. Tom has tried to shift the discussion toward this numerous times but most miss his points.
It is Gary Amos' argument that these Christian Ideas were the same ones used by the writers of the DOI. I will post on this when I get some more time in a few weeks when football ends.
I repeat my opinion that the frame of discussion needs to shift to get to the truth about American Creation.
Thank you, King. Yes, it appears it was the secular [non-religious, political] forces that were at the lead of many of things the church ends up getting blamed for.
I ran across this on the Spanish Inquisition. The author, Thomas F. Madden, seems well-credentialed and well-respected as a medieval historian.
His take is that inquisitions [they'd been around hundreds of years before Spain's] were designed to keep mob rule from burning heretics, using proper theology and procedures.
But
"The power of kings rose dramatically in the late Middle Ages. Secular rulers strongly supported the Inquisition because they saw it as an efficient way to ensure the religious health of their kingdoms. If anything, kings faulted the Inquisition for being too lenient on heretics. As in other areas of ecclesiastical control, secular authorities in the late Middle Ages began to take over the Inquisition, removing it from papal oversight."
"...the constant drumbeat of accusations convinced King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella that the matter of secret Jews should at least be investigated. Responding to their request, Pope Sixtus IV issued a bull...allowing the crown to form an inquisitorial tribunal. Ferdinand...was not at first overly enthusiastic about the whole thing. Two years elapsed before he finally appointed two men. Thus began the Spanish Inquisition.
"...As the Inquisition expanded into Aragon, the hysteria levels reached new heights. Pope Sixtus IV attempted to put a stop to it. On April 18, 1482, he wrote to the bishops of Spain:
In Aragon, Valencia, Mallorca, and Catalonia the Inquisition has for some time been moved not by zeal for the faith and the salvation of souls but by lust for wealth. Many true and faithful Christians...have without any legitimate proof been thrust into secular prisons...deprived of their goods and property and handed over to the secular arm to be executed, to the peril of souls...causing disgust to many.
Sixtus ordered the bishops to take a direct role in all future tribunals... The accused were to have legal counsel and the right to appeal their case to Rome.
* * *
In the Middle Ages, the pope's commands would have been obeyed. But those days were gone. King Ferdinand was outraged when he heard of the letter. He wrote to Sixtus, openly suggesting that the pope had been bribed with converso gold...
In 1483 Ferdinand appointed Tomas de Torquemada as inquistor-general for most of Spain..."
"[T]he Spanish Inquisition...would henceforth be an arm of the Spanish monarchy, separate from ecclesiastical authority. It is odd, then, that the Spanish Inquisition is so often today described as one of the Catholic Church's great sins. The Catholic Church as an institution had almost nothing to do with it.
"The Spanish Inquisition, already established as a bloodthirsty tool of religious persecution, was derided by Enlightenment thinkers as a brutal weapon of intolerance and ignorance. A new, fictional Spanish Inquisition had been constructed, designed by the enemies of Spain and the Catholic Church.
Because it was both professional and efficient, the Spanish Inquisition kept very good records...They are a goldmine for modern historians who have plunged greedily into them. Thus far, the fruits of that research have made one thing abundantly clear the myth of the Spanish Inquisition has nothing at all to do with the real thing."
If it's healthy to question prevailing myths like Columbus, we should also question what may be a prevailing myth about the Inquisition. I'm going to look deeper into this, but Thomas Madden seems to be a proper historian and a fair starting point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Madden
Thomas Madden is currently faculty (professor Medieval Studies) in the History Department at St Louis University, a Catholic Jesuit institution which has a very close association with the Catholic Archdiocese of St. Louis. His professional area of expertise is in the crusades. He served for 8 years as the chair of the department. He is no doubt accomplished and respected.
He doesn’t list the article that you quote from on his academic web page but does on his personal web page, where two non-academic/scholarly articles are noted – it appears that the quotes come from the NRO article:
• The Real Inquisition: Investigating the Popular Myth, National Review Online, June 18, 2004.
• The Truth About the Spanish Inquisition, Crisis Magazine (October 2003).
Neither article contain citations nor have they been critically/peer reviewed, and they appear to be more apologetic than objectively historical.
RE: “…secular authorities in the late Middle Ages began to take over the Inquisition, removing it from papal oversight."
The Church historically sought out entangling alliances with secular powers going back to the Roman Emperors of the third and fourth centuries - both parties finding a mutually, although contentious, relationship that benefited the authority of both. Certainly the purported “secular” authorities in medieval Europe meddled in church affairs and vice versa and there were significant power struggles.
continued below
In these articles Madden is, how to say, somewhat selective in the presentation of data. There’s a resource available that is created and maintained (including copyright) by the American Academy of Research Historians of Medieval Spain that reproduces A History of the Inquisition of Spain, Volume 1, by Henry Charles Lea. It is apparent, and consistent with other scholarly work, that Church and secular ruler(s) broadly partnered in the Spanish Inquisition – because it suited their mutual goals. Although the whole should be read, especially Book 1: Origin and Establishment Chapter 5: The Kingdoms of Aragon, here’s an excerpt:
“At length, on October 9th, Sixtus replied to Ferdinand in a manner to show that he was open to accommodation. The new rules, he said, had been drawn up with the advice of the cardinals deputed for the purpose; they had scattered in fear of the impending pestilence but, when they should return to Rome, he would charge them to consider maturely whether the bull should be amended; meanwhile he suspended it in so far as it contravened the common law, only charging the inquisitors to observe strictly the rules of the common law--the "common law" here being an elastic expression, certain to be construed as the traditional inquisitorial system. (15) Thus the unfortunate Conversos of Aragon, as we shall see hereafter were those of Castile, were merely used as pawns in the pitiless game of king and pope over their despoilment and the merciful prescriptions of the bull of April 18th were only of service in showing that, in his subsequent policy, Sixtus sinned against light and knowledge. What negotiations followed, the documents at hand fail to reveal, but an understanding was inevitable as soon as the two powers could agree upon a division of the spoil. It required a twelvemonth to effect this and in the settlement Ferdinand secured more than he had at first demanded. It was no longer a question of commissioning a fraile to appoint inquisitors at his pleasure, but of including in the organization of the Castilian Inquisition the whole of the Spanish dominions. On October 17,1483, the agreement was ratified by a bull appointing Torquemada as inquisitor of Aragon, Valencia and Catalonia, with power to appoint subordinates. In this, with characteristic [237] shamelessness, Sixtus declares that he is only discharging his duty as pope, while his tender care for the reputation of the Dominicans is manifested by his omitting to prescribe that the local inquisitors should be members of that Order, the only qualification required being that they should be masters in theology. (16)"
continued below
“During the interval, prior to this extension of Torquemada's jurisdiction, there was an incident showing that Sixtus had yielded the appointment of inquisitors, while endeavoring to retain the power of dismissing them. Cristóbal Gualbes, who was acting in Valencia to the entire satisfaction of Ferdinand, became involved in a bitter quarrel with the Archdeacon Mercader for whom, as we have seen, Cardinal Borgia had obtained a papal brief, virtually constituting him an indispensable member of the tribunal--a power which he doubtless used speculatively to the profit of Borgia and himself. It is to the interference of Gualbes with these worthies that we may reasonably attribute the action of Sixtus, who wrote, May 25, 1483, to Ferdinand and Isabella that the misdeeds of Gualbes merited heavy punishment, but he contented himself with removing him and asked them to fill his place with some fitting person on whom he in advance conferred the necessary powers. He evidently felt doubtful as to their acquiescence, for he wrote on the same day to Iñigo Archbishop of Seville, asking him to use his influence to induce the sovereigns to concur in this. (17) Ferdinand was not inclined to abandon Gualbes for, in a letter of August 8th, he orders the Maestre Racional of Valencia to pay to "lo devot religios maestre Gualbes" forty libras to defray his expenses in coming to the king at Córdova and in order that he might without delay return to work. (18) In the final settlement however Gualbes was sacrificed, for when [238] Torquemada was made Inquisitor-general of Aragon, Sixtus expressly forbade him from appointing that son of iniquity Cristóbal Gualbes who, for his demerits, had been interdicted from serving as inquisitor. (19)"
continued below
Even the Catholic Encyclopedia refutes the claim that Ferdinand appointed T, "In 1483 the pope appointed Torquemada*, who had been an assistant inquisitor since 11 February 1482, Grand Inquisitor of Castile, and on 17 October extended his jurisdiction over Aragon.
*(my note)Torquemada was a Catholic Dominican Friar and had served as confessor to Isabella since her youth and was a zealous defender of the Faith and always in good standing with the Church.
Ultimately, the “Real Story” of the Inquisitions and the Spanish Inquisition in particular, is of a RC institution built to defend Orthodoxy and that the “secular” yet God-ordained rulers could use the institution to their advantage - this mutual relationship being advantageous to each. I have failed to find evidence that the Church ever made a concerted effort to withdraw its use of the Holy Office of the Inquisition to the “secular” powers....at least until the 19th century when the office was abolished...well, renamed.
To bring this back around to Columbus, Ferdinand and Isabella looked at the potential wealth that might be generated by his exploits – something Columbus certainly played up. Spain needed an inflow of wealth to help finance the inquisition and reconquista. All three parties were pious, perhaps zealous, and acted within the overarching blessings of the Church.
JRB, your source is from 1905 [Madden argues there is much new evidence], and contains polemic like " In this, with characteristic shamelessness, [Pope} Sixtus blahblahblah."
So please, JRB. The agenda of the author is clear, and indeed he was criticized for his anti-Catholic bias in his day. The interesting thing is that you are clearly not open to Madden's argument, and sought immediately to disprove it rather than explore it.
As for Torquemada's appointment, it seems that Sixtus could have confirmed Ferdinand's nomination and therefore Madden's assertion is not incorrect. Madden's central point is that it was Ferdinand who initiated the Spanish Inquisition, not the Vatican, an argument [or fact] you must first address for a proper understanding of the matter instead of chiseling around the edges of Madden's thesis.
I meself simply wrote I would check Madden's thesis out further for myself, where you're obviously into disproving it, writing things like "Even the Catholic Encyclopedia refutes the claim..."
Your interest in clearly in refutation of the prevailing narrative that the Catholic Church was the bad guys and that there are no extenuating circumstances, or that there are hundreds of years of anti-Catholic mythmaking behind today's popular narrative.
The Church historically sought out entangling alliances with secular powers going back to the Roman Emperors of the third and fourth centuries
Again, you ignore my own initial counterargument, for which I used Madden only in support, that the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investiture_Controversy
of the 1100s and onward had substantally weakened the Church's power in political matters. Otherwise, you're just taking potshots against counterarguments against the narrative you seem to like.
I have failed to find evidence that the Church ever made a concerted effort to withdraw its use of the Holy Office of the Inquisition to the “secular” powers....
I stipulated that from the very first. The problem was not that the Church was too strong, but that it was too weak. A very different argument than the Church-as-sadist or Church-as-oppressor narrative.
Even though this thread is getting long in the tooth, I assume that the bat signal will summon interested parties.
Madden argues there is much new evidence...
But does it dispute the data used by Madden? And I should point out that there is new information and the Vatican did open up its archives and numbers have been re-evaluated - some claim far fewer deaths attributable to the Spanish Inquisition, I believe downgraded to as few as 2,000. But there is also independent evidence for a greater number. But really, this is like Dahmer pleading that he only ate 10 people and not 25. Is is really mitigating? It should also be pointed out that the integrity of Vatican records of the inquisition is compromised - Napoleon seized records that were not returned until some 40-50 years later.
The agenda of the author is clear..
You are shameless. Attacking the author rather than his work while using an author that makes unsubstantiated assertions to bolster your unsubstantiated assertions. If you can't beat the argument beat the messenger.
...where you're obviously into disproving it, writing things like "Even the Catholic Encyclopedia refutes the claim..."
Duh. I challenged the author's casual use of "facts" that are even at odds with the Church. I should add that the author is at odds with secular scholarship also. But of course secular facts have their own bias.
Your interest in clearly in refutation of the prevailing narrative that the Catholic Church was the bad guys and that there are no extenuating circumstances, or that there are hundreds of years of anti-Catholic mythmaking behind today's popular narrative.
Again with the blanket assertion of myth to dispel inconvenient data. My interest is in maintaining some semblance of rigor. Saying something doesn't make it so.
...against counterarguments against the narrative you seem to like.
The narrative that I like is the one that fits most readily with the facts.
The problem was not that the Church was too strong, but that it was too weak.
The Church was in an uneasy relationship with the secular authorities, each representing a legitimacy that the other didn't have. The Church struggled to assert its position and the secular authorities struggled to assert its position. You can see that in the exchange of correspondence.
Regardless, even if the Church was in a subordinate position during the period of the Spanish Inquisition and Spanish imperialism, it could have withdrawn its institution and representatives (the Holy Office of the Inquisition) from participation. It didn't.
New Advent - "...the predominant ecclesiastical nature of the institution can hardly be doubted. The Holy See sanctioned the institution, accorded to the grand inquisitor canonical installation and therewith judicial authority concerning matters of faith, while from the grand inquisitor jurisdiction passed down to the subsidiary tribunals under his control. Joseph de Maistre introduced the thesis that the Spanish Inquisition was mostly a civil tribunal; formerly, however, theologians never questioned its ecclesiastical nature. Only thus, indeed, can one explain how the Popes always admitted appeals from it to the Holy See, called to themselves entire trials and that at any stage of the proceedings, exempted whole classes of believers from its jurisdiction, intervened in the legislation, deposed grand inquisitors, and so on. (See TOMÁS DE TORQUEMADA.)
If you have evidence that the Church tried to withdraw from the process please let me know.
- continued below
As to the Spanish conquest of the Americas, there were contemporary voices within the umbrella of the Church that spoke out against the brutality of the treatment of indigenous peoples (look up Francisco de Vitoria and/or Bartolomé de las Casas). I guess that would show their obvious bias too. Although the problem of the 21st (20th, 19, 18th, 17th) century lens distortion problem is corrected. But what of the voice of the Church proper?
I am not trying to bury the Church - we had an amicable separation some time ago and still keep in touch.
"ethnic diversity days"...if that isn't the ultimate in PC than what is haha?
what is the bible?
Post a Comment