tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post5244112483870646274..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Land of Confusion: The Delusions and Realities of New World ColonizationBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-31114296734119512952011-02-03T22:00:54.641-07:002011-02-03T22:00:54.641-07:00Greed, oppression, race, class, and gender have a ...<i>Greed, oppression, race, class, and gender have a part in that narrative. So do curiousity, nobility, and idealism. Of course, I think we all understand that idealism can be as destructive as greed.</i><br /><br />Interesting argument, that greed and idealism are opposite sides of the same coin.<br /><br />There is of course a third option, doing nothing and taking what comes your way, good or bad. There are some folks who think that's virtuous. ;-)Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-10652508195714280882011-02-03T21:00:47.458-07:002011-02-03T21:00:47.458-07:00In 1492, there was some bad stuff going on in Spai...In 1492, there was some bad stuff going on in Spain. It wasn't just the conquest of the new world that brought the horrors.<br /><br />But any narrative that asks, "What motivated the colonization of the new world?" will miss the point if there is an assumption that there is a simgle motivation and a single narrative. Greed, oppression, race, class, and gender have a part in that narrative. So do curiousity, nobility, and idealism. Of course, I think we all understand that idealism can be as destructive as greed.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12165084874363214919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-42437955304003923752011-02-03T17:32:48.210-07:002011-02-03T17:32:48.210-07:00To the rest of Lee's comment, the question isn...To the rest of Lee's comment, the question isn't the savagery of European civilization, it was what men did after they were removed from its judgment and control. Think Kurtz in "Heart of Darkness" returning to savagery. Or Marlon Brando as Kurtz in "Apocalypse Now," same story adapted.<br /><br />The horror.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-53200613903947620082011-02-03T12:32:47.614-07:002011-02-03T12:32:47.614-07:00Mr. Square makes some exc points to return to.
In...Mr. Square makes some exc points to return to.<br /><br />In the meantime, the "Black Legend" is a semi-formal term, describing the anti-Spanish [and anti-Catholic] telling of history by the English and Protestant world, the echoes of which persist even to today:<br /><br /><i>The Black Legend (Spanish: La Leyenda Negra) refers to a tradition of history writing that demonizes Spain and in particular the Spanish empire, by exaggerating the cruelty and violence with which the Spanish empire treated the indigenous colonial subjects in the colonies and religious and political minorities within their political dominion in Europe such as Protestants and Jews.[1][2] The term was coined by Julián Juderías in his 1914 book La leyenda negra y la verdad histórica (The Black Legend and Historical Truth), which sparked a tradition of pro-Spanish history writing, especially within Spain, but also in the Americas. This tradition which describes the Spanish empire as particularly benevolent and interested in the just treatment of its subjects has sometimes been referred to as the "White legend".</i><br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_LegendTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-23345814644926807202011-02-03T11:09:10.128-07:002011-02-03T11:09:10.128-07:00I am just getting into an interesting book that to...I am just getting into an interesting book that touches on some of the issues of this post and the comments-- Jack Greene's <i>The Intellectual Construction of America: Exceptionalism and Identity, 1492-1800</i>. He argues that Europeans attempted to understand the New World and its inhabitants in terms of the world from which they had come. Greene notes (as per TVD) that some Spaniards such as de las Casas, Francisco de Vitoria, and Jose de Acosta developed more nuanced views of the Amerindians. But even these men saw them as candidates for eventual civilization and Christianization that would result in the transformation or destruction of their culture. Most Europeans, however, interpreted the Amerindians in traditional categories of barbarians and heathens who lacked government and civilization. And for some Europeans, New World conditions even explained the barbarism to which Spaniards descended in their conquests. Greene closes his first chapter with the observation that “As the black legend of Spanish cruelty circulated widely through Europe during the late 16th century, America came more and more to be viewed as a place of cultural regress, for natives and immigrants alike, a place that was almost wholly barren of culture and that was important chiefly for the riches it yielded in such abundance for the benefit of a Europe that was the exclusive seat of civilized life.” <br /><br />And so the race for colonization began.<br /><br />--Leesecularsquarehttp://secularsquare.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-90868063519289875092011-02-02T21:41:42.607-07:002011-02-02T21:41:42.607-07:00”The anti-Federalisrts are the footnotes. - Tom
W...<i>”The anti-Federalisrts are the footnotes. - Tom<br /><br />Wait a second. How about the Bill of Rights?</i><br /><br />The Bill of Rights is where they appear in the text. You have to have a starting point in the text for a footnote.<br /><br />;-)<br /><br /><i>There was opposition to ratification from a movement called the "anti-Federalists*," enough of whom were "bought off" by the Federalists with a promise that the House would devise what eventually became the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights.</i><br />_____________<br /><br />*The anti-Federalists were a loosely-organized opposition to ratification, with various complaints, some that the Constitution didn't restrict the federal government enough, others that the Constitution wasn't religious enough.<br /><br />The promise of a Bill of Rights assuaged the former and assured ratification; the latter were told to go suck eggs and were left behind in their own religious dust to hassle the unitarians.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-16790160736823249802011-02-02T21:13:25.501-07:002011-02-02T21:13:25.501-07:00”The anti-Federalisrts are the footnotes. - Tom
W...<i>”The anti-Federalisrts are the footnotes.</i> - Tom<br /><br />Wait a second. How about the Bill of Rights?Jason Pappashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18233796281520274898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-3841261803350959762011-02-02T21:05:15.167-07:002011-02-02T21:05:15.167-07:00Brad, most of your examples describe Spanish polic...Brad, most of your examples describe Spanish policy--a particularly harsh policy of plunger and conquest in the 16th century. Your two main English examples are before successful English colonial establishments. Towards the end you address English colonization and your point on expectations versus reality is a good one. <br /><br />However, I would tend to view the plunder of the Conquistadors as something very different than the English colonial activity of working the land and producing one’s own wealth. The general difference suggests they shouldn’t be lumped together. No?Jason Pappashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18233796281520274898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-68102962879119683612011-02-02T21:04:33.636-07:002011-02-02T21:04:33.636-07:00Thx, Joe. This opens a fascinating and needed met...Thx, Joe. This opens a fascinating and needed meta-discussion on telling history itself.<br /><br />My own starting point is reading academic-oriented blogs like these<br /><br />usreligion.blogspot.com<br /><br />http://us-intellectual-history.blogspot.com/<br /><br />There's a war going on between the new "marxists" who tell history through the prism of raceclassgender---and I think "forensic anthropology" is a good nonpejorative term---and the "Whig" theory of Gordon Wood, bailyn, et al., that seeks to find the "normative," the "consensus" that history moved forward upon.<br /><br />For instance, the anti-Federalists are of interest, but it's the Federalists---the Framers and the Ratifiers---who wrote American History. The anti-Federalisrts are the footnotes. <br /><br />Re Brad's post and my "Whig" rebuttal to it, the structural problem is that through 21st century eyes, most all of our historical "greats" are wanting and defective in some way. As Joe points out right here, de las Casas himself is not without "sin," and he's one of the good guys.<br /><br />The problem becomes when we wring our hands over raceclassgender, we find so many demons that we ignore the "better angels" of history. This is the trap, a skeptical, even nihilistic trap: we can chronicle endlessly how America fell short of its ideal that "all men are created equal," but the real story and the real miracle of history is that we came up with it at all, and sometimes even tried to live up to it.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-44202362219388085432011-02-02T20:40:41.139-07:002011-02-02T20:40:41.139-07:00Brad,
You gotta read Eliiot's book on the his...Brad,<br /><br />You gotta read Eliiot's book on the history of Spain. It brings out the other side that Tom is talking about with Las Casas. Another good book in "Admiral of the Ocean Sea" in that is brings to light that most of a-holes that enslaved and killed the Caribs were old Conquistadors that Ferdinand made Columbus take. I think Columbus personally kidcapped one or two people to bring them home and then took them back. <br /><br /><br />He did bring up slavery for sure but their idea of slavery and ours today is different. Many thought it was noble to conquer them and make them more civilized. Las Casas on others of the Salmanca tradition set a lot of this straight. <br /><br />Las Casas was Columbus biggest fan yet harshest critic depending on what he did. <br /><br />As I stated before, Cortes dropped out of Salmanca. What if?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13525858551867530960noreply@blogger.com