Columbus's first excited letter home goes on sale

General Custard

LOL - that IS a typo? albeit apropos

RE Columbus:

What other great men from American history ...

The whole point is that Columbus was NOT a great man - he is celebrated for what he didn't do - "discover America" and not recognized for the genocide he orchestrated and carried out, every bit as atrocious and bestial as Hitler...

You want to excuse this and equate his murderous rampage with "George Washington owned slaves. " and "Abe Lincoln did not willingly want to free the slaves" (revisionist?) and "Davy Crockett killed Indians" etc???

You are disingenuous, either deliberately or through ignorance. Not mine to discern which...

Truly astounding postulation

Not in the least. In fact, I don't see how any rational person could assert otherwise. Name a more fundamentally important individual achievement than causing the populations of the Earth's two hemispheres to become aware of each other.

Possibly the invention of the printing press was more important; I'll grant that. Probably the teachings of Jesus or Mohammed. Maybe the writings of Marx. There might be one or two other accomplishments that changed the world at that level, but there can't be many.

(But of course, what you really mean is not that it wasn't important, but that you don't like it. To each his own. If it makes you feel better, there's a lot of really important stuff that I just hate.)

What other great men from American history can we defame for their actions that were the social norm of the time?

First off, he is not defaming these men by reporting the actual events and actions in which they participated or led. If it is true, then it is not slander.

Secondly, if we are to excuse their actions because it was 'the social norm of the time', then does that means we must also excuse men like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi because beheading infidels is their 'social norm'.

the above is a small and milder part of what was done to the Indians.

And is mild compared to what the Indians were doing to themselves. Quoting other eyewitnesses:

"Every day they sacrificed before our eyes three, four, or five Indians, whose hearts were offered to those idols, and whose blood was plastered on the walls. The feet, arms, and legs of their victims were cut off and eaten, just as we eat beef from the butcher's in our country. I even believe that they sold it in the tianguez or markets."
[Emperor Montezuma's servants prepared for their master] "more than thirty dishes cooked in their native style ... I have heard that they used to cook him the flesh of young boys. But as he had such a variety of dishes, made of so many different ingredients, we could not tell whether a dish was of human flesh or anything else ... I know for certain, however, that after our Captain spoke against the sacrifice of human beings and the eating of their flesh, Montezuma ordered that it should no longer be served to him."
" ... The manner of their [that is, the Aztecs'] sacrifices: They strike open the wretched Indian's chest with flint knives and hastily tear out the palpitating heart which, with the blood, they present to the idols in whose name they have performed the sacrifice. Then they cut off the arms, thighs, and head, eating the arms and thighs at their ceremonial banquets. The head they hang up on a beam, and the body of the sacrificed man is not eaten but given to the beasts of prey."
"... The great market of Tenochtitlan, and its dealers in gold, silver, and precious stones, feather, cloaks, and embroidered goods, and male and female slaves who are also sold there. They bring as many slaves to be sold in that market as the Portuguese bring Negroes from Guinea. Some are brought there attached to long poles by means of collars round their necks to prevent them from escaping, but others are left loose."
"Among these were three [Algonquin] women, of whom the narrator was one, who had each a child of a few weeks or months old. At the first halt, their captors [the Iroquois] took the infants from them, tied them to wooden spits, placed them to die slowly before a fire, and feasted on them before the eyes of the agonized mothers, whose shrieks, supplications, and frantic efforts to break the cords that bound them were met with mockery and laughter ..."

LOL, yes, that is a typo.

Columbus may not have been the first to discover America, but his discovery IS the one that counts.

Look, at that time period, the native inhabitants of the Americas were not seen as being totally human. Of course that is wrong, and is absolutely intolerable today. That is how things were. Things have since changed for the better. Nitpicking through history is not going to change anything.

The killing of a few hundred, even a few thousand people is not genocide. It is murder, but not genocide.

Definition:

gen·o·cide n.

The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

By definition, what Columbus and his men did does not qualify as genocide, but more along the lines of mass murder, two very different, but very bad things.

Who is to say that the natives did not themselves instigate hostilities? Were YOU there? No? Did Columbus do these things himself, or were his men the perpetrators? Were they done on his actual orders, or simply done on a group level outside of the chain of command. His journal is a collection of thoughts, and cannot be taken as literally taking place, because it can't be proven. There were many people who had an axe to grind with Columbus at that time, and certainly there are people alive today who have a problem with him. No one can verify the numbers that the Spaniards killed or enslaved, it happened in the 15th and 16th centuries. Those number are not accurate, period.

If we are going to judge people on their faults, there would be no one person in history portrayed in a positive light today, except Christ himself. Does it really matter what he did or did not do? No, what matters is what is perceived. People don't care about the literal truth, they like their heres. Paul Revere did not get far on his midnight ride, someone else did. Does that matter either?

The United States Army killed far more indians under orders from their generals and the presidents than Columbus and his men did, and I don't hear you ragging on them.

I am not being disingenuous at all. Columbus did NOT discover America, and he did have people killed. Just not to the level you are taking it, in addition to none of the speculation that you offered being verifiable. All that matters is perception. We will celebrate him any way. Too bad for those who don't like it. Far too often, the people who are against Columbus are liberal academics, so it is strange to find a dissenter on a conservative site.

The problem is that these actions and events cannot be proven, witnesses can't be taken as reliable sources, and is one-sided. No one will be able to prove what had actually took place accurately, and should therefore the Columbus that we know should be given the benefit of doubt.

Again, it does not matter whether Columbus did or did not discover America, what matters is what people perceive. I am sick of seeing everything I have been taught to be right and to believe in as good and to be proud of, being chipped away at by all of these modern sudo-historians. I especially take offense when it is American history being attacked.

As for social norm, it should be seen in the light of what behavior is condoned at the specific time of the actions taking place, by the greatest amount of people at that specific time. It is hard to explain, almost like being utilitarian. Terrorism in our time is not condoned, but slavery and murder of non-Christians at that time period was, unfortunately.

Just not to the level you are taking it, in addition to none of the speculation that you offered being verifiable.

Why is not the historical, eye witness accounts written by persons who were 'on the scene" not just as 'verifiable' as the cleaned up version written by Columbus...who was, ultimately, hauled back to Spain in chains?

I am not "offering speculation": - I am merely copy/pasting direct from the text of De Las Casa's and other historical accounts.

some links:

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/philosophers/las_casas.html

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1975/6/1975_6_4.shtml

The killing of a few hundred, even a few thousand people is not genocide. It is murder, but not genocide.

In two years, through murder, mutilation, or suicide, half of the 250,000 Indians on Haiti were dead. ...............By the year 1515, there were perhaps fifty thousand Indians left. By 1550, there were five hundred. A report of the year 1650 shows none of the original Arawaks or their descendants left on the island.

This is not genocide?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/Columbus_PeoplesHx.html

The killing and enslaving of the Indians was done against the explicit orders of the king and queen - who believed Columbus's whitewashed accounts. When they found out different, they were not amused.'

I know King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella were against the slaughter of innocents, they learned that all too well against the Moores.

I did not mean it to be that you were personally posting speculation, but rather that of another, De Las Casa in this case, as a witness. Witnesses, especially going back that far in time are not real credible. In today's court, any lawyer with half of a brain can make them look like fools, even if they are telling the truth.

What I am saying is that who are we to know whether or not De Las Casa can be trusted, and how do we know he did not have something personal against Columbus in the first place? I am not disagreeing with you for it's own sake, I simple believe that Columbus is being vilified to a degree that is likely to exceed any of the actions that he did actually commit, and we do not know, and never will know for sure what happened. I think we should give Columbus the benefit of the doubt that he was not as bad a person as some make him out to be.

BTW, I am a Knight of Columbus, and it is actually my duty to stand up for him. Otherwise, I would have not even entered this discussion. I am at work right now, and I really don't have the time to search or post for supporting articles, thats why I am only engaging in rhetorical/philosophical arguments here. I will look over the links you just posted when I get home.

I don't consider the Columbus story to be "American" history. This is European-Caribean history. That may be pettifogging, but that's just how I feel. In my mind, "American" history did not start for another ~200 years with the first successful colony in New England.

I agree that it does not matter whether Columbus did or did not discover America. It also does not matter what people perceive. What matters is the truth as best it can be determined.

I fail to understand how you can say that 'witnesses can't be taken as reliable sources'. This would suggest that we cannot rely on any history. Although we can't always decipher the emotions and intent of historical figures, we do have fairly good evidence on their actions.

It has been fairly well proven that Leif Erickson was in North America long before Columbus. It is also accepted as fact that colonization and exploitation (not intended as a negative) did not begin until after Columbus rediscovered and promoted the New World.

What is condoned at a specific time by the greatest amount of people at that specific time, although certainly a consideration, is not a valid basis for judging the character of people living in that time. We honor the Christian martyrs of the Roman period not because they went with the norm, but because they gave their lives instead of going with the norm.

Would you not condemn the crucifixion of Jesus, even though that was condoned behavior accepted by the majority of people at that time.

I'm have no goal of tearing down Columbus. He was brave and succeeded in his mission where many, many before him had failed. But as we celebrate his success, we would do well to also reflect on his shortcomings and the shortcomings of his era.

The Scandinavian side of my family always pushes Leif, my grandpa has a shirt with Leif Eriksen saluting Columbus with ale and saying "Welcome Mr. Columbus" :)

I agree with your post for the most part, but differ on two things:

I do consider the story of Columbus to be an American story, it is already so ingrained in our culture, but he is the one who really set the tone for the later explorers, and the real important colonization expeditions.

The other is on witnesses. I feel that if there is a general consensus of multiple witnesses, it is ok, but relying on one man alone I don't feel is a good idea, or a very reliable one.

I believe the crucifixion of Christ would have happened whether the people of the time condoned it or not, because such power did command it. I do see your point though.

I tend to think there is too much focus on the negatives in our society, and not enough on the good. Sometimes it is best just to let the people believe what they will, whether it is based in fact or not, without outside forces trying to change their views. People like Columbus I think should just be left alone, as Monday morning quarterbacking does no one any good.

"I'm have no goal of tearing down Columbus. He was brave and succeeded in his mission where many, many before him had failed. But as we celebrate his success, we would do well to also reflect on his shortcomings and the shortcomings of his era."

Why? Why do we have to focus on his shortcomings. What good is it going to do us today? None. It is just another attempt to cut down great men and heroes. It is a way of trying to make them just "ordinary", or worse. What is it about some people's psyche that makes them need to tear down a country's idols? How are you getting off on it? What is YOUR problem that you feel the need to do it.

In the days of Columbus, the norms were not our modern norms and you just can't judge history by today's moral standards. Does not compute. Square peg in round hole. And you guys all know it, but you compulsively try to do it anyhow because of your own unhealthy psychological needs to either feel morally superior, or to cut down someone who was great because you yourselves are so ordinary, or for some other sicko reason. I'm tired of all the political correctness, of which this is yet just another manifestation. Can the baloney.

Anyone who indulges in this is not a patriot for this country and its heroes. Maybe you are foreigners commenting on this and that's why you love the attack. In particular if you are from South America or Mexico. But I reject your elitist and, I might add, apparently liberal mind-bent. Whether or not Columbus and the explorers that followed him to the Americas were nice guys or not, will never negate their discoveries, the risks they took, nor the greatness of the West that they helped to settle. Stop the self-hatred for this country. It's not healthy. Wrong website for that.

Look, everything written has a bias of some sort. We have no way of knowing if De Las Casas was the Teddy Kennedy of his era.

Imagine your great-great-great-great-great grandkids looking back at Howard Dean's comments and taking them as the truth about today's USMC and their actions in Iraq. There's little difference.

What matters is not that a Viking MAY have arrived sooner or that an Irish monk might have gotten lost in his boat and arrived before Columbus. What does matter is that Columbus arrived and was the first to actually share the information that yes, indeed there was a "new world."

His trip took guts and faith.

As for the subjugation of the folks he ran into when he arrived - well, what do you expect? This was a military force that was sent to find, claim and conquer any new territory for Spain.

Columbus completed the mission, got back alive and lived to tell the world about it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.