Posted on 10/12/2009 11:45:15 AM PDT by Ed Hudgins
Many critics argue that Christopher Columbus gave us a devil's bargain. In October 1492 that Italian explorer, working for Spain, opened America to his fellow Europeans. The result: we got a prosperous New World by impoverishing, enslaving and murdering the natives who were already here.
But this view fails to distinguish between two types of exploitation—one over other humans and the other over nature: the former which should be expunged from our moral codes and civilized society, the latter which is the essence of morality and civilization.
The former form of exploitation was suffered especially by the tens of millions of individuals who inhabited the pre-Columbian lands from Mexico through South America. Cortes the Conquistador, for example, defeated the Aztec rulers of Mexico. Many of the tribes that were subject to the Aztecs sided with Cortes; they hated the Aztecs for, among other things, their practice of cutting the living hearts out of members of tribes that they subjugated, as sacrifices to their gods. Cortes imposed his rule on the Aztecs and their subjects alike, replacing one tyranny with another. The natives were treated harshly and many forced to work as de facto or actual slaves for their new masters.
On the other hand, many settlers, especially in North America which had far fewer natives, took a different path. They came to the New World to build their own lives. They did not prosper by conquering other men but, rather, by conquering nature. They had to clear the land, plant and sow crops. They had to practice the trades of carpenters, masons, loggers, miners, blacksmiths and tailors to build their towns and to create the necessities for life and prosperity. In the centuries that followed, their descendents—including Americans today—built the richest, most prosperous country on Earth…
(Excerpt) Read more at atlassociety.org ...
It may sound harsh, but the Indians always chose to fight first. They were the ones who thought kindness was a weakness. So, when the fight began, we knocked the piss out of them then extended a helping hand.
OTOH, the Spanish and Portugese colonization methods had a place, even if of exploited and inferior status, for natives in their society.
The British method of colonization required pushing the natives off their land so they could exploit nature without their interference.
It is a fact that in many (not all) Latin American socities the descendants of the natives are more thoroughly integrated into society than are the descendants of North American natives.
On the other other hand, there is no “Indian problem” in Argentina. During the 19th century, they just killed them all.
Looked at it another way, the Spanish freed Mexico from the oppression of the Aztecs (who needed perpetual war and tribute in order to acquire prisoners to sacrifice). . .
(Meaning, let’s not act as if the Americas were an unblighted Eden ... )
True enough.
BTW, many of the tribes the Aztecs took this tribute from practices human sacrifice themselves. They didn’t object to the practice, they would just have preferred it be performed on someone else.
Many like to overintellectiualize the voyage of Columbus and cast him as a bad guy but he was just a man of his time trying to find a new sailing route and make a profit and a name for himself. He was willing to work harder and more ready to place his life and future at risk than were others. That is why he was the first European of his time to make the voyage and report his discoveries.
Columbus certainly didn’t start out with the intent of finding unkown indigenous people so the rulers of European nations could exploit them but he wouldn’t have been surprised to see it happen. If he had not made the voyage someone else would have and history would be little different.
Prevailing standards of conduct were much different then and it is meaningless to judge conduct 500 years ago by the standards of today. Rulers and adventurers of that time would laugh at the namby-pamby sensibilities of today’s leaders and the profitable Victimology Industry that has been created in the west.
At least the exploiters of the Columbian era were honest about motivation - they wanted to profit from their actions and would have been amused at any suggestion they should not.
The leaders of the modern western Victimology Industry posture as altruist protectors of others. They claim to be motivated by selfless concern for others when in fact much of their motivation is the same as it has been through the ages; they want recognition, advancement, attainment of personal goals and profit in one form or another.
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.