Skip to main content

Christopher Columbus:


Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

The Christian Crusades had ended in 1291, the Black Death had been deliberately blamed on innocent Jews who said what their Christian torturers forced them to, that they poisoned water wells, causing the Black Death. Of course, the real cause was in the stomachs of fleas, not planetary alignment, earthquakes, or God's Judgment. Nonetheless, the extermination of European Jews began in 1348 again, along with a key notorious origin of Manifest Destiny.

Crossposted at Native American Netroots



Source

But no sooner had the plague ceased than we saw the contrary . . . [People] gave themselves up to a more shameful and disordered life than they had led before.... Men thought that, by reason of the fewness of mankind, there should be abundance of all produce of the land; yet, on the contrary, by reason of men's ingratitude, everything came to unwonted scarcity and remained long thus; nay, in certain countries . .

Christopher Columbus was born in 1451, barely over a century later in the city - state of Genoa, Italy after the newest Christian Campaign to exterminate the European Jews. Columbus educated himself, and his father was a wool merchant (3). Columbus was a map maker and a sailor in his forties; consequently, he knew that the world was round. What were three of the motivations that led him to set sail on August 3, 1492 on the Pinta, the Nina, and the Santa Maria from the "Southern Spanish port of Palos?" Greed for gold, capitalistic greed through the potential of wealth through the slave trade, and the religious beliefs of Apocalyptic Christianity were three primary motivations Columbus had for setting sail; consequently, which fueled genocide against tens of millions of Indigenous People.

One of Columbus's motivations was greed for gold, which he acquired on the Gold Coast in the Portuguese colony (3).



Christopher Columbus: The Untold Story

Christopher Columbus:

"Gold is most excellent; gold is treasure, and he who possesses it does all he wishes to in this world." [2]
 

Another of Columbus's motives for making the journey was his capitalistic greed through the potential of wealth through the slave trade, which resulted in more and more slavery because of the desire for sugar and led to the atrocities of the Middle Passage.



Source

Sugar cane was the number one crop that produced the growth for Europe. It was brought to the New World from Spain by Christopher Columbus, later shipped to the rest of Europe. The growing sugar industry called for the usage of African slaves. Also the African slave labor and the plantations are what formed the Americas. The work that was performed on the plantations which, produced large quantities of sugar, created an even greater need for slaves, by the enslaved Africans brought to the Atlantic World by the Middle Passage.



Here is a map that provides a good overview.


The religious beliefs of Apocalyptic Christianity were yet another one of Columbus' motivations for setting sail; consequently, it was the most illogical motivation he possessed. For his greed for gold could be coldly construed as a more practical reason, except for all of the Indigenous People he would in the future have to exterminate to get it, which he probally did not yet know of at the time. He had only ventured to the Gold Coast. His use of the slave trade for monetary gain was illogical enough, for it denied the very humanity of the African People and the Indigenous People that he would force into slavery; however, his beliefs regarding Apocalyptic Christianity were projected outwards towards the entire world.



Source

During those same long centuries they had further expressed their ruthless intolerance of all persons and thugs that were non-Christian by conducting pogroms against the Jews who lived among them and whom they regarded as the embodiment of the Antichrist imposing torture exile and mass destruction on those who refused to succumb to evangelical persuasion.


Columbus was possessed with the obsession that Christ would return only if the Gospel was spread far and wide. Apocalyptic Christianity taught him: that either a savior in human form would prepare the way for Christ to return in the midst of a war between good and evil and history would end; or, that after the earth suffers dire consequences, evil would increase while love would decrease, then Christ would return with the Final Judgment and end history; or, that a period of peace would precede the Final Judgment. During this "period of peace," the Jews would be converted, while "the heathens would be either converted or annihilated." I think the latter best reflects Columbus's personal view of Apocalyptic Christianity. I will state why after a couple less known facts in order to set up a contrast.

The Indigenous People very well may have had a much better future then and history now if  Christopher Columbus had perished in the Atlantic on February 14, 1493. For the first European to land in America was Leif Ericson, a Viking seaman from Greenland (see Ericson). The ancient sagas give different accounts of this voyage made in the year 1000.



As for contacts of New World peoples with Europe, the sole early ones involved the Norse who occupied Greenland in very small numbers between A.D. 986 and about 1500. But these Norse visits had no discernible impact on Native American societies. (2)


The Norse left "no discernable impact." I cannot answer why that is, except to note that Viking voyages decreased and ended during the slow process of the Christianization of Scandinavia. So by contrast, Columbus had an enormous impact that is more far reaching than he could have imagined. Ironic indeed, since he grossly underestimated the earth's size prior to setting sail. For example, "He thought that Japan lay only three thousand miles from the southern European Coast (3)."  He may then have also grossly underestimated the sheer mass numbers of Indigenous Population in the lands he did not first discover in the Americas. No matter though, for such "heathens" would either have to be "converted or annihilated."

To be sure, the real annihilations did not start until the beginning of Columbus' second voyage to the Americas in 1493 (1).  For while he had expressed admiration for the overall  generosity of Indigenous People (1) and considered the Tainos to be "Very handsome, gentle, and friendly," he interpreted all these positive traits as signs of weakness and vulnerability, saying "if devout religious persons knew the Indian Language well, all these people would soon become Christians (3)." As a consequence, he kidnapped some of the Tainos and took them back to Spain.



It would be easy, he asserted, to "subject everyone and make them do what you wished (3)."
 


Indeed, he did subject everyone he had the power to subject.



Source

On his second voyage, in December 1494, Columbus captured 1,500 Tainos on the island of Hispaniola and herded them to Isabela, where 550 of ''the best males and females'' were forced aboard ships bound for the slave markets of Seville.

Under Columbus's leadership, the Spanish attacked the Taino, sparing neither men, women nor children. Warfare, forced labor, starvation and disease reduced Hispaniola's Taino population (estimated at one million to two million in 1492) to extinction within 30 years.



Furthermore, Columbus wrote a letter to the Spanish governor of the island, Hispaniola. Columbus asked the governor the cut off the ears and the noses of any of the slaves who resisted being subjugated to slavery.


...It is estimated that 100 million Indians from the Caribbean, Central, South, and North America perished at the hands of the European invaders. Sadly, unbelievably, really, much of that wholesale destruction was sanctioned and carried out by the Roman Catholic Church and various Protestant denominations. (1: p.37)



Greed for gold, capitalistic greed through the potential of wealth through the slave trade, and the religious beliefs of Apocalyptic Christianity were three primary motivations Columbus had for setting sail. He was successful in his aims, which fueled genocide against tens of millions of Indigenous People.  He was successful in promoting and aiding in establishing slavery by bringing sugar to Europe and to the New World from Spain, which created the evil necessity in the eyes of some of humanity's greatest criminals for the Middle Passage, where slaves packed like cargo between decks often had to lie in each other's feces, urine, and blood.

Columbus' "successes," all crimes against humanity, are now more so in these modern times. A day is now in his honor since 1971 (4). That's one success.  Here are more of Columbus' "successes" from a book I highly recommend buying.



Unlearning the Language of Conquest: Scholars Expose Anti-Indianism in America (Paperback) by Four Arrows (Don Trent Jacobs) (Editor). p. 237.

As Moyers pointed out, this "mentality" and blind acceptance of biblical inerrancy, which contributed to the genocide of American Indians during Columbus' time, has, in many ways, continued and continues to inform U.S. foreign policy, including its dealings with its own sovereign Indian Nations.
 


Christopher Columbus :

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

(Bold mine)



Christopher Columbus: The Untold Story

"We shall take you and your wives and your children, and shall make slaves of them, and as such shall sell and dispose of them as their Highnesses may command; and we shall take away your goods, and shall do all the harm and damage that we can." [11]


Source

Mark Twain:

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

Indigenous peoples from the Arctic have long argued that global warming was having a dramatic effect on their environment.

Native Alaska Villages will probably have to relocate, because the ice is melting underneath them.



Opinion: Why Natives must reject Columbus Day

If Native people do not challenge the fundamental premise of the ''doctrine of discovery,'' as celebrated every year through Columbus Day, then the racist foundation upon which all federal Indian law and policy is constructed will remain intact. We see the ideology of domination carried to this hemisphere by Columbus playing out every year all over Indian country. We see it in the level of Indian incarceration, in the loss of religious freedom cases, in Indian child welfare cases where non-Indian courts ignore the law, in treaty cases where the United States ignores international standards, in international practice where the United States voted against the adoption of the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and in the Cobell trust fund case where the United States refuses to account for tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars that are owed to Individual Indian Money trust accounts."

Sources:


(1): Kurt Kaltreider, PH.D. "American Indian Prophecies." pp. 49-57.

(2): Jared Diamond. "Guns, Germs, And Steel." pp. 67, 79.

(3): Norton. Katzman. Escott. Chudacoff. Paterson. Tuttle. "A People & A Nation." pp. 20 - 23.

(4): Four Arrows (Don Trent Jacobs). "Unlearning the Language of Conquest." pp. 20, 236, 31, 275.
 

Originally posted to Winter Rabbit on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 02:27 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  As a Norwegian, I was always (5+ / 0-)

    taught that Leif Erikson discovered America.  Should we cede the point?

  •  On the one hand (14+ / 0-)

    we shouldn't blame people for being of their time and sharing the defects of their culture.  On the other hand ... yeah, Columbus was not the sort of man we should heroize, and the discovery of the New World by the old should be mourned at least as much as it's celebrated.

    I'd like to see Andrew Jackson taken of our currency, too.  Talk about genocidal racists.

    "I don't think I intended to break the law." - Monica Goodling

    by Bob Love on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 02:34:32 PM PDT

  •  Sheridan memorials. (5+ / 0-)

    Source
    Fort Sheridan in Illinois was named to honor General Sheridan's many services to Chicago.

    The M551 Sheridan tank is named after General Sheridan.

    Mt. Sheridan in Yellowstone National Park was named for Sheridan by Captain John W. Barlow in 1871.

    Sheridan appeared on $10 U.S. Treasury Notes issued in 1890 and 1891.[51] His bust then reappeared on the $5 Silver Certificate in 1896. These rare notes are in great demand by collectors today.

    Sheridan County, Montana, Sheridan County, Wyoming, and Sheridan County, Kansas, are named for him, as are the cities of Sheridan, Montana (in Madison County) Sheridan, Wyoming, Sheridan, Arkansas, and Sheridan, Oregon.

    Sheridan Square in the West Village of New York City is named for the general and his statue is displayed nearby in Christopher Street Park. Sheridan Circle[52] and Sheridan Street[53] in Washington, D.C., are also named for him.

    The only equestrian Civil War statue in Ohio honors Sheridan. It is in the center traffic circle on US Route 22 in Somerset, Ohio, not far from the house where Sheridan grew up.

    She nourishes us; that which we put into the ground she returns to us. Big Thunder

    by Winter Rabbit on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 02:42:50 PM PDT

  •  What are your thoughts on "Dia de la Raza?" (9+ / 0-)

    Columbus Day has been renamed in some countries, like Guatemala where I live, as "Dia de la Raza" and is marked by huge marches of indigenous people. Not sure if other countries in Latin America do the same. The indigenous account for more than half of the country's population, and have survived with their languages and many customs intact.

  •  I have Monday off (9+ / 0-)

    So I wore my Columbus day shirt today to work.

    -----------------

    Homeland Security:

    (picture of 5 Lakota Indians on horseback)

    Fighting terrorism since 1492.

    ------------------

    Sure the Lakota Indians weren't involved until after 1492, but the message gets across.... :)

  •  Thanks for this diary! (8+ / 0-)

     Many people just don't know the history of Columbus.

     Columbus was a product of his time and the culture. And what a very nasty time it was. Religious intolerance and the . . .  

     The Spanish Inquisition

    The Spanish Inquisition was an institution that had precedents in other Inquisitions. The reconquest of Spain from the Moors resulted in a relatively peaceful multi-religious society, but violent antisemitic and anti-Islamic persecution ensued and many Jews and Muslims converted to the Catholic faith or fled.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    "From 1476 to 1834 probably between 3,000 and 5,000 people were executed."

       Studying one's genealogy is also a study of history. We learn about our more recent ancestors  through family oral history. But sometimes we can discover a connection to text book history.

      I have an ancestral line that probably goes back to the "conversos" or Jews that converted to Catholic to avoid execution. Thousands fled Spain, because even after converting they were still suspect of supporting the Moorish invaders.

      From Spain my ancestor's trail goes to France and then to Maryland -- the British colony of Maryland known for religious freedom. Somewhere along the way the memory of once having a Jewish heritage was lost. More than likely millions living today have a few drops of Jewish blood, as well as Black etc. etc.

      What happened to the slaves from the New World imported to Europe by Columbus and others who followed? According to DNA (MtDNA) research some of the female slaves had children and many "white" British citizens are surprised to learn that they have Native Americans ancestors. (Story on BBC website).

      Columbus was perhaps the worst possible person to "discover" the New World and he did so for one of the most repressive racists countries in Europe. Spain was out to eradicate the Jews or convert them to the "true" religion.

      Columbus wasn't brave -- he was a greedy bastard from a greedy, cruel era.

      We can't change who are ancestors were -- we are a product of ancient blood lines and ultimately each of us can trace our ancestors back to one of 7 women. So we are all related.

      Columbus Day should be eliminated -- and no this isn't an insult to Italians. (I've got Italian ancestors as well -- I'm just an American mutt.)

     

     

  •  Leif Ericson (0+ / 0-)

      Leif Ericson had no discernible impact on the Americas primarily because the Vikings didn't carry disease. Perhaps this was because they were coming from the fringes of the world and didn't themselves have that much contact with the disease pool of the Eurasian continent and Africa. Also they came at a low point in plagues when European population density was low and not a good environment for the worst diseases. Columbus came directly from the populous disease-ridden cosmopolitan ports and brought plagues which began the (worse than) decimation of Native Americans.
       Columbus would have been nearly as destructive for Native Americans had he been a peaceful merchant.

    •  I respectfully disagree. (0+ / 0-)

      She nourishes us; that which we put into the ground she returns to us. Big Thunder

      by Winter Rabbit on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:21:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The vikings didn't carry disease? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        truong son traveler

        Since when? There's ample evidence of most of the common European diseases among the vikings, including things like small pox and tuberculosis. There were major small pox epidemics in Iceland all throughout the viking era.

        The biggest difference is that Columbus stayed. A small number of Vikings came, hung around for a season or two, and then left. The Spanish came, they stuck around, and they brought more and more people, and with more and more people come more disease. They also were in an area with a considerably higher population density than Canada. Given that there is so far scant evidence of Viking settlement outside of Newfoundland, the isolated nature of the island would certainly have helped to contain disease (not that there wasn't movement by sea to and from Newfoundland, but it certainly would have been a barrier to casual trade and movement.)

        This is a completely off the top of my head theory, but it's also worth noting that around the time of the Viking's arrival, there was a significant population shift in Newfoundland, with the Beothuk people completely displacing the Dorset culture. I think it might be within the realm of possibility that the Dorset people were weakened by disease (although I have no idea whether the archaeology supports that, honestly). The Beothuk were generally a reclusive group, whose relations to outside groups consisted mostly of either avoiding them or attacking them, and might not have had routine contact with the Dorset. (The number of Beothuk was always fairly small anyway...)

    •  Possibly with your first statement, (0+ / 0-)

      but not your last.

      She nourishes us; that which we put into the ground she returns to us. Big Thunder

      by Winter Rabbit on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:23:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ? 1491 (0+ / 0-)

        I am not sure how to read your two comments together. I don't mean to be apologizing for Columbus, though I doubt Leif Ericsson's pacificism, but if you accept the "high counter" school of pre-Columbian population estimates, one has to conclude that the exposure to smallpox and typhus alone was going to have a horrible impact on populations never exposed, probably greater than all those killed by Western weapons. Of course, having one's societies torn apart by invading armies does not tend to improve the resistance of a community to disease, to say the least.

        •  What the European invaders did (5+ / 0-)

          was to bring "their" world with them.

          The effort was to completely transplant the Old World to the New World. Plants, animals and culture was brought en mass to the colonies.

           Amazingly some of the colonists did stop long enough to look at the plants and oops "discovered" potatoes, pumpkins, and corn (to name a few).

           The Indigenous people had learned how to exploit their world for food -- and this enabled their populations to grow very large. It is amazing to me how many people still cling to the old history book myth that the New World was EMPTY -- a virgin land waiting for the industrious Europeans to tame it.

            One simple piece of evidence that Indians had spread out into all inhabitable (and nearly uninhabitable) ecological zones is that as the whites explored the vast regions of the New World they kept finding Indians living or gathering or hunting in the areas they were "exploring".

            This would indicate that as the Indigenous population grew it spread out.

            When the Europeans came they invaded the areas the Indians needed to survive -- and the US further blocked Indian population increases by putting the Indians on small reservations -- with NO room for Indians population increases. So while the white population was expected to increase -- and more Indian land was taken -- the Indian population was expected to DECREASE.

            Columbus found a land filled with brown people and he saw SLAVES. But the slaves had this nasty habit of dying or running away. There is also some evidence that Columbus and others who followed didn't believe that the Indians were human.

            Today we see the same attitude -- the very rich ruling class (of which Bush & gang are part of) don't see the rest of us as being part of their race. So they can use use for soldiers, for workers etc. But there are so darn many of us that when a few of us die off due to poor health care, or bad nutrition etc -- well so what-- there are more of us out there to work in their mines, offices, etc.

            History repeats itself -- it just changes the names of the underclasses.

          •  There's evidence (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Yellow Canary, Reel Woman

            that Indians were regarded as subhuman and unable to give evidence in court until the case of the stolen whales in 1880.

            http://www.a1wdb.com/...

            http://books.google.com/...

            As Dorothy Eber reports in her entertaining book based on Inuit oral history, "When the Whalers Went Up North", Chapter 4, The case of the missing whales.

            The above link is a preview of the book of Chapter 4.

            The case is also reported in the Spicer Genealogy

            The case pitted Captain John O. Spicer of New London against a Massachussets whaler who had stolen 3 of Spicer's whales.  Johnnibo, a Canadian Inuit, who was Spicer's lead man, witnessed the crime.  The whale thief's attorney main argument was that Johnnibo could not give evidence because Native Americans were like dogs.  Spicer's answer to this was still remembered by the Inuit.  He said that the Inuit were not dogs, but those who stole were dogs and worse than dogs.

            Spicer won his case, establishing that Native Americans were person capable of giving credible testimony in a court of law.

            •  That took my breath away. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Reel Woman, One Opinion

              I'm just shaking my head.

              She nourishes us; that which we put into the ground she returns to us. Big Thunder

              by Winter Rabbit on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 06:09:38 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Authors of the Spicer Genealogy were (0+ / 0-)

                Meech&Meech.  I have a copy.  

                Meech, Mrs. Susan and Meech, Miss Susan Billings, History of Descendants of
                Peter Spicer. Boston Stanhope Press 1911

                I first heard the whole story from my grandfather.  Later Dorothy Eber called me up.  She had called my brother John M Spicer, looking for the Spicer family's version of the story.  John thought I would probably know the story because I was the family member most interested in history, so he gave Dorothy my name.  Ten years later, the book appeared, and I finally got to read the Inuit version of the case.

                The most breath- taking thing was that the Inuit version and the Spicer version, both oral history of events one hundred years old, matched almost exactly, including the final horror of the death of Johnnibo at the hands of other Inuits because they felt he was a witch and "knew too much".

                Since then, I am a firm believer in the relative accuracy of oral history.

                I may write the whole thing up as a diary some day.

                •  I so think you should! (0+ / 0-)

                  To help educate and to bring the point you just said, about the relative accuracy of oral history. I've gotten specific examples, for example of oral history of the infected balnkets, just go the my page and go in the comments. It's invaluable that it be added. Thankyou.

                  She nourishes us; that which we put into the ground she returns to us. Big Thunder

                  by Winter Rabbit on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:39:03 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  "Savages" (0+ / 0-)

              After reading your post earlier this morning, I tried to find a book I have somewhere in this house (failed miserably **sigh**). It's a schoolbook, nearly 120 years old, that I purchased earlier this year. Obviously I can't quote it verbatim at the moment, but I distinctly recall the term "savages" used for American Indians, and (now paraphrasing) that if they'd just accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, the world would be a much better place blah blah blah. Disturbing, to say the least.

              •  Thanks for the info.! (0+ / 0-)

                Would you consider just posting the title, publisher, etc.? There it is, thankyou.

                She nourishes us; that which we put into the ground she returns to us. Big Thunder

                by Winter Rabbit on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:54:14 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Absolutely...if I can find the dang book. (0+ / 0-)

                  **bangs head on wall**

                  I really need to reorganize my library. But yeah, I'll reply to this with the info when I get my hands on it. =o)

                  •  Thanks! (0+ / 0-)

                    She nourishes us; that which we put into the ground she returns to us. Big Thunder

                    by Winter Rabbit on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 10:44:11 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Aha! Found it! (0+ / 0-)

                      A Brief History of the United States

                      It's part of the "Barnes' Historical Series", put out by A.S. Barnes & Company, New York and Chicago. Copyright 1871, 1879, 1880, 1885 (my edition).

                      Have only looked briefly and can't find the exact "savage" quote(s) just yet (figures! hrmph). Nonetheless, check this out - under the "Indian Characteristics" section:

                      Progress and Education. - He made no advancement, but each son emulated the prowess of his father in the hunt and the fight. **snip** He knew nothing of books, paper, writing, or history.

                      I guess oral history counts for nada. But hey, they could kick ass! **eyeroll**

                      Domestic life. - The Indian had neither cow, nor beast of burden. He regarded all labor as degrading, and fit only for women. **snip** The leavings of her lord's feast sufficed for her, and the coldest place in the wigwam was her seat.

                      Buncha misogynist heathens! </snark>

                      Disposition. - In war, the Indian was brave and alert, but cruel and revengeful, preferring treachery and cunning to open battle. At home, he was lazy, improvident, and an inveterate gambler. He delights in finery and trinkets, and decked his unclean person with paint and feathers. **snip**

                      The Original DFH's. **'nother eyeroll**

                      Religion. - If he had any ideas of a Supreme Being, they were vague and degraded. His dream of a Heaven was of happy hunting-grounds or of gay feasts, where his dog should join in the dance. **snip** He placed great stress on dreams, and his camp swarmed with sorcerers and fortune-tellers.

                      What, no Voodoo Queens? Sheesh. (I don't think my eyes can roll further back without immediate medical treatment.)

                      The Indian of the Present. - Such was the Indian two hundred years ago, and such he is to-day. He opposes the encroachments of the settler, and the building of railroads. But he can not stop the tide of immigration. Unless he can be induced to give up his roving habits and cultivate the soil, he is doomed to destruction. It is to be earnestly hoped that the red man may yet be Christianized, and taught the arts of industry and peace.

                      "Re-education Camps 'R' Us".  **spit**

          •  You forget the plague. (0+ / 0-)

            by 1540 or so, 95% of the native population was gone, there was no way that the Europeans could have predicted that, so in fact the new world WAS empty by then.

            •  No, (0+ / 0-)

              you're referring to the Black Plague, or known as the Black Death, which was in the 1300's. That affected Europe, see first paragraph about the Jews being blamed for it. Columbus was about a century and a half later.

              The fact that Europeans brought the deadly diseases with them, through ship rats who found their way to the indigenous tribes for example, is well established.

              Historical Viewpoints. "American Indians And European Diseases." Alfred W. Crosby pp. 48-49

              Whether plague or typhus, the disease went through the Indians like fire. Almost all the seventeenth-century writers say it killed nine of ten and even nineteen of twenty of the Indians it touched -

              In short, one does not necessarily have to accept a 90 percent death rate for a given village or area to accept a 90 percent depopulation rate.

              I think it's more like 95%, but the information there is valuable.

              She nourishes us; that which we put into the ground she returns to us. Big Thunder

              by Winter Rabbit on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 10:54:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I wasn't referring to Black plague. (0+ / 0-)

                I was referring to ->A<- plague, which is any mostly fatal epidemic.</p>

                If we agree on the 95% figure, why argue about it?

                The point is: The Spanish didn't want what happened to happen. Genocide is a deliberate act. Natives were mistreated, sure, but almost all of those who died never met a White Man.

                It was a plague, not a genocide. The Europeans didn't know of the existance of two continents blocking the westward route to China and Western medicine hadn't progressed much since the death of Galen in the 2nd Century CE.

        •  What Carib and Ting said. (5+ / 0-)

          And:

          A People & A Nation. 4th Edition. p.38

          In the pursuit of their conversions, the Jesuits sought to undermine the authority of the villiage shamans (the traditional religious leaders) and to gain the confidence of leaders who could influence others. The Black Robes used a variety of weapons to attain the desired end. Trained in rhetoric, they won admirers by their eloquence. Seemingly immune to smallpox, they explained epidemics among the Native Americans as God's punishment for sin, their arguments aided by the ineffectiveness of the shaman's traditional remedies for illness against that deadly disease.

          Here's the point your referring to:

          Historical Viewpoints. "American Indians And European Diseases." Alfred W. Crosby pp. 48-49


          Whether plague or typhus, the disease went through the Indians like fire. Almost all the seventeenth-century writers say it killed nine of ten and even nineteen of twenty of the Indians it touched -

          In short, one does not necessarily have to accept a 90 percent death rate for a given village or area to accept a 90 percent depopulation rate.

          But that's not all of it:



          Bioterrorist Threats: Potential Agents and Theoretical Preparedness

          Dr. John Bartlett filled in for Peter Jahrling of USAMRIID for a segment devoted to one of the likely potential bioterrorist agents, smallpox.[2] The use of this agent to intentionally cause human disease dates back to 1754 during the French and Indian War, when infected blankets were given to Native Americans as a "token of good fortune."

          American Indian Prophecies. Kurt Kaltreider, PH.D. pp. 66-67

          In 1779, George Washington sent orders to General John Sullivan concerning the need to attack and destroy the Iroquois Nations.

          "The immediate objects are total destruction of their settlements, and capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex possible -"

          Washington was also an advocate of germ warfare, first introduced by Sir Jeffery Amherst after whom the town of Amherst, Massachusetts, and Amherst College are named. The idea of germ warfare with smallpox was suggested to Colonel Henry Bouquet, after which Colonel Bouquet wrote back:

          "I will try to inoculate the [Indians] with some blankets that may fall into their hands, and take care not to get the disease myself. As it is pity to expose good men against then, I wish we could make use of the Spanish method, to hunt them with English dogs, supported by rangers and some light horse, who would, I think, effectually extirpate or remove the vermin."

          About 60 years later, Andrew Jackson took Colonel Bouquet's advice in his war against the Seminoles. 

          Cont.

          She nourishes us; that which we put into the ground she returns to us. Big Thunder

          by Winter Rabbit on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 09:46:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Cont. (4+ / 0-)

          I don't think you were apologizing for Columbus, BTW

          Source

          "Viking" was a verb used to describe a temporary lifestyle. Most Norsemen would stay in their villages for all their lifes, but some young and adventurous farmers would go "viking" or raiding for some months or for some years to earn their living on piracy.

          Therefore, all Vikings were Norse, but not all Norsemen were Vikings.

          Christian documents of the time depict the Vikings as bloodthirsty sauvages who would destroy and pillage everything they could. This is true, but viking pirates were not particularly more cruel than any European army of that age.

          The Vikings were the international tradesmen of their time. They traded silk and spices from Constantinople, amber from the Baltic, iron from Scandinavia, slaves from Russia and furs and walrus ivory from Iceland and Greenland. The Vikings kept open the trade route between East and West Europe at a time when trade routes through the Mediterranean were unsafe.

          Now reconsider the statement "the sole early ones involved the Norse who occupied Greenland in very small numbers between A.D. 986 and about 1500. But these Norse visits had no discernible impact on Native American societies (2)."

          The Norse creation story, is very similiar to the Lakota story of Creation.

          Think about, wouldn't two cultures that had the most similiar stories of creation naturally get alond more so than ones that don't, especially if one had the demonization of other human beings in the same chapter as their creation story?

          Both the Creation stories I cited lead to a philosophy of connectness. The Christain story leads to separateness with Adam & Eve being thrown out of the garden. The Norse and the American Indians creation stories boil down to God IS the garden, but Christianity says that Satan is in the garden, and since the American Indians were where Satan was, they became Satanic when they didn't accept Christ.

          She nourishes us; that which we put into the ground she returns to us. Big Thunder

          by Winter Rabbit on Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 10:12:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Not true (0+ / 0-)

      They had plenty of disease. But they had different purposes. They weren't companies solely in search of profits. They did spread their genes all over the old and new world, and murdered rampantly. They simply stayed for a briefer period, and didn't bring their pigs and chickens with them.

  •  Your most powerful diary yet, winter rabbit. (3+ / 0-)

    And it all continues...

    I remember when Vincente Fox was elected President of Mexico ( such high hopes for him), one of the early statements he made, was his suggestion that all the indigenous peoples of Mexico should 'be moved into large settlements, where their needs could be administered to more effectively'.

    The outcry in Mexico was immediate..but I am not convinced that Fox ever truly understood why his suggestion was so very wrong.

    The colonial/manifest destiny mindset is with us yet...

  •  Funny... I was just thinking a day or two ago (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    truong son traveler

    about how a lot of geographic features in the U.S. are named after right bastards, and specifically that the Columbia River should be renamed.

    Allons enfants de la Patrie

    by VictorLaszlo on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 12:40:01 AM PDT

    •  We're on the same page (0+ / 0-)

      I mean, shouldn't the names of such things reflect the values we want? The thing with changing a name, though, is that it's expensive and there's a lot of paperwork that would go into it. Unless people volunteer time and donations are made. Government wouldn't do it, but they could hire people to do it and create jobs...I'm just thinking here.

      She nourishes us; that which we put into the ground she returns to us. Big Thunder

      by Winter Rabbit on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 06:17:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  if things could only be named after saints (0+ / 0-)

      nothing would have names.

  •  Another Highly Recommended Book (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    truong son traveler

    is 1491. The author documents how 95% of the population of MesoAmerica died of smallpox and hantavirus. (The Spaniards brought pigs wherever they went, and they were worse than the men--who thought it was a sin to wash.)He also traces haplotypes; at least 4 genetic groups in the Americas, one of which may actually be from Polynesia.

    In Last Days of the Inca the economics of the voyages is documented. These were highly taxed companies, and their main goal was getting the crews rich enough to buy their way out of the lowest class. They had no interest in anything else.

    And finally, there's Church history--that invented the word "race" to justify the decimation.

  •  I believe that "Columbus Day" is no longer (3+ / 0-)

    a holiday in South Dakota but is called by another name which honors native Americans.I hope that someday this will be true all over the country.

  •  1492 was a different era. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    palantir

    It's wrong to use 21st century political correctness to  taint a whole civilization like that.

    Some of the things you say about Columbus were true, he was a horrible governor, that's why he was arrested and SENT HOME IN CHAINS!!!

    You forgot to mention the genocidal tendencies of the Caribs, You mention the crusades, but not the Ottoman conquests of Byzantium and the attempted conquest of Italy only a few years afterwards.

    You lie about the state of medical knowledge back then. When did ANYONE in the 14th century know about germs and the transmition of deseases?

    A few sick people arrived in Mexico just before Cortez, and the plagues began. The so-called mega-death that killed 96% of the indegionus people had little  to do with Spanish imperialism. In fact, some of the vectors were people who were trying to stop the imperialists.

    I remember someone, a few months back, attacked Andrew Jackson for ignoring events he could have only could have found out about using technology that hadn't been invented yet. Same here.

    •  1492 was not so long ago (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bluewolverine, Reel Woman

      Spanish monk Bartolemo de las Casas wrote A brief Account of the History of the Indies where he reflected upon 50 years (since 1492) of colonization by the Spanish.  No 21st century citizen could write a critique nearly as devastating as that of de las Casas, or other monks like him who've left a record of their horror over the methods used to conquer in the early 1500's.  We should remember that Columbus 'found land' in the Grand Bahamas and what ensued in the Caribbean was the result.

      I don't think anyone is attempting to taint Spain's civilization when pointing out that age-old impulses like greed drove the conquistadores.  They, no more or less than ourselves in 21st century America, inherited humanity's failings, and realized victory in the Carribbean and South America through Jarod Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel.  Oh, and horses.  That they found their adversaries less than human only marks the need to dehumanize before we kill; witness America's japs, gooks, hajis and sandniggers.

      No, 1492 is not nearly as far away as we'd like to think it is.

      •  Well, compared with the Mesozoic, sure, but... (0+ / 0-)

        You have to remember that the rich lived in poverty back then, and only royalty had what would be considered a middle class lifestyle vis a vis the 21st century.

        We should remember that Columbus 'found land' in the Grand Bahamas and what ensued in the Caribbean was the result.

        Why the quotes? Are you saying that the New World was common knowledge in Europe at the time? In fact, outside Easternmost Siberia, nobody in the Old World knew that the New World existed, and nobody in the New knew of the existance of the old.

        Say what you will about Columbus' governorship of Hispaniola and or the governance of New Spain during the 16th Century, the fact remains: Not a single person in the entire world knew that two continents existed blocking the sea route westward between Spain and Japan.

        You also tend to forget that the Aztecs were so loathed by their neighbors that they were happy to support the Spanish at first. Aztec civilization was one of the worst in the history of humanity.

        •  Indian hater? (0+ / 0-)

          Your history is so bad it's funny... but sad too since it reflects the ignorance of most Americans about this new world. You need to do some reading before it's possible to talk to you.

          •  Oh, yeah, that's right. (0+ / 0-)

            The Native Americans had airplanes and artificial satelites. The "Columbus was Last" theory has long ago been debunked.

            Oh, by the way, I DID do some reading on the subject. The results is a book that was published in 1992 and can be purchased here.

            I'm not talking about what was known in 2007, by the way, but in 1491. Anacronism doesn't befit you.

            •  Genocide denial (0+ / 0-)

              helps to keep the help so desperately needed away in the appropriate forms that have been requested time and time again by leaders of the tribes. George W. Bush and the Neoconservative forces in the U.S. and in Canada who de-affirmed the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples have now all but said that these American Indians aren't human beings.

              Reject the Lie of White "Genocide" Against Native Americans



              Pilgrims Pilloried in streets of Plymouth

              Hitler wasn't stopped by the Apaches but by the armies of that country whose conception the Plymouth protesters mourn.

              The activists were outraged by my description of the Indians as primitives with a Stone Age culture that had neither a written language, metallurgy nor the wheel.

              Reality is awfully insensitive. Still, it's important to recall that Native Americans did not build great canoes and cross the Big Water to discover Europe.

              Theodore Roosevelt spent several years ranching in the Dakotas while there was still a frontier. In "The Winning of the West," Roosevelt wrote: "Not only were the Indians very terrible in battle, but they were cruel beyond all belief in victory; and the gloomy annals of border warfare are stained with their darkest hues because it was a war in which helpless women and children suffered the same hideous fate that so often befell their husbands and fathers."


              All I'm saying is, I could compare your first statement with the last two quotes. Inferring or saying that American Indians and those native to the Americas lacked the technology is a technique for apologizing for the genocide, as is twisting the facts through ommission or distorting them.

              Read this.

              I also suggest reading this

              Did the Aztec "have it coming?" What about the Cholultecas?

              Source

              The killing of the Aztecs was not Cortez's ultimate end but rather the means to obtain wealth. At first this blinded me but I quickly realize that Cortez was guilty of genocide against the Cholultecas. According to the Aztecs the Spanish were encouraged to destroy Cholula by their allies the Tlaxcaltecas. The Tlaxcaltecas told the Cortez that the Cholultecas were the Aztecs friends and were as brave as the Aztecs. Cortez feeling intimidated marched against the Cholultecas, and inside a closed courtyard slaughtered them. According to another account Cortez raised soldiers against the Cholultecas so as not to give them opportunity to form an alliance with the Tlaxcaltecas. Taking advantage of the situation they entered Cholula with the intent to destroy the city. And this they did as some 3000 Cholultecas were killed in a period of several days.

              She nourishes us; that which we put into the ground she returns to us. Big Thunder

              by Winter Rabbit on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 01:34:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I want to suggest that you read this. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bluewolverine

          Source
          Nevertheless, denial of the genocide of Native Americans is still very strong. It works primarily through omission; people just refuse to talk about the issue. There was a strong backlash to newspaper editorials urging free discussion of this topic, which were published in 1992, the fifth centenary of the European discovery of the Americas. That denial has continued in the past decade, and deniers try to explain the extermination of the Native Americans as just an unfortunate event.

          Even when Native Americans sue the government to reclaim their lands on violated treaty grounds, the courts usually throw these cases out. Moreover, when uranium was discovered in the 20th century in Native American reservations, the US claimed the uranium in the name of national security, without proper compensation.

          Actually, in (2), p.210 it states clearly that the Aztec had naivete initially, defined as "deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment." Cortez survived his first attack because of that and their military superiority. Smallpox did the rest.

          Interesting one thing Genocide Deniers do in general I've noticed, which is blame the victims and fail to reconize the difference between conflicts that resulted from hunting boundaries and genocide. A really good friend told me once, that when you've got a finger pointed towards someone, there's three pointed back at you.

          The other thing I always want to ask is, why do you feel so strongly about distorting the historical truth? I didn't make these facts up, so there must be a modern connection as to why genocide deniers want to distort, just like the Religious Right uses Fake History to say this is a Christian Nation, which of course is a lie. O yeah, I quoted some of the modern reasons...some people actually want this history to rhyme and to repeat -

          We see it in the level of Indian incarceration, in the loss of religious freedom cases, in Indian child welfare cases where non-Indian courts ignore the law, in treaty cases where the United States ignores international standards, in international practice where the United States voted against the adoption of the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and in the Cobell trust fund case where the United States refuses to account for tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars that are owed to Individual Indian Money trust accounts."

          She nourishes us; that which we put into the ground she returns to us. Big Thunder

          by Winter Rabbit on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:51:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What does Uranium and US courts have to do with (0+ / 0-)

            anything? We are talking about what was known in 1500 and what wasn't. The UN declaration of ANYTHING has no bearing on what was going on 445 years before the UN came into existance.

            the US of A didn't exist in 1500. Therefore it's policies twoard Native Americans in the 1880s isn't relevant.

            Actually, in (2), p.210 it states clearly that the Aztec had naivete initially, defined as "deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment." Cortez survived his first attack because of that and their military superiority. Smallpox did the rest.

            According to Prescott, it didn't happen that way. Moctazuma thought that a prophecy was being fulfilled, sort of like a meteor falling on the date some crank claimed the world would end.

            The Spanish were outnumbered 1000 to one and were only able to defeat the Azetcs with the help of EVERY INDIAN NATION IN THE AREA.

            90% of the Native Americans who died in what is now Mexico and Central America between 1510 and 1610 NEVER SAW A EUROPEAN. Quite simply, the future doesn't explain the past.

            •  Sure it does... (0+ / 0-)

              Those that deny the truth of then, deny the truth now. It's intergenerational as well. You still didn't answer whether or not you see the difference between warring tribes and genocide. It's kind of like the way early settlers gave the warring tribes guns to increase the violence, so they'd kill each other off quicker and be easier to take over.

              Kind of reminds me of the way the U.S. lost all those weapons in Iraq and w claims the "Surge is Working" because of the ethnic cleansing that's been going on. No correlation between present and past there, is there?

              She nourishes us; that which we put into the ground she returns to us. Big Thunder

              by Winter Rabbit on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 01:00:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  the difference between what? (0+ / 0-)

                Again, misdirection. This has nothing to do with the difference between genocide and plague. Okay, was the Flu Pandemic of 1918-19, which killed more people than World War I, a plague or genocide?

                The British settlers allegedly giving guns to the Natives has nothing to do with one of the greatest plagues in the entire Holocene geological epoch. NOTHING. Was giving guns to the Indians NICE? No. But it wasn't genocide. Was the "smallpox infected blanket" myth genocide? No. the fact that it happened only once and the perpetrator exceuted, doesn't mean that a unique crime was genocide. Nobody was hurt except the guy who tried it.

                Is there any evidence that 16th century people ANYWHERE had any idea of what caused smallpox?

                That's the question, and the answer is no.

  •  1492 - 2007 years of survival (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jakbeau, bluewolverine, Reel Woman

    It's such a large subject and seems so far in the past that most Americans don't understand why we Indians look at Columbus as a murderer and the beginning of our own demise. That also makes it hard for the average American to understand that the harm began then is still hurting American Indians today. As recently as 2005 anti-Indian haters on the Supreme Court used the ignorant and racist "Doctrine of Discovery" to justify their desire to distroy our governments. The doctrine is based on "Papel Bulls" which declared us to be subhuman.
    In my personal life my Grandmother and Grandfather were rounded up by the Calvary and forced along with the rest of my Ponca Tribe to march from South Dakota to Oklahoma where my Mother was born. One third of us died then, so the effects of the ugly 'discovery' and it's subsequent 'doctrine' are real in todays world too.
    Perhaps people should remember that every decade of every century since Columbus has meant a hard struggle and fight for each and every Indian person just trying to survive. The suffering and fighting may ebb and flow in various places and at various times but there has never been a decade since 1492 without Indian people somewhere being killed and displaced for the crime of being Indian. 2007 or 1492, missionaries and conquerors still comb the jungle for the last of us living free, while those of us living within the "greater society" fight hard each day to remain Indian and survive as a people.

  •  Ahistorical - (0+ / 0-)
    Although I do not deny the genocide of native peoples - to place certain behaviors within modern constructs like "capitalism" is being shockingly presentist.  Europe was just emerging from feudalism - the relationship between Columbus and the Spanish monarchs being essentially feudal.  Even mercantilism was in its infancy - albeit the prototypes well-developed in Venice and Genoa.  Capitalism remained centuries in the future.
  •  Too Judgemental, Too Angry (0+ / 0-)

    The consequences of Columbus's voyages to the 'New World' were terrible for the inhabitants. His culture was so different, though, I wonder if it's right to be so judgmental.  White Rabbit takes such a superior attitude that it makes me stop and think.

    I've read that there was no criticism of slavery anywhere in the world before the 1700's.  If this is wrong, please cite the reference, as I've been relying on this information.  Columbus and his society were about as primitive as the Indians they enslaved.  Granted, Europe had better ships and guns.  And left us written records, which the North American Natives did not.  But still, how was Columbus to know the Indians were "Human"?

    What definition of "Human" was available to him?  By and large, there was no science anywhere. But slavery was universal and must have seemed quite normal.  I don't know of anything that would have told Columbus that slavery was wrong.

    And let us not forget the violence of the Indians to each other.  Human sacrifice to the Aztec and cannibalism in the Pueblos of the Southwest must open our minds to the possibility that the residents of Hispaniola were as violent as anybody else.

    I can see why Native Americans would not want to celebrate Columbus Day, but I have a hard time swallowing the attitude of moral superiority.

    Crimes against Humanity?  You have to have moral knowledge to be morally liable, and Columbus didn't have that knowledge.  Ignorance of the law is, of course, no excuse.  But that's just the point, there was no law.

    •  He had the bible... (0+ / 0-)

      He just chose to read the worst parts and believe those over the best. Like this one he should have read more.

      (Matthew 23:15):

      Woe to you,---You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when one becomes one, you make him twice the son of hell as you are.

      As for the moral critique:
      Not even this Draft made it to the vote.

      http://www.unhchr.ch/...
      DRAFT UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

      Affirming that indigenous peoples are equal in dignity and rights to all other peoples, while recognizing the right of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such,

      Affirming also that all peoples contribute to the diversity and richness of civilizations and cultures, which constitute the common heritage of humankind,

      Affirming further that all doctrines, policies and practices based on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin, racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust,

      Reaffirming also that indigenous peoples, in the exercise of their rights, should be free from discrimination of any kind,

      Look again at this part:

      Affirming further that all doctrines, policies and practices based on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin, racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust,

      It is morally condemnable, even though this never made it through, and the U.S. voted against the final watered down draft to me, regardless of what Bush said.

      She nourishes us; that which we put into the ground she returns to us. Big Thunder

      by Winter Rabbit on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 02:21:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  17th century, not 1700's (0+ / 0-)

    I've read there was no brief against slavery before the 17th century (1600's).  Still want to know if you can contradict this.

  •  you can't be serious... (0+ / 0-)

    Average Americans don't buy this pap. Only in the minds of the liberal intelligencia does this stuff ever come up. Besides... half the kids in school now, don't even know who Linclon was, left alone Columbus. For them, it's a day out of school.

    "elections more resemble fencing operations, than the selection of leadership."

    by RoninArms on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 02:21:05 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site