Columbus Day
TV ClubHouse: Archive: Columbus Day
Karuuna | Friday, October 18, 2002 - 10:00 am     Hillbilly - Thank you for continuing this discussion in a civil way. I appreciate that. I am interested in understanding better a few of your points. You wrote: "I want hard core bonafide proof. I provided documentation concerning life in the Plymouth settlement." I don't see any more "hard core bonafide proof" in your historian's opinions than I do in anyone else's. It is my opinion that most "history" is also opinion. Why is that you think the historian that you quoted is any less biased than any other historian? I think we all have our own biases, in choosing to believe what one has to say over another. That's why it's so important to hear all sides, in order to help us overcome our own biases, and reach a more balanced perspective. You wrote: <<...we'll be apologizing for our ancestors and calling them 'greedy, bloodsucking murderers, rapists, and slavers.' >> Many of them were! Many of them were also: <<...courageous, hardworking folks who faced and endured great hardship to give their descendants a better way of life and I will be eternally grateful to them for coming here. > I wonder if you're saying only one of the above can be true? To me, to accept that one is true, is not to deny that the other is true as well. You wrote: <<Condi Rice, Colin Powell, and Clarence Thomas got where they are today through self-motivation, initiative, and hard work.>> I'll bet if you thought really hard, you could even think of a few African American Democrats who succeeded as well. (sorry, I had to tease you a bit about that!) I'm curious, have you ever read Colin Powell's autobiography? Or his America's Promise website? Secretary Powell is an intriguing and amazing person, and I had the opportunity many years ago to meet him in person. He is the first to tell you that equal opportunity is indeed a myth. That he faced *significant* prejudice in his life, both growing up and while in the army. He feels that the army was one of the only places that blacks could potentially succeed on an equal footing with whites, and even then there were more obstacles to their success. He also says he succeeded in spite of the obstacles presented to him -- obstacles that he unequivocally states were not presented to the whites he served with. He credits his success to his loving, supporting and strong family. He equally and sorrowfully admits that most of those he grew up with in Harlem were not so fortunate. So, Secretary Powell does not believe that all of our children have equal opportunity. Here are some direct quotes for you: "It is just common sense that if we don't provide young people with some kind of sanctuary - I call them 'safe places' - and give kids something constructive to do once the last bell rings, they are going to be easy marks for drug dealers, gang recruiters and other predators." "I've been to schools in America where the teachers have told me that the kids come back to school on Monday weighing less than when they left Friday afternoon - where kids show up without even the most basic physical exam - where they don't have their vaccinations. We can do better than that." If you're going to hold Colin Powell up as an example, then perhaps you ought to listen to his journey and his words, and take them seriously. He's walked the walk. The whole point of his America's Promise program is to provide better education, mentorship, and opportunity to the kids who aren't currently getting those things. He gets that it's far from equal. I hope you won't take this personally, but it's interesting to me that you say you are willing to sacrifice to send your daughters to a private school (which I find very admirable!). But if you really think everyone has equal opportunity, including those who go to public school, why not send your children to public school as well? Obviously, this is because you think private education presents a better opportunity to them than public. I'm saying the exact same thing -- that not all education is *equal*. If it was equal, you wouldn't be opting for something different for your own children, right? |
Hillbilly | Friday, October 18, 2002 - 11:10 am     "I don't see any more "hard core bonafide proof" in your historian's opinions than I do in anyone else's. It is my opinion that most "history" is also opinion. Why is that you think the historian that you quoted is any less biased than any other historian? I think we all have our own biases, in choosing to believe what one has to say over another. That's why it's so important to hear all sides, in order to help us overcome our own biases, and reach a more balanced perspective. " Kar, You are absolutely right. Everyone approaches things from their own unique perspective. I used William Bradford's history because it is actually written by the person who lived through the time, not someone who is interpreting events 400 years in the future. Was Bradford presenting his own view of the world? Absolutely, but at least he was an actual participant or witness to the events. Kaili's reference is not an eyewitness or participant, he wasn't there. When I ask for bonafide proof...what I want is access to the raw data that they based their opinion on so I can read for myself and determine if their interpretation is fair. For instance, did he base his theory on the diaries or journals of persons living at the time? If so, tell me where I can find them so I can decide. I don't want to be referred to another present day historian and hear another 'opinion.' Does that make sense? Kailie did provide one good reference in citing Las Casas since he was an actual participant in the voyage and settlements. She also presented the author's interpretation of passages from Columbus' own logs. That's what I was looking for because I was able to do an internet search and find the Columbus logs and read them for myself. I concluded that, in my opinion, some of the events were misrepresented by this author to fit his viewpoint making his arguments less credible. Here's an example that may help others understand what I'm looking for. Everyday, we hear another news story where an expert states that based on scientific evidence of a study, something is a carcinogen. When I ask for bonafide proof, I want to see: how the study was conducted, who it was conducted by, and what the raw data is so I can decide for myself if the study was conducted well, unbiased, and if the analyst reached a logical conclusion. I don't want to be given another analysis by another expert interpreting the results again. As far as Colin Powell, I have not had the opportunity to read his autobiograph but I certainly plan to along with some of the other interesting reading tips you've given me. I did however, post that after watching and listening to his speech yesterday at the dinner for Al Smith. He presented a little of his history regarding his father, his life in the Bronx, working as a porter at the Pepsi Bottling plant mopping the floors, his attendance at CCNY, etc. He is an interesting man with a great sense of humor. His response to Mr. Belafonte's remarks the last few weeks lead me to draw the conclusion that the last thing he would consider himself is a 'victim.' "But if you really think everyone has equal opportunity, including those who go to public school, why not send your children to public school as well? Obviously, this is because you think private education presents a better opportunity to them than public." I agree..the public education system in America is in deep trouble. My children go to private school because: 1) They are extremely bright and I don't want them held back just so others can keep up. 2) I simple vehemently disagree with the liberal, socialist, and humanistic philosophy that prevails in public education today. Sending my gals to private school does not negate the concept of equal opportunity. The 'equal opportunity' part is that anyone can send their children to private school if they want. Nobody is stopping them. They just have to be willing to make the monetary and personal sacrifice. Yep...they're gonna have to work HARD just like my ex and I do to afford it. Why do you assume that is any easier for me to send my gals to private than for anyone else. I have African American coworkers who also send their children to private school. If people feel that its not fair that I send my children to private school and they can't because they say they can't afford it...then maybe its time to go to the polls and vote for the 'school voucher' bill so they can send their children where they wish. I would just like to iterate that I'm am not wealthy. My ex and I have worked hard to get where we are. Equal opportunity is not a myth. What I see is people who don't want to accept personal responsibility and work for what they want. Ten years ago while working for the government, a coworker and I asked for tuition assistance to attend college. We were both turned down since budgets were tight. Linda's response: "Well, if they won't pay for it, I'm not going to go." My response: "To heck with them, I'll pay for it myself and then get the heck out of here." Linda is still there in the same low paying position while I have achieved my goal of changing careers and moved to another company with great potential. There are no excuses, where there's a will, there's a way. |
Karuuna | Friday, October 18, 2002 - 11:23 am     Hill -- I just don't get it, I have to confess. Children don't get to choose where they go to school, they are at the mercy of their circumstances. And face it, some schools are better than others in preparing children for more advanced education. Some children don't get enough to eat (if you don't believe me, witness Mr. Powell's comment). Do you think they can absorb things as well as children who have adequate nutrition? There are many studies that prove that they cannot. There are also many studies that show that early environment and nutrition have a direct effect on IQ, and brain development. Do you think children who have to live with these detriments (not of their choosing) really have all the advantages of children who have wonderful loving homes, and food to eat? I just don't see how you can say that a child who grows up with loving parents, in a safe environment, with more than enough food to eat, and a quality education is *equal* to a child who grows up in a rat-infested apartment, with one drugged-out parent, seeing kids killed in his school, and rarely if ever getting a full meal. Tell me, do you really and truly believe that each of these children have equal lives and therefore equal opportunity? Or is it more true that one of those children has many many more obstacles and barriers to overcome in order to achieve a successful life? |
Hillbilly | Friday, October 18, 2002 - 11:50 am     <I just don't get it, I have to confess. Children don't get to choose where they go to school,..> Children don't get to choose, they're minors, but their parents are free to choose. <... they are at the mercy of their circumstances.> No...they are at the mercy of their parents. <.. And face it, some schools are better than others in preparing children for more advanced education.> Totally agree here. <Some children don't get enough to eat (if you don't believe me, witness Mr. Powell's comment). Do you think they can absorb things as well as children who have adequate nutrition? There are many studies that prove that they cannot.> That's why we have food stamp programs in place. No excuse that they don't get enough to eat. <I just don't see how you can say that a child who grows up with loving parents, in a safe environment, with more than enough food to eat, and a quality education is *equal* to a child who grows up in a rat-infested apartment, with one drugged-out parent, seeing kids killed in his school, and rarely if ever getting a full meal. Tell me, do you really and truly believe that each of these children have equal lives and therefore equal opportunity? > Again, this is a social issue and does not negate the concept of 'equal opportunity.' It is unfortunate that these parents have CHOSEN not to provide the best for their children and take advantage of the opportunites that are available. I would hope that Social Services would remove any child who is being neglected and raised by drug abusing parents. This actually is probably another thread about whether these parents should have their parental rights revoked. Just because someone does not take advantage of an opportunity does not mean it does not exist. Just because Linda CHOSE not to go to college, doesn't mean she didn't have the opportunity. If parents want to send their children to private school, the opportunity is there. If they CHOOSE not to, the opportunity is still there and they CHOSE not to take advantage of it. Personal responsibility, self reliance, self motivation....and lots of HARD work. |
Max | Friday, October 18, 2002 - 01:04 pm     Have you seen some of the "hidden" poor in our country? Two-parent families where both parents work two or more jobs trying to provide the basic necessities for their children. Folks who, due to choices THEIR parents made, don't have more than a low-level high school education and can only find employment in minimum-wage jobs. Folks who don't do drugs, often times don't qualify for public assistance because they "make too much money" and are still barely making ends meet. For these folks, one illness, one accident, one calamity can mean they are out on the street with their family in tow. These are the invisible poor. You see them every day, but you don't really see them. They refill your coffee cup, they empty your garbage, they wash your car, they clean your house. They don't complain, they work and they work hard. They are proud and will go without so that their children can have clothing and food. Sometimes, no matter how hard they try, their families go to bed hungry. Yes, they have equal opportunity. In fact, they embrace that concept and are often extremely grateful for all they have, even if it's not much. Economic status is not just a matter of "personal responsibility, self reliance, self motivation and lots of hard work." Sometimes people do all that and are still poor. Adopt a family through your local food bank for the holidays and you might see some of these folks (you might also see a drug-using welfare family, it does happen). Oh, and my source for this is my experience, not anyone else's. Fortunately, I haven't BEEN in the shoes of these folks, but I have met families like this through my local food bank and the Interfaith Hospitality Network my church participates in. |
Karuuna | Friday, October 18, 2002 - 01:09 pm     Hillbilly, I surrender. Obviously there's no common ground here. You continue talking about adults making choices. I'll continue to say that children don't get to make those choices, and thus don't have access to the same advantages that others do - therefore they lack "equal opportunity." And children don't get to choose, that's my point. They are not responsible for what their parents do or don't do. Yet their parents' actions have real consequences on the circumstances of those children. It's nice to say that shouldn't happen, but the truth is that it does happen all the time. Don't even think that the majority of those kids are being removed from their homes, and don't think for a minute that even the ones that are being removed have nice cushy lives all of a sudden. It's as clear to me as anything that some kids have more obstacles and difficulties and disadvantages than others - in my eyes, that will mean more is required of them to overcome those things, and that's not "equal". That's exactly why I say equal opportunity is a myth. I just don't get that you don't see that some children don't have equal access to the same "advantages" as others, and therefore don't have equal opportunity. That some children are able to rise above those circumstances is not scientific proof that everyone can. In fact, there is excellent scientific evidence that most children cannot. Your friend choosing not to work her way thru college is simply not analagous to the situations I'm talking about, IMO. Again, you're speaking of an adult, making an adult decision. That's quite a different situation than I'm speaking of. If equal opportunity were true, there would be an equal percentage of "successful" people from the Bronx as there would be from upper Manhattan. That just isnt' the case. |
Hillbilly | Friday, October 18, 2002 - 01:17 pm     Kar Unfortunately, I don't have the power to overrule other parents and how they choose to raise their children. But the fact of the matter is that legally, parents are responsible for their children. The opportunities for their children are there...they just choose not to take them. Shame on them! Like I said, I consider that a 'parental rights' issue and what should be done with parents who do not provide or care for their children. It is not an equal opportunity issue in my eyes since the opportunities are there whether they take them or not. |
Kaili | Friday, October 18, 2002 - 02:35 pm     I also enjoy debating with you Hillbilly- I am not trying to force the kids to believe one way or another. For that very reason, I gave the kids the same number of points no matter what they believe. If they wrote something taht made sense and appeared thought out, they were given full credit. My intention is not to change minds, but rather to open them. I want them to see different perspectives. Whatever happened back then can be viewed and written about from any perspective. None may be more right than another but I want the kids to be able to question what they read, understand the motivations for why things are interpreted and presented in different ways, and to reach their own conclusions. That is my goal. Today they viewed two very different versions of the Columbus history. They wrote their opinions. Yes, some do now think differently. Some still believe what they believed before. That was my goal though. My own personal opinion? I believe that Columbus, from the European perspective, did make a difference. Did it have to be him? Not necessarily. Another explorer could have done the same and eventually the Americas would have been colonized regardless. Who did it I'm sure made a difference in history. The Spanish were the first to colonize. Had they not, someone else would have. I think also that violence was involved. The Native American tribes had a different world view than Europeans and were easy to enslave. I have no doubt that this happened. It would probably have happened regardless of which country or explorer was here first. There are pictures (woodcuts0 from the 1500s that illustrate hands being cut off, Native Americans being hung and burned. The European goal was for gold and to convert them to Christianity. They used the Natives to work. When the European diseases came with them, which the Native tribes had no immunity to, many did die. What happened next? To have more labor the triangular slave trade began. Items were taken to Africa to trade for slaves, then the slaves were brought to the Carribean and sold. The money was used to buy New World goods to be sold in Europe. I guess I don't totally get the debate, Hillbilly. You do not believe that this happened at all, or you do not believe that it was as bad as I have made it sound? Bad from whose perspective? I'll be back later- I have to go to work again! |
Hillbilly | Friday, October 18, 2002 - 03:30 pm     Kaili I just think the author and the others who are protesting Columbus Day are pinning the blame on the wrong person. I read the Columbus Logs that you mentioned and when Columbus left to return to Spain, the Indians and his men were on friendly terms. He left an outpost of 39 men and was shocked when he returned to find the outpost destroyed and the men murdered. The author would have us believe that Columbus was some genocidal mass murderer who came in and just started slaughtering the Indians. I just don't find any evidence to support that. Las Casas' accounts seem to deal with a later timeline, probably after Columbus third journey back to Spain, and would indicate that the violence was more attributable to the criminals who came and settled. Columbus was looking for a new route to the far east and, as I stated earlier, there was a robust trade in gold, spices, and silk so, of course, gold was a commodity he was seeking. So what? I wouldn't mind having some gold bullion myself. Yes, he wanted to convert the Indians to Christianity. I don't have a problem with this. We send missionaries to foreign countries today to spread Christianity and convert people. Did he use Indians as slaves or servants. Obviously he did. Yes, that is regrettable. I don't like how the author took excerpts and skewed them. For example: author's paraphrase of Columbus Logs: In the revealing log that Columbus kept during his voyage, he described how the friendly Arawak Indians first greeted his ships: "They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance... They would make fine servants... With 50 men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want." ** the author has taken two separate entries,paraphrased, and combined them to give a slanted view. Direct quotes from the Columbus Logs: Weapons they have none, nor are acquainted with them, for I showed them swords which they grasped by the blades, and cut themselves through ignorance. They have no iron, their javelins being without it, and nothing more than sticks, though some have fish-bones or other things at the ends. They are all of a good size and stature, and handsomely formed. I saw some with scars of wounds upon their bodies, and demanded by signs the of them; they answered me in the same way, that there came people from the other islands in the neighborhood who endeavored to make prisoners of them, and they defended themselves. I thought then, and still believe, that these were from the continent. **Notice that the quote about enslaving them is nowhere to be found near the sword incident. I do not, however, see the necessity of fortifying the place, as the people here are simple in war-like matters, as your Highnesses will see by those seven which I have ordered to be taken and carried to Spain in order to learn our language and return, unless your Highnesses should choose to have them all transported to Castile, or held captive in the island. I could conquer the whole of them with fifty men, and govern them as I pleased. Also,notice that the author addes inflammatory paraphrasing by using such words and phrases as 'subjugate them' and 'make them do whatever I want.' The actual quote is: "I could conquer the whole of them with fifty men, and govern them as I pleased. " To me there is a difference between the these two statements. People were governed back then. In fact, we are governed here in the United States today. It doesn't make me a slave. The author completely disregarded the entry Columbus wrote about 'converting them by gentle means.' Would a genocidal mass murderer even consider 'gentle means' in the first place? I'm not denying that there was slavery..that would be foolish and niave. It's just the subtle, subliminal attempts by this author to skew the description of events that I find wrong. This author is not an objective historian just trying to report the facts. He is someone who is trying to paint a view of history to his purpose. It would have been better if he had simply quoted directly from the logs instead of interpreting the logs and putting his SPIN into the mix. This author has no credibility with me since he has shown he is biased. In summary, I don't believe that the author provides enough evidence to support the claim that Columbus is responsible for mass murder and enslavement of the Indians. |
Kaili | Friday, October 18, 2002 - 07:11 pm     I agree in a way...you are right that the words have possibly been skewed. What the difference i see is (he we go with a 'what is your definition of' statement) this: When he says "govern them as I please", the question is what his idea of governing is. We are governed, but to be governed as they please isn't as applicable for us (in my opinion). Would he have given them a choice in matters? It doesn't sound like that to me. From what I understand, the first voyage was friendly. It was the second voyage when 17 ships came that things changed. Should Columbus himself be individually blamed for everything that happened? No, I don't think he should. The issue and the reason that people dislike the idea of Columbus Day (the reason he alone is blamed) is simply that he was the first to begin really colonization. This event was the start of the European and Indian interaction and I hope we agree that the result definitly benifited one group over the other. We do try to convert people still. Personally, and this is obviously my opinion and one where we differ, I don't think that this is always the right thing to do. Could the Europeans and the Native Americans coexisted peacefully with different religions? Why not? The Native Americans didn't have a religion that negatively affected the Europeans at that time (or now). Why should we (or they) expect everyone else to become "like us"? A few points in the "lies my Teacher Told Me" book- pg 60- Columbus's initial impression of the Arawaks, who inhabited most of the islands in the Caribbean, was quite favorable. He wrote in his journal on October 13, 1492: "At daybreak great multitudes of men came to the shore, all young and of fine shapes, and very handsome. Their hair was not curly but loose and coarse like horse-hair. All have foreheads much broader than any people I had hitherto seen. Their eyes are large and very beautiful. They are not black, but the color of the inhabitants of the Canaries." Columbus went on to describe the Arawaks' canoes, "some large enough to contain 40 or 45 men." Finally, he got down to business: "I was very attentive to them, and strove to learn if they had any gold. Seeing some of them with little bits of metal hanging at their noses, I gathered from them by signs that by going southward or steering round the island in that direction, there would be found a king who possessed great cups full of gold." At dawn the next day, Columbus sailed to the other side of the island, probably one of the Bahamas, and saw two or three villages. He ended his description of them with these menacing words: "I could conquer the whole of them with fifty men and govern them as I pleased." On his first voyage, Columbus kidnapped some ten to twenty-five Indians and took them back with him to Spain. Only seven or eight of the Indians arrived alive, but along with the parrots, gold trinkets, and other exotica, they caused quite a stir in Seville. Ferdinand and Isabella provided Columbus with seventeen ships, 1,200 to 1,500 men, cannons, crossbows, guns, cavalry, and attack dogs for a second voyage. His sources for this selection are Sale, The Conquest for Paradise pg 122 and Columbus's journal. pg. 62 Having as yet found no fields of gold, Columbus had to return some kind of dividend to Spain. In 1495, the Spanish on Haiti initiated a great slave raid. They rounded up 1,500 Arawaks, then selected the 500 best specimens (of whom 200 would die en route to Spain). Another 500 were chosen as slaves for the Spaniards staying on the island. The rest were released. A Spanish eyewitness described the event: "Among them were many women who had infants at the breast. They, in order the better to escape us, since they were afraid we would turn to catch them again, left their infants anywhere on the ground and started to flee like desperate people; and some fled so far that they were removed from our settlement of Isabela seven or eight days beyond mountains and across huge rivers; wherefore from now on scarcely any will be had. Columbus was excited. "In the name of the Holy Trinity, we can send from here all the slaves and brazil-wood which could be sold," he wrote to Ferdinand and Isabella in 1496. "In Castile, Portugal, Aragon, . . . and the Canary Islands they need many slaves, and I do not think they get enough from Guinea." He viewed the Indian death rate optimistically: "Although they die now, they will not always die. The Negroes and Canary Islanders died at first." Sources cited: Cuneo, quoted in Sale, "The Conquest of Eden 1493-1515" and "Conquest of Paradise" again. Also 1496 letter, quoted in Eric Williams, "Documents of West Indian History" pg 62 In the words of Hans Koning, "There now began a reign of terror in Hispaniola." Spaniards hunted Indians for sport and murdered them for dog food. Columbus, upset because he could not locate the gold he was certain was on the island, set up a tribute system. Ferdinand Columbus described how it worked: "[The Indians] all promised to pay tribute to the Catholic Sovereigns every three months, as follows: In the Cibao, where the gold mines were, every person of 14 years of age or upward was to pay a large hawk's bell of gold dust; all others were each to pay 25 pounds of cotton. Whenever an Indian delivered his tribute, he was to receive a brass or copper token which he must wear about his neck as proof that he had made his payment. Any Indian found without such a token was to be punished." With a fresh token, an Indian was safe for three months, much of which time would be devoted to collecting more gold. Columbus's son neglected to mention how the Spanish punished those whose tokens had expired: they cut off their hands. Sources cited: Ferdinand Columbus, "The Life of Admiral Christopher Columbus" and Maria Norlander-Martinez "Christopher Columbus: The Man, The Myth, The Slave Trade" pg 63 The tribute and encomienda systems caused incredible depopulation. On Haiti the colonists made the Indians mine gold for them, raise Spanish food, and even carry them everywhere they went. The Indians couldn't stand it. Pedro de Cordoba wrote in a letter to King Ferdinand in 1517, "As a result of the sufferings and hard labor they endured, the Indians choose and have chosen suicide. Occasionally a hundred have committed mass suicide. The women, exhausted by labor, have shunned conception and childbirth . . . Many, when pregnant, have taken something to abort and have aborted. Others after delivery have killed their children with their own hands, so as not to leave them in such oppressive slavery." Sources: De Cordoba letter in Williams, "Documents of West Indian History" Other mentioned sources in this chapter- 1. "Europeans, Indians, and the Age of Discovery in American History Books" American Historical Review 92 2. Wright: "The only Land they Knew" 3. Forbes: "Black Africans and Native Americans" 4. Morison: "The Great Explorers"Crosby: "The Columbian Exchange" Ugh. There's a lot more but this post is already WAY too long. In fact...I think I will color the quotes so they are more easily distinguishable from my own writing. Anyway, I cannot verify whether these sources were twisted around. I cannot verify whether his sources are all biased. I don't know. The impression I get however, is that you either don't hear about these things at all, or you do and this is the information you get. I would post a lot more from the chapter but I don't want to create a mile long post! |
Hillbilly | Friday, October 18, 2002 - 07:37 pm     Kaili...thanks for posting the references. This is what I was looking for...what they based their conclusions on. I tend to give more credence to documents written either by someone who witnessed the events or were closer to that time period than I do to present day historians. And I know that they did keep journals and records back in that time period. I know that Columbus' brother and sons were also involved in the voyages and settlements. I will see what I can find using the references you cited. |
Squaredsc | Saturday, October 19, 2002 - 08:10 am     just because someone witnesses an event and writes it down still doesn't mean it happened that way. perceptions will be colored. to the topic, i don't believe columbus discovered a d*mn thing and i teach my children that also. i also teach them that when they grow to be african-american men they will be looked at and judged differently. and that you have to work and fight twice as hard as the next person to get half as many benefits. hillbilly, im glad that you are teaching your kids that hard work and perserverence(sp) will get them to where they want to be. but the reality for me and mine and others is totally different. but thats for another topic. |
Kaili | Saturday, October 19, 2002 - 10:32 am     The funny thing is that Columbus NEVER realized in his lifetime that he had "discovered" anything. He died thinking he had gone to India. Columbus "bumping into" the Americas gave way to the start of slavery. "Govern them as I please" could very well translate to "subjugate them". There are countries in the world today who are being governed as their leaders please and look how they live (we can use Afghanistan here if you want). One point- it is always easier to mistreat someone or something when you convince yourself that they are less than you. If the Europeans looked at themselves as being better than Native Americans...how easy is it then to mistreat them? Non-Europeans were often treated like animals (consider how often people will say about work animals "oh, it's just an animal- they don't have any feelings", etc). As for the start of the slave trade....slaves...humans....being taken and used as a commodity. Talk about devaluation of life... Had they not thought themselves as superior, they would not have used these people as items to be bought and sold and traded. Again, not entirely Columbus's fault. Sure, he was a product of the times and that was just the way people thought, the way they did things. And the way people thought wasn't all that different 50 years ago in the United States or today in many parts of the world. And this is where I really agree with Squaredsc...in 500 years laws may have changed and the general accepted way of thinking may have changed, but many of those attitudes remain. A lot of it is lip service- the talk about equality- not just between race but also gender, religion, etc. It sounds good for someone to say that, but how often do they really mean it? It's like with the kids writing their reaction papers- how many were writing what they think I wanted to hear and how many were writing what they really believe? |
Karuuna | Saturday, October 19, 2002 - 12:11 pm     Kaili - just a brief remark. I noticed that you said "in 500 years laws may have changed"... I assume you are dating that from the time of Columbus. I thought I'd list the actual reform dates of our voting/civil rights laws as concerning women & African American rights. 1/8/1867 - Congress passes a bill granting African-Americans living in Washington, DC the right to vote. 2/3/1870 - The 15th Amendment, giving all citizens the right to vote regardless of race, was ratified. 11/5/1872 - Suffragist Susan B. Anthony was fined 100 dollars for trying to vote in a presidential election. 1/12/1915 - The US House of Representatives rejected a proposal to give women the right to vote. 8/18/1920 - The Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, giving women the right to vote. 2/27/1922 - The 19th Amendment, giving women the right to vote, was upheld by the Supreme Court. 6/19/1964 - The Civil Rights Act was passed by Congress. 7/2/1964 - The Civil Rights Act was signed into law by President L. B. Johnson. Note that women could only vote/be citizens for less than 100 years. And the Civil Rights Act is less than 50 years old. I guess the point is that some of these beliefs in "equality" are more recent than folks realize at times. It's no wonder to me that bigotry still exists... A more personal example: I have a company that sells posters about the day you were born. Two of our designs depict African American children. Believe it or not, we get 1-2 phone calls *every* month from people asking if they can have all white children printed on that design instead. Yet in 9 years of selling these, I have never had anyone request all African American children. We still have a way to go.. IMO |
Moondance | Saturday, October 19, 2002 - 12:40 pm     As a Native American myself, this is way too close to my heart and it is hard to read some opinions but I wanted to thank Kali, Square, Max and Kar for your posts
|
Kaili | Sunday, October 20, 2002 - 07:34 am     Thanks for the thought Moondance Karuuna- I know these laws are closer to the "not that long ago" side of it- I was just stating 500 years in terms of when it all began (not when laws against it began). People often have a hard time realizing the holocaust was not that long ago either. Some stuff seems like it was SO long ago, but it just really wasn't. |
|