Archive through October 18, 2002
TV ClubHouse: Archive: Columbus Day:
Archive through October 18, 2002
Kaili | Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 02:29 pm     Today in class I had the kids read a printout section of "Lies my Teacher Told me" which is about inaccuracies in textbooks and the stuff they don't tell you in school. It was all about Christopher Columbus and his arrival in North America, the slave trade, etc. I had them write what they knew about Columbus, then had them read it. After reading it they had to say what they thought about the truthfulness of the article and whether their opinion had changed. Here are a few excerpts of their papers that I just typed up. Obviously I have a lot of work to do with this group. Tomorrow they will be watching a video about this topic. I really don't know what to believe.m Since I was little I've been taught how great Columbus was. Now I read this article and it shows how cruel he was to Indians and it also says that all the stories books have aren't true. What I always thought was that columbus went and sat down and had a feast and talked. So I believe a little from the packet and some that I thought....My opinion is that Columbus is not a killer. I thought he was kind to the natives and not some mean mass killer. That is unfair to come to someone else's land, kill them, and make them suffer and make them slaves. I believe that none of the killing took place because how in the world did Thanksgiving come in. I thought that the Indians were the ones who got us into Thanksgiving by having us sit down and join them for an amazing feast about thanks and giving. I don't like how this article describes Columbus and his crewmen because it seems fake. I think that they should write what is true about Columbus and his crew. If I want to know acts I will just look in books or on the internet. In my opinion this article is all a lie. All the information I have learned in school about Columbus I will always believe. All the things they said in this article feemed fake and not realistic. All about killing so many Indians is so fake. I believe it was a hard journey though. My views won't change because I learned one way in middle school and I'm sticking to that. The article made him sound a bit power hungry and all the things I have read in the past never said about what he did once he reached land and the article really cleared this up. I guess I believe it. I don't really think he started the slave thing. My views have not changed because if you do read the text book what they are doing is filling your head with false information. As for the rest of the article about him enslaving and hurting the Indians I don't believe it's true. He may have done this but I don't think it is as bad as they make it out to be. I was brought up thinking that Columbus was a great explorer so reading one article won't change my views. This article is sickening. The thought of an idol whom we have dedicated a holiday to was a selfish power hungry thief is sickening. If it was true then I would be ashamed to be a citizen ofthis country. I would also hope that Columbus Day would be abolished and textbooks would be rewritten. If it was true, people would care. There would be news reports a plenty right after every Columbus Day. I like the thought of him being a hero. He will always be my hero. My opinion is the same- he is a big jerk that became famous because he took a boat ride and bumped into America.Then he was mean to the Arawaks. Bleh! What a big nee-nee! I believe that Columbus didn'r kill Indians or that he was a bad person. I believe what I believed since I was younger. I don't believe it's true at all. I just thought these were interesting. Any thoughts on this? No big deal if it archives- just thought I'd share! |
Abbynormal | Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 03:04 pm     My opinion is the same- he is a big jerk that became famous because he took a boat ride and bumped into America.Then he was mean to the Arawaks. Bleh! What a big nee-nee! Kaili, this one cracked me up! Plus I have to agree with every single word. |
Max | Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 03:36 pm     That's my favorite answer, too, Abbynormal. I think this is extremely interesting. First, it shows that the kids are forming very steadfast opinions based on what they've been taught in school. That's all well and good, but it also illustrates where I think the school system generally fails us as a society. We don't teach kids to be critical thinkers. We teach them to memorize and spit out the "facts" on tests. Until they hit the "rebellious teen" stage, they don't usually question what they are told. Seems like your approach just confused some of them. I think that type of confusion is good. Keep planting those seeds. Make them question what they read, not just in textbooks, but on the internet, in the newspaper, everywhere. That's when THINKING really starts and LEARNING grows. I'm wondering what some of the parents reactions will be when their kids come home and mention this exercise. Hopefully, most of them (I'd say all, but I'm realistic) will appreciate what you were trying to do and actually THINK about it themselves. I don't have a firm opinion on Columbus. As with most things, there is a good side and a bad side to the story with the truth somewhere in the middle. As with many historical facts, it's important to try and view the event or person through the eyes of the times. That is, the filters we judge behaviour by NOW are much different than the generally accepted filters society had in place THEN. Anyway, good for you for trying to get those kids to THINK. I hope you planted some seeds in at least a few of them for the future. |
Yankee_In_Ca | Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 03:37 pm     Kaili -- what grade are your students? And is "Lies my Teacher Told Me" a book? Just curious on both. |
Hillbilly | Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 04:02 pm     This is the reason I will always have my gals in private school. They will NEVER attend public where a 'revisionist' history is taught. |
Hillbilly | Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 04:23 pm     Columbus Day Banned by PC by Michael Berliner Columbus Day approaches, but to the politically correct," this is no cause for celebration. On the contrary, they view the arrival of Christopher Columbus in 1492 as an occasion to be mourned. They have mourned, they have attacked and they have intimidated schools across the country into replacing Columbus Day celebrations with "ethnic diversity" days. The politically correct view is that Columbus did not discover America because people had lived here for thousands of years. Worse yet, it's claimed that the main legacy of Columbus is death and destruction. Columbus is routinely vilified as a symbol of slavery and genocide, and the celebration of his arrival likened to a celebration of Hitler and Holocaust. The attacks on Columbus are ominous because the actual target is Western civilization. Did Columbus"discover" America? Yes, in every important respect. This does not mean that no human eye had been cast on America before Columbus arrived. It does mean that Columbus brought America to the attention of the civilized world, i.e., to the growing scientific civilizations of Western Europe. The result, ultimately was the United States of America. It was Columbus' discovery for Western Europe that led to the influx of ideas and people upon which this nation was founded -- and upon which it still rests. The opening of America brought the ideas and achievements of Aristotle, Galileo, Newton and the thinkers, writers and inventors who followed. Prior to 1492, what is now the United states was sparsely inhabited, unused and underdeveloped. The inhabitants were primarily hunter/ gatherers, wandering across the land, living from hand to mouth and from day to day. There was virtually no change, no growth for thousands ofyears. With rare exception, life was nasty, brutish and short: there was no wheel, no written language, no division of labor, little agriculture and scant permanent settlement; but there were endless, bloody wars. Whatever the problems it brought, the vilified Western culture also brought enormous, undreamed of benefits, without which most of today's Indians would be infinitely poorer or not even alive. Columbus should be honored, for in so doing, we honor Western civilization. But the critics do not want to bestow such honor, because their real goal is to denigrate the values of Western civilization and to glorify the primitivism, mysticism and collectivism embodied in the tribal cultures of American Indians. They decry the glorification of the West as "Eurocentrism." We should, they claim, replace our reverence for western civilization with multiculturalism, which regards all cultures as morally equal. In fact, they aren't. Some cultures are better than others: a free society us better than slavery; reason is better than brute force as a way to deal with other men; productivity is better than stagnation. In fact, Western civilization stands for man at his best. It stands for the values that make human life possible: reason, science, self-reliance, individualism, ambition, productive achievement. the values of Western civilization are values for all men: they cut across gender, ethnicity and geography. We should honor Western civilization not for the ethnocentric reason that some of us happen to have European ancestors, but because it is the objectively superior culture. Underlying the political collectivism of the anti-Columbus crowd is a racist view of human nature. They claim that one's identity is primarily ethnic: if one thinks his ancestors were good, he will supposedly feel good about himself; if he thinks his ancestors were bad, he will supposedly feel self-loathing. But it doesn't work. The achievements or failures of one's ancestors are monumentally irrelevant to one's actual worth as a person. Only the lack of a sense of self leads one to look to others to provide what passes for a sense of identity. Neither the deeds nor the misdeeds of others are his own; he can take neither credit nor blame for what someone else chooses to do. There are no racial achievements or racial failures, only individual achievements andindividual failures. One cannot inherit moral worth or moral vice. "Self- esteem through others" is a self-contradiction: thus the sham of "preserving one's heritage" as a rational life goal. Thus the cruel hoax of "multicultural education" as an antidote to racism: it will continue to create more racism. Individualism is the only alternative to the racism of political correctness. We must recognize that everyone is a sovereign entity, with the power of choice and independent judgement. That is the ultimate value of Western civilization, and it should be proudly proclaimed. (Michael Berliner is the executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.) |
Max | Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 04:45 pm     Hillbilly, I don't think either version of Columbus' story is "revisionist." I DO think that each concentrates on one side of the story and the truth is somewhere in the middle. Did explorers like Columbus colonize lands and sometimes promote slavery and/or enslave the native people? Yes. Was that acceptable behaviour at the time? Yes. Did they also open up new lands to western Europeans and, as a result, start in motion events that lead to the foundation of America as we know it? Yes. Can you paint an accurate picture of Columbus or any of his contemporaries by only concentrating on one portion of these events? I don't think so. There are very few "black and white" issues and events in history. Most are shades of gray. Opening the conversation to discuss both sides and let kids understand the full picture is what makes the society richer and allows us to (a) learn from the past -- both its mistakes and its successes, and (b) grow for the future. Hope that makes sense. |
Hillbilly | Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 04:59 pm     Nope...I won't concede a compromise Ms. Max. This is 'political correctness' run amok. There is no proof to support this theory while there are plenty of journals and diaries to support the history that has been taught in the past. For instance, "Bradford's History of Plymouth Plantation 1608-1646". This is a journal written by William Bradford, leader of the Plymouth settlement. I want proof of the claims of brutality, not just someone saying 400 years after the fact that 'it must have been that way.' How do they know? Were they there? Do they have written proof from back then to prove it? Eyewitnesses? They don't have squat...its just more liberal crap to justify their goal for a socialist, liberal society where no one can be bashed (gays, lesbians, aetheist) except the Christians or conservatives. We're supposed to shut up, be quiet, and keep our opinions to ourselves. In their society everyone is entitled to free speech except us. Well...I'm doggone tired of it and I'm not gonna shut up! |
Karuuna | Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 06:08 pm     Michael Berliner wrote: <<Prior to 1492, what is now the United states was sparsely inhabited, unused and underdeveloped. The inhabitants were primarily hunter/ gatherers, wandering across the land, living from hand to mouth and from day to day. There was virtually no change, no growth for thousands ofyears. With rare exception, life was nasty, brutish and short: there was no wheel, no written language, no division of labor, little agriculture and scant permanent settlement; but there were endless, bloody wars. >> <WARNING: Engage sarcasm detection software before reading> Uh huh. And the lives of the Native Americans were vastly improved by colonization. Hundreds of years later I'm sure they prefer their current poverty over their previous lives... <you may now disengage your sarcasm detection device>  |
Hillbilly | Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 06:20 pm     As far as I know the American public school and college systems are available to all citizens including Indians. When we bought our first house with special aid for first time homeowners with low income...nobody asked me my race or religion. The form did not say 'available to everyone except Native Americans.' Anybody who is willing to study and work hard can be anything they want in this country. I went to public school and the only difference between me and those who didn't succeed is that I actually read the books, did my homework, and studied. I had the EXACT same textbooks and teachers as the minorities with whom I attended school. Being successful and having a good life is determined by initiative, self motivation, and self reliance and a lot of hard work. If you choose to be a perpetual victim...then expect to be a perpetual victim. |
Karuuna | Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 06:40 pm     Nah, Hillbilly, equal opportunity is a pretty story, but it's a myth. Perhaps you ought to visit a reservation, and see how many textbooks (let alone computers) they have in their schools. And I wonder how you would feel if the churches came in and took your children and "gave" them to more acceptable families to raise. And let's not forget that the US gov't decided that Native Americans were incapable of managing their own lands. How many law suits are pending today against our gov't for mismanaging the lands they held in trust for Native Americans? They didn't keep records, never made payments, blatantly misused the land until it no longer had value. All documented court cases. Things aren't equal, never were, and they certainly aren't now. History is written by the winners, and thus is never quite honest. |
Hillbilly | Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 07:09 pm     I don't know of any law requiring Native Americans to stay on reservations. They are full citizens and are free to move anywhere they like. Equal opportunity is not a myth as can be seen in successful minorities like Colin Powell, Condi Rice, just to name two...there are many more. Like I said...it all depends on how hard you're willing to work. Everything else is just a sorry excuse to sit and whine and expect to be spoon fed. |
Karuuna | Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 07:45 pm     Hillbilly, I"m really not following your argument. It is simply a fact that you have *greater* obstacles to overcome if you go to school in the South Bronx (like Sec of State Powell) or on a reservation. You don't have the best teachers, the best equipment, spacious classrooms, brand new textbooks, and fancy computers to aid your education. On top of that, you have all sorts of other obstacles to contend with -- inadequate nutrition, adverse living conditions, etc, etc. That a few uncommon individuals rise above those circumstances is amazing and noteworthy. But it does not negate the fact that if you have more advantages in education and early living circumstances, you have a lot easier road to travel than someone who does not. It is a fact that more people succeed when they have access to these advantages, than the percentage of people who do well that do not. With all due respect, and in my own admittedly biased opinion, that's not equal opportunity. And none of that speaks to the issue we began speaking about, and that is that Columbus didn't exactly do the Native American population any favors by "discovering" them. Again, my own opinion, based on the facts as I know 'em.  |
Hillbilly | Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 08:40 pm     Karuuna The article that Kaili refers to, actually a book, indicates that Columbus was a murderous tyrant bent on mass murder and slave trade. I want to know where the documentation is for this assumption. Give me credible references...otherwise it is just this socialist author's opinion or theory. What documents does he use to back this up? Otherwise, how would he know what happened or how Columbus treated the Indians. I want hard core bonafide proof. I provided documentation concerning life in the Plymouth settlement. Quite frankly, I'm glad my ancestors came to the 'new world' and I refuse to be turned into an apologist for their actions. If the 'politically correct' socialists have their way...we'll be apologizing for our ancestors and calling them 'greedy, bloodsucking murderers, rapists, and slavers.' I refuse to let them. And I refuse to let them try to indoctrinate my children to believe that their ancestors and forefathers were such. My ancestors were 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. And I salute and applaud Columbus and all of the other adventurers for leading the way. You brought up equal opportunity. I was just stating that as citizens, we can be what we choose if we are willing to work hard and do what is necessary to take advantage. Indians are not required to live on reservations...that is their choice. If the schools are not up to standards then they are free to move off the reservation and into a community with better opportunities for their children. And yes...that means they'll have to get a job just like the rest of us. It is their choice to live on reservations...they are free to move anywhere they choose to improve their life. They are free people just like everyone. The catch is that you have to make choices in life and take personal responsibility. I didn't like the public school situation here so I'm paying for my gals to go to private because I want them to have a better opportunity. Nope...I'm not Mr. Moneybags...its a big sacrifice for my ex and I but it is our CHOICE. We are determined to make the sacrifices to give our gals the very best opportunities we can. It is not uncommon and amazing that a few people have succeeded. Condi Rice, Colin Powell, and Clarence Thomas got where they are today through self-motivation, initiative, and hard work. They didn't sit and wait for a handout. They didn't sit and play 'victim.' Like I said before... If you choose to be a perpetual victim...then you should expect to be a perpetual victim. |
Kaili | Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 09:23 pm     Wow. Okay. Not the reaction I was expecting from this thread but I can work with this. Lies my Teacher Told Me is a book (by James Loewen). Another good one along these lines is A People's History of The United States by Howard Zinn. The fact that there was brutallity is, indeed, a fact. First, Columbus wrote how nice and intellegent the "Indians" were and noted that they would make good slaves. Acceptable at the time? Sure. Was he the only one doing this type of thing? Not at all. Do either of these points mean that they shouldn't be addressed? I don't think so. I don't want these kids- it's 10th grade by the way- to grow up to take everything they are told at face value. Textbooks, especially elementary, focus on the glorification of Eurpoean actions. It's a Eurocentric history and kids need to see both sides. Now that I have some of the kids confused as to what to think about Columnus, I picked up a few videos from the library. One is an elementary level video that talks about how brave Columbus was. In fact- here is a quote from the narrator: "The war [in Spain] lasted six more years, but Columbus still didn't give up his dream. Most other people would, but not him" "There, friendly natives, whom he called Indians, greeted him and his sailors. When Columbus returned to Spain, he was welcomed as a hero!" *Note nothing that happened in-between first encounter and his return to Spain is mentioned* There's more, but it's oozing one-sidedness so much it's nauseating. Anyway, I am going to show that to the class. They'll laugh at me since it has these 6 year old kids in it, but it's only 10 minutes. Next, we watch a 24 minute video made by Native Americans discussing Columbus Day. Finally, I have another 30 minute video that is pretty balanced with people speaking from both sides of the issue. It's a 100 minute class so we'll have lots of time to talk about it. After the video I'm going to give them back their papers and I'll ask if anyone has changed their minds since writing it yesterday. The balanced video has illustrations (drawings) from that time of Native American's having their hands cut off and yes, Columbus did say to do this if they didn't bring back their quota of gold each month. BTW Abbynormal and Max, that was my favorite one as well. I laughed in class when I read it and she got all nervous about my reaction. I told her I liked how it was written. She's a cute girl. Her best friend is the one who said she wouldn't even want to be a citizen if it was all true. |
Hillbilly | Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 09:26 pm     Please provide the references, Kaili, so I can read them. |
Kaili | Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 09:52 pm     The brutality of Columbus's companions and his ineptitude as an administrator guaranteed that hundreds of thousands of Indians perished under the hand of the invaders without knowing more of Christianity than the greed and cruelty that wasted them Columbus and Company: A brief look at the bad heroes of institutional history about & genocidal actions in America Why Do We Celebrate Columbus Day? A mere three days into his gold quest, on October 14th, Columbus made clear what he thought of the natives' military might. His log informed his king and queen that, “with fifty men you could subject every one and make them do what you wished.” |
Kaili | Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 09:57 pm     Good-bye, Columbus Day: Time to End the Myth excerpted from the book: Wizards of Media OZ by Norman Solomon and Jeff Cohen Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) 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." Columbus embarked on a frenzied hunt for imaginary gold fields, using Indian captives: "As soon as I arrived in the Indies, on the first island which I found, I took some natives by force in order that they might learn and might give me information of whatever there is in these parts." ...History tells a different story. The most important document of the era is the multi-volume History of the Indies by Bartolome de las Casas-a Spanish priest involved in the conquest of Cuba who owned a plantation employing Indian slaves. But Las Casas had a change of heart and began recording what he'd witnessed. He described a cooperative Indian society in a bountiful land, a generally peaceful culture that occasionally went to war with other tribes. Yet there'd been no subjugation of the kind brought by Columbus. Writing in the early 1500s, Las Casas detailed how a whole people was basically worked to death- "depopulated"-in utter brutality: men in gold mines, women in the fields. Las Casas witnessed Spaniards - driven by "insatiable greed" - "killing, terrorizing, afflicting, and torturing the native peoples" with "the strangest and most varied new methods of cruelty." The systematic violence was aimed at preventing "Indians from daring to think of themselves as human beings." The Spaniards "thought nothing of knifing Indians by tens and twenties and of cutting slices off them to test the sharpness of their blades," wrote Las Casas. "My eyes have seen these acts so foreign to human nature, and now I tremble as I write." This bloody history might make modern readers tremble- if they had access to it instead of just today's mythology. It's true that Columbus was a gifted navigator, personally brave and tenacious. But his enterprise-as historian Howard Zinn documents in A People's History of the United States-was infused with racism and greed. |
Kaili | Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 10:07 pm     can't do anymore tonight- will add more sources later. BEDTIME!!!!!! |
Max | Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 10:46 pm     Kaili, YOU GO GIRL! Get those kids thinking. I don't care if everyone shares the same opinion. I hope they don't. I just care that folks don't accept everything at face value -- no matter which side of the argument they're reading/hearing about. People NEED to learn to look at the world through different eyes than their own. Sometimes that means challenging long held opinions. I'm glad that a teacher is trying to push the envelope a bit. I'm betting some of these kids will look back later on and thank you for this. Hillbilly, I don't think Columbus was all good or all bad. As I said, the truth is somewhere in the middle. When you look at opportunities that Native Americans have NOW, you have to remember also the past that brought them to where they are now. Once they roamed the continent, living off the land, sometimes being brutal to other tribes, sometimes striving to be in harmony with all things. Then the Europeans came along and started to try and OWN the land (a concept that the Native Americans didn't understand at all, for the most part). Europeans brought alcohol. They brought disease. Heck, in some cases, they gave blankets to tribes that they KNEW were infected with smallpox and didn't think twice about it. They herded some Native Americans like animals and forced them far from their native lands (go read about the Trail of Tears sometime). They did it all because they felt that they were superior. Some Native American tribes were wiped out completely. Many others virutually lost their entire culture when they were forced to adapt to the European ways and language. Are opportunities available to them today? Sure, but it's not easy. And no, life isn't easy, I know that. I don't want to argue anything, I just want to point out that there are so many different angles and perspectives to all situations. Looking at just one results in a very two-dimensional perception of reality. I prefer to try and see multi-dimensions and then form my opinions and make my decisions. I think that's what Kaili is trying to teach these kids to seek and I applaud it.
 |
Kaili | Friday, October 18, 2002 - 04:27 am     Max, one thing I would like to add here- after so many Native Americans died, that is when they turned to using African Americans- thus the start of the slave trade. Off to school I go- |
Hillbilly | Friday, October 18, 2002 - 05:41 am     "Las Casas claims to have used the journal of Columbus's first voyage, but he admits that he made an abridged copy of it. What and how much he left out, of course, is not known. But it is well to bear in mind that the journal, as published, is not the original in its entirety. " (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04140a.htm) The first settlement was officially established on Christmas Day, 1492, and hence christened "La Navidad". On the same day the admiral's ship ran aground. It was a total loss, and Columbus was reduced for the time being to the Niña, as the Pinta had temporarily deserted. Happily the natives were friendly. After ensuring, as well as he might, the safety of the little colony by the establishment of friendly relations with the Indians, Columbus left for Spain, where, after weathering a frightful storm during which he was again separated from the Pinta, he arrived at Palos, 15 March, 1493. Columbus started on his second voyage to the Indies from Cadiz, 25 September, 1493, with three large vessels and thirteen caravels, carrying in all about 1500 men. On his first trip, he had heard about other, smaller islands lying some distance south of Hispaniola, and said to be inhabited by ferocious tribes who had the advantage over the Arawaks of being intrepid seafarers, and who made constant war upon the inhabitants of the Greater Antilles and the Bahamas, carrying off women and children into captivity. They were believed to practice cannibalism. These were the Caribs and the reports about them were true, outside of some exaggerations and fables like the story of the Amazons. Previous to the arrival of Columbus the Caribs had driven the Arawaks steadily north, depopulated some of the smaller islands, and were sorely pressing the people of Hispaniola, parts of Cuba, Porto Rico, and even Jamaica. Columbus wished to learn more about these people. The helpless condition of the Arawaks made him eager to protect them against their enemies. . Columbus having obtained conclusive evidence of the ferocious customs of the Caribs, regarded them as dangerous to the settlements he proposed to make among the Arawaks and as obstacles to the Christianization and civilization of these Indians. The latter he intended to make use of as labourers, as he soon perceived that for some time to come European settlers would be too few in numbers and too new to the climate to take advantage of the resources of the island. The Caribs he purposed to convert eventually, but for the time being they must be considered as enemies, and according to the customs of the age, their captors had the right to reduce them to slavery. The Arawaks were to be treated in a conciliatory manner, as long as they did not show open hostility. Before long, however, there was a change in these relations. After a rapid survey of Jamaica, Columbus hastened to the northern coast of Haiti, where he had planted the colony of La Navidad. To his surprise the little fort had disappeared. There were to be seen only smouldering ruins and some corpses which were identified as Spanish. The natives, previously so friendly, were shy, and upon being questioned were either mute or contradictory in their replies. It was finally ascertained that another tribe, living farther inland and hostile to those on the coast, had fallen upon the fort, killed most of the inmates, and burnt most of the buildings. Those who escaped had perished in their flight. But it also transpired that the coast people themselves had taken part in the massacre. Columbus, while outwardly on good terms with them, was on his guard and, in consequence of the aversion of his people to a site where only disaster had befallen them, moved some distance farther east and established on the coast the larger settlement of Isabella. This stood ten leagues to the east of Cape Monte Cristo, where the ruins are still to be seen. The population, notwithstanding the exaggerations of Las Casas and others, was sparse. Isabella with its fifteen hundred Spanish immigrants was certainly the most populous settlement. At first there was no clash with the natives, but parties sent by Columbus into the interior came in contact with hostile tribes. For the protection of the colonists Columbus built in the interior a little fort called Santo Tomas. He also sent West Indian products and some Carib prisoners back to Spain in a vessel under the command of Antonio de Torres. Columbus suggested that the Caribs be sold as slaves in order that they might be instructed in the Christian Faith. This suggestion was not adopted by the Spanish monarchs, and the prisoners were treated as kindly in Spain as the friendly Arawaks who had been sent over. On 15 August, fearing a lack of supplies, and suffering severely from what his biographers call gout and from impaired eyesight, he left his new discoveries and steered for Haiti. On 19 August he sighted that island some distance west of where the present capital of the Republic of Santo Domingo now stands. During his absence his brother Bartholomew had abandoned Isabella and established his head-quarters at Santo Domingo so called after his father Domenico. During the absence of Columbus events on Haiti had been far from satisfactory. His brother Bartholomew, who was then known as the adelantado, had to contend with several Indian outbreaks, which he subdued partly by force, partly by wise temporizing. These outbreaks were, at least in part, due to a change in the class of settlers by whom the colony was reinforced. The results of the first settlement far from justified the buoyant hopes based on the exaggerated reports of the first voyage, and the pendulum of public opinion swung back to the opposite extreme. The clamour of opposition to Columbus in the colonies and the discouraging reports greatly increased in Spain the disappointment with the new territorial acquisitions. That the climate was not healthful seemed proved by the appearance of Columbus and his companions on his return from the second voyage. Hence no one was willing to go to the newly discovered country, and convicts, suspects, and doubtful characters in general who were glad to escape the regulations of justice were the only reinforcements that could be obtained for the colony on Hispaniola. As a result there were conflicts with the aborigines, sedition in the colony, and finally open rebellion against the authority of the adelantado and his brother Diego. Columbus and his brothers were Italians, and this fact told against them among the malcontents and lower officials, but that it influenced the monarchs and the court authorities is a gratuitous charge. As long as they had not a common leader Bartholomew had little to fear from the malcontents, who separated from the rest of the colony, and formed a settlement apart. They abused the Indians, thus causing almost uninterrupted trouble. However, they soon found a leader in the person of one Roldan, to whom the admiral had entrusted a prominent office in the colony. There must have been some cause for complaint against the government of Bartholomew and Diego, else Roldan could not have so increased the number of his followers as to make himself formidable to the brothers, undermining their authority at their own head-quarters and even among the garrison of Santo Domingo. Bartholomew was forced to compromise on unfavourable terms. So, when the admiral arrived from Spain he found the Spanish settlers on Haiti divided into two camps, the stronger of which, headed by Roldan, was hostile to his authority. That Roldan was an utterly unprincipled man, but energetic and above all, shrewd and artful, appears from the following incident. Soon after the arrival of Columbus the three caravels he had sent from Gomera with stores and ammunition struck the Haitian coast where Roldan had established himself. The latter represented to the commanders of the vessels that he was there by Columbus's authority and easily obtained from them military stores as well as reinforcements in men. On their arrival shortly afterward at Santo Domingo the caravels were sent back to Spain by Columbus. Alarmed at the condition of affairs and his own importance, he informed the monarchs of his critical situation and asked for immediate help. Then he entered into negotiations with Roldan. The latter not only held full control in the settlement which he commanded, but had the sympathy of most of the military garrisons that Columbus and his brothers relied upon as well as the majority of the colonists. Seeing himself almost powerless against his opponents on the island, the admiral stooped to a compromise. Roldan finally imposed his own conditions. He was reinstated in his office and all offenders were pardoned; and a number of them returned to Santo Domingo. Columbus also freed many of the Indian tribes from tribute, but in order still further to appease the former mutineers, he instituted the system of repartimientos, by which not only grants of land were made to the whites, but the Indians holding these lands or living on them were made perpetual serfs to the new owners, and full jurisdiction over life and property of these Indians became vested in the white settlers. This measure had the most disastrous effect on the aborigines, and Columbus has been severely blamed for it, but he was then in such straits that he had to go to any extreme to pacify his opponents until assistance could reach him from Spain. By the middle of the year 1500 peace apparently reigned again in the colony, though largely at the expense of the prestige and authority of Columbus. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04140a.htm) ***************** Here are some excerpts from research as well. |
Hillbilly | Friday, October 18, 2002 - 06:17 am     Presently they descried people, naked, and the Admiral landed in the boat, which was armed, along with Martin Alonzo Pinzon, and Vincent Yanez his brother, captain of the Nina. The Admiral bore the royal standard, and the two captains each a banner of the Green Cross, which all the ships had carried; this contained the initials of the names of the King and Queen each side of the cross, and a crown over each letter Arrived on shore, they saw trees very green many streams of water, and diverse sorts of fruits. The Admiral called upon the two Captains, and the rest of the crew who landed, as also to Rodrigo de Escovedo notary of the fleet, and Rodrigo Sanchez, of Segovia, to bear witness that he before all others took possession (as in fact he did) of that island for the King and Queen his sovereigns, making the requisite declarations, which are more at large set down here in writing. Numbers of the people of the island straightway collected together. Here follow the precise words of the Admiral: "As I saw that they were very friendly to us, and perceived that they could be much more easily converted to our holy faith by gentle means than by force, I presented them with some red caps, and strings of beads to wear upon the neck, and many other trifles of small value, wherewith they were much delighted, and became wonderfully attached to us. Afterwards they came swimming to the boats, bringing parrots, balls of cotton thread, javelins, and many other things which they exchanged for articles we gave them, such as glass beads, and hawk's bells; which trade was carried on with the utmost good will. But they seemed on the whole to me, to be a very poor people. They all go completely naked, even the women, though I saw but one girl. All whom I saw were young, not above thirty years of age, well made, with fine shapes and faces; their hair short, and coarse like that of a horse's tail, combed toward the forehead, except a small portion which they suffer to hang down behind, and never cut. Some paint themselves with black, which makes them appear like those of the Canaries, neither black nor white; others with white, others with red, and others with such colors as they can find. Some paint the face, and some the whole body; others only the eyes, and others the nose. 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. It appears to me, that the people are ingenious, and would be good servants and I am of opinion that they would very readily become Christians, as they appear to have no religion. They very quickly learn such words as are spoken to them. If it please our Lord, I intend at my return to carry home six of them to your Highnesses, that they may learn our language. I saw no beasts in the island, nor any sort of animals except parrots." These are the words of the Admiral. . The natives are an inoffensive people, and so desirous to possess any thing they saw with us, that they kept swimming off to the ships with whatever they could find, and readily bartered for any article we saw fit to give them in return, even such as broken platters and fragments of glass. I saw in this manner sixteen balls of cotton thread which weighed above twenty-five pounds, given for three Portuguese ceutis. This traffic I forbade, and suffered no one to take their cotton from them, unless I should order it to be procured for your Highnesses, if proper quantities could be met with. It grows in this island, but from my short stay here I could not satisfy myself fully concerning it; the gold, also, which they wear in their noses, is found here, but not to lose time, I am determined to proceed onward and ascertain whether I can reach Cipango. At night they all went on shore with their canoes. It was to view these parts that I set out in the morning, for I wished to give a complete relation to your Highnesses, as also to find where a fort might be built. I discovered a tongue of land which appeared like an island though it was not, but might be cut through and made so in two days; it contained six houses. 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. http://www.franciscan-archive.org/columbus/opera/excerpts.html ******************* Here is a site with excerpts from Columbus's log. He hardly sounds like the ruthless genocidal man this socialist author, that kaili used, would have us believe. For instance, the sword instance is definitely slanted to make it look more threatening. The purpose of Columbus voyage was to find a new route to the far east where there was a robust trade in gold, spices, silks. A voyage by sea to the far east would be, hopefully, faster and less strenuous than travel by land. Columbus did not go and brutally murder and enslave the Indians as Kaili's author and the rest of this politically correct movement here would like for us to believe. Like I said, they are presenting a 'revisionist' history in our schools and indoctrinating our children with slanted and false information. They are, in effect, removing and destroying our heritage. If they have their way, no longer can our children look to their ancestors and heritage with pride, now, they're supposed to be ashamed of their heritage. Well, not my daughters. For all that the rest of the world likes to defame and disparage Americans, I can't help but notice that they always, without fail, neglect to point out all the GOOD we have done for the world. And we have done much good. Why do we never hear this? Our country sends billions of dollars each year in foreign aid to other countries yet we rarely hear about this. I, for one, think the early european settlers conquering the new world and creating the United States of America has brought great benefit to the world and history. Greater benefit than disadvantage. If America had never been created, who would have landed at Normandy and sacrificed so many of her sons, brothers, and fathers to free France from the occupation of Nazi Germany. And yet I would never count France as a friend of ours. Who would have come to the aid of Britian during WWII? I'm not saying that America hasn't done bad things or made mistakes...I'm just tired of only hearing about the bad.....AND NEVER THE GOOD. These countries who criticize us today in the UN and in the press will be the first with their hands out looking for foreign aid or military help the first time they get picked on. I guess they've never heard the saying...'you shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you.' If they despise us so much then they shouldn't ask for or take our assistance. It's fraud. |
Bigd | Friday, October 18, 2002 - 06:40 am     Thanks Hillbilly, I applaud you. |
Hillbilly | Friday, October 18, 2002 - 06:45 am     By the way, Kaili, I'm having fun debating with you so please don't take my rebuttals personal. Since Faery seems to be missing in action, I haven't had anyone to spar with for a while. Good topic....I'm just trying to present the other side. |
|