3 ms·

> "Columbus bad" isn't really a "thesis", it's a fact. Bad compared to who? Whatever faults you'd lay at his feet were not only de rigueur for both Europeans a

> "Columbus bad" isn't really a "thesis", it's a fact. Bad compared to who? Whatever faults you'd lay at his feet were not only de rigueur for both Europeans and Muslims of his time, but exceeded in many dimensions of savagery by the indigenous cultures he encountered. At any rate, disease and lack of immunity was far and away the agent of the demise of the natives, not Columbus or those who followed him over the centuries. > Have you read 1491 and 1493. I have, and they are a couple of the most eye-opening books I have read. Have you read Rousseau? The man never met a native American, and what accounts he read of their lives were certainly exaggerations, if not fabrications. In his own life, he was notoriously irresponsible. He fathered and abandoned for the orphanage -- a death sentence in those days -- five children. He was habitually leeching off friends and nobles who were susceptible to his charms, until he exhausted their patience and good will, including by e.g. seducing their wives at times. In short, he was a scoundrel, and he saw in the the story of the natives something which he desperately wanted for himself, but which wasn't there: the possibility of a life free from societal constraint, obligations to be decent, to use one's life productively, to be responsible for others, to live morally. The man confabulated for the natives a lifestyle free of the bonds under which he chafed in France -- and we have been laboring under his romantic "noble savage" delusion ever since. I mention all this to say, anyone who would read about the lives of natives would do well to read a little Rousseau, then read a little about the man, and mentally subtract his influence which is virtually omnipresent in all subsequent popular thought about natives. TLDR; nobody wants to consider that the colonel may have been the good guy in Avatar, and Sully a delusional loner.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> Whatever faults you’d lay at his feet were not only de rigueur for both Europeans and Muslims of his time, No, they weren’t, which is why he was known as a notoriously cruel administrator by contemporary Europeans, which was a substantial factor in his being removed as governor, arrested, and returned to Spain in chains.
- hattmall 4y ago
  This is also generally a fabrication. Columbus was a fanatic. This is how he was viewed and the claims of his cruelty were unsubstantiated allegations made by his enemies and the crown to avoid paying him the 10% that he was contractually owed. This was the reason for his removal as governor. Columbus returned in chains at his own insistence that if he were to be recalled to defend himself then he was a prisoner and it should be known that he was treated as such and afforded no special privilege. Columbus the Four Voyages by Laurence Bergreen details this and many many more extremely interesting details about Columbus.
- paisawalla 4y ago
  In addition to Europeans, the contemporary set I mentioned also includes 1. Arab slavers who made eunuchs of their captured (kidnapped) slaves, and 2. the Mesoamerican civilizations whose religious imperative was to keep their sacred pyramids constantly covered in flowing human blood The corollary of your point, even if it was a fair and accurate assessment of Columbus' affairs, would be that Europeans were otherwise moral judges -- although by today's standards I'm sure you'd also condemn them just the same. Columbus was a product of his times, as were the slavers and the natives.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    “de rigeur for <X> and <Y>” means “required by current fashion for all of X and Y” not “practiced by some subset of X and Y”. You seem to be retreating from the claim that Columbus’s behavior as governor was in line with the universal practice of his time to the much weaker and less controversial claim that it was both in some way influenced by the social context of his time and not uniquely bad in the contemporary (overlapping) “European and Muslim” world. Which, sure, nice motte and bailey, Columbus was quite possibly not the single most abusive European and/or Muslim territorial governor of the late 15th Century. (You also seem to want to argue about claims about Mesoamerican civilizations which I did not argue against, for whatever reason.)
    - paisawalla 4y ago
      Correct. Columbus's behavior was de rigueur for X=[those European engaged in exploration, settlement, and the slave trade]. It was also better than the equivalent behavior when X=[non-Europeans engaged in the same]. And the slave trade, conquest, and settlement was de rigueur for X=[civilizations]. Therefore "Columbus was bad" can't be meaningfully correct, unless we're presupposing a moral frame that stands outside of one's time and one's contemporaries -- and if we're doing that, I'll have a lot of other comments.
ss108 4y ago
> Bad compared to who? Whatever faults you'd lay at his feet were not only de rigueur for both Europeans and Muslims of his time, but exceeded in many dimensions of savagery by the indigenous cultures he encountered. At any rate, disease and lack of immunity was far and away the agent of the demise of the natives, not Columbus or those who followed him over the centuries. Even if Columbus's badness was within the range of average for his time, it's still a fact that he was bad lol. I don't know why you're singling out Europeans and Muslims, btw--every society and group had (and has) its cruel bigots, its tyrants, its zealots, etc.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> Whatever faults you’d lay at his feet were not only de rigueur for both Europeans and Muslims of his time, No, they weren’t, which is why he was known as a notoriously cruel administrator by contemporary Europeans, which was a substantial factor in his being removed as governor, arrested, and returned to Spain in chains.

hattmall 4y ago
This is also generally a fabrication. Columbus was a fanatic. This is how he was viewed and the claims of his cruelty were unsubstantiated allegations made by his enemies and the crown to avoid paying him the 10% that he was contractually owed. This was the reason for his removal as governor. Columbus returned in chains at his own insistence that if he were to be recalled to defend himself then he was a prisoner and it should be known that he was treated as such and afforded no special privilege. Columbus the Four Voyages by Laurence Bergreen details this and many many more extremely interesting details about Columbus.
paisawalla 4y ago
In addition to Europeans, the contemporary set I mentioned also includes 1. Arab slavers who made eunuchs of their captured (kidnapped) slaves, and 2. the Mesoamerican civilizations whose religious imperative was to keep their sacred pyramids constantly covered in flowing human blood The corollary of your point, even if it was a fair and accurate assessment of Columbus' affairs, would be that Europeans were otherwise moral judges -- although by today's standards I'm sure you'd also condemn them just the same. Columbus was a product of his times, as were the slavers and the natives.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  “de rigeur for <X> and <Y>” means “required by current fashion for all of X and Y” not “practiced by some subset of X and Y”. You seem to be retreating from the claim that Columbus’s behavior as governor was in line with the universal practice of his time to the much weaker and less controversial claim that it was both in some way influenced by the social context of his time and not uniquely bad in the contemporary (overlapping) “European and Muslim” world. Which, sure, nice motte and bailey, Columbus was quite possibly not the single most abusive European and/or Muslim territorial governor of the late 15th Century. (You also seem to want to argue about claims about Mesoamerican civilizations which I did not argue against, for whatever reason.)
  - paisawalla 4y ago
    Correct. Columbus's behavior was de rigueur for X=[those European engaged in exploration, settlement, and the slave trade]. It was also better than the equivalent behavior when X=[non-Europeans engaged in the same]. And the slave trade, conquest, and settlement was de rigueur for X=[civilizations]. Therefore "Columbus was bad" can't be meaningfully correct, unless we're presupposing a moral frame that stands outside of one's time and one's contemporaries -- and if we're doing that, I'll have a lot of other comments.

ss108 4y ago

> Bad compared to who? Whatever faults you'd lay at his feet were not only de rigueur for both Europeans and Muslims of his time, but exceeded in many dimensions of savagery by the indigenous cultures he encountered. At any rate, disease and lack of immunity was far and away the agent of the demise of the natives, not Columbus or those who followed him over the centuries. Even if Columbus's badness was within the range of average for his time, it's still a fact that he was bad lol. I don't know why you're singling out Europeans and Muslims, btw--every society and group had (and has) its cruel bigots, its tyrants, its zealots, etc.