3 ms·

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 Mes

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.

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.