Also, the (Shapiro’s) claim that the British empire “spread the idea of human liberty,” etc., is preposterous. Not the only source, but for an eye-opening reevaluation of the enlightenment and beyond, I recommend “The Dawn of Everything” by Graeber and Wengrow.
I'm from Latin America, and we're taught this chapter of history in an appalling way. When you're a kid, they make you do drawings of the "cultural exchange", where the original people gave the Spanish a potato or something, and the colonizers reciprocated with a golden shield... It's only when you get to college that this idea is completely deconstructed. I could write dozens of examples of what they did in Venezuela, all these I learned in University. The myth of the good colonizer endures...
Caracas, the capital of Venezuela, derived its name from the tribe living there. They were lead by a guy called Tamanaco, who was a fearless warrior. When the Spaniards came, the Caracas tribe proposed a duel: a one-on-one battle between chiefs for ownership of the land. Tamanaco accepted, as did the Spanish, but it was a trap. When Tamanaco showed up to the fight, the Spanish didn't show but set a pack of rabid dogs on him, that tore him to pieces. They also took advantage of the confusion to decimate the remaining tribe... That's how my city came to be!
You argue that Columbus deserves "unequivocal scorn," however your own work contains historical misinformation: Columbus wasn’t imprisoned on his second voyage—it was his third (1498-1500). He was imprisoned for hanging Spaniards who committed atrocities and attacked Hispaniola’s (modern-day Dominican Republic) indigenous people.
Moreover, there is no evidence of Columbus committing any horrific acts; rather, much of the atrocities were committed by mutineers and men seeking power--men who would oppress, pillage, and defile indigenous peoples whenever Columbus was off exploring.
Should we not hold them responsible? (You credit Las Casas as being an anti-slavery advocate, but his credibility is suspect--let us not forget that Las Casas was a slaveholder whereas Columbus was not.)
This seems to unfairly blame Columbus for all that went wrong in the New World while the real oppressors like Francisco Roldan, Francisco de Bobadilla, Nicolas de Ovando, Juan Aguado, and countless others receive no criticism for their heinous deeds.
It seems that Columbus serves as a lightning rod for all that went wrong while the real criminals remain unnoticed. It appears this debate and the surrounding history is highly nuanced.
Interesting points. Joe is giving Columbus “unequivocal scorn” because of the holiday designation, not for accuracy. In Joe’s world, redesignating Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples Day would make things right. The irony is, we already did that. The origins of Columbus Day were an appeasement to the Italian-Americans for what the Joes of the day saw as a threat to the Anglo-Protestant hierarchy. I look at the Columbus Day anger of Joe as reassigning appeasement, as the old appeasement isn’t necessary anymore. We live by symbolism. The trick is knowing when the symbol conceals the wound and when it forces us to look at it.
That's interesting. It's undoubtedly something his family would quiet, given the Reconquista. Karl Marx was in a similar situation. He was Jewish, but his family pretended to be Catholic to avoid discrimination.
The mistake was made by Benjamin Harrison, for designating Christopher Columbus and not Amerigo Vespucci as an appeasement to the Italian-American community, for having hanged 11 of them in New Orleans. Conquerors over explorers.
“ America has never truly reconciled with our history. Instead of acknowledging and apologizing for the past crimes of genocide, slavery, and segregation, we’ve chosen to minimize and ignore them”
Where have you been the last decade? Discussing Americas past sins has been at the forefront of the cultural dialogue for at least ten years.
Also North America was not even settled by the Spanish.
Las Casas recommended importing African slaves, because he believed they were hardier and could handle the work load better than the indigenous islanders. Shall we condemn him or judge him by the standards of his time?
When you started your article with “America has never truly reconciled …” I was assuming you were not referring to Latin America. But that actually brings up a good point, Latin American countries may also need to start “apologizing for the past crimes”; Mexico was not kind to the natives.
Also, the (Shapiro’s) claim that the British empire “spread the idea of human liberty,” etc., is preposterous. Not the only source, but for an eye-opening reevaluation of the enlightenment and beyond, I recommend “The Dawn of Everything” by Graeber and Wengrow.
He's so committed to owning the libs, his understanding of history is beneath a child's.
I'm from Latin America, and we're taught this chapter of history in an appalling way. When you're a kid, they make you do drawings of the "cultural exchange", where the original people gave the Spanish a potato or something, and the colonizers reciprocated with a golden shield... It's only when you get to college that this idea is completely deconstructed. I could write dozens of examples of what they did in Venezuela, all these I learned in University. The myth of the good colonizer endures...
The stories of how the first colonists encountered indigenous Americans are beyond barbaric. It's right out of a SAW film.
Caracas, the capital of Venezuela, derived its name from the tribe living there. They were lead by a guy called Tamanaco, who was a fearless warrior. When the Spaniards came, the Caracas tribe proposed a duel: a one-on-one battle between chiefs for ownership of the land. Tamanaco accepted, as did the Spanish, but it was a trap. When Tamanaco showed up to the fight, the Spanish didn't show but set a pack of rabid dogs on him, that tore him to pieces. They also took advantage of the confusion to decimate the remaining tribe... That's how my city came to be!
You argue that Columbus deserves "unequivocal scorn," however your own work contains historical misinformation: Columbus wasn’t imprisoned on his second voyage—it was his third (1498-1500). He was imprisoned for hanging Spaniards who committed atrocities and attacked Hispaniola’s (modern-day Dominican Republic) indigenous people.
Moreover, there is no evidence of Columbus committing any horrific acts; rather, much of the atrocities were committed by mutineers and men seeking power--men who would oppress, pillage, and defile indigenous peoples whenever Columbus was off exploring.
Should we not hold them responsible? (You credit Las Casas as being an anti-slavery advocate, but his credibility is suspect--let us not forget that Las Casas was a slaveholder whereas Columbus was not.)
This seems to unfairly blame Columbus for all that went wrong in the New World while the real oppressors like Francisco Roldan, Francisco de Bobadilla, Nicolas de Ovando, Juan Aguado, and countless others receive no criticism for their heinous deeds.
It seems that Columbus serves as a lightning rod for all that went wrong while the real criminals remain unnoticed. It appears this debate and the surrounding history is highly nuanced.
Interesting points. Joe is giving Columbus “unequivocal scorn” because of the holiday designation, not for accuracy. In Joe’s world, redesignating Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples Day would make things right. The irony is, we already did that. The origins of Columbus Day were an appeasement to the Italian-Americans for what the Joes of the day saw as a threat to the Anglo-Protestant hierarchy. I look at the Columbus Day anger of Joe as reassigning appeasement, as the old appeasement isn’t necessary anymore. We live by symbolism. The trick is knowing when the symbol conceals the wound and when it forces us to look at it.
And likely a Jew. He left the night they were banisdhed from Spain. NO priest sailed on the ships. There is more, but that is a start
That's interesting. It's undoubtedly something his family would quiet, given the Reconquista. Karl Marx was in a similar situation. He was Jewish, but his family pretended to be Catholic to avoid discrimination.
The mistake was made by Benjamin Harrison, for designating Christopher Columbus and not Amerigo Vespucci as an appeasement to the Italian-American community, for having hanged 11 of them in New Orleans. Conquerors over explorers.
“ America has never truly reconciled with our history. Instead of acknowledging and apologizing for the past crimes of genocide, slavery, and segregation, we’ve chosen to minimize and ignore them”
Where have you been the last decade? Discussing Americas past sins has been at the forefront of the cultural dialogue for at least ten years.
Also North America was not even settled by the Spanish.
Las Casas recommended importing African slaves, because he believed they were hardier and could handle the work load better than the indigenous islanders. Shall we condemn him or judge him by the standards of his time?
Florida was a Spanish colony.
When you started your article with “America has never truly reconciled …” I was assuming you were not referring to Latin America. But that actually brings up a good point, Latin American countries may also need to start “apologizing for the past crimes”; Mexico was not kind to the natives.