December 6, 2003
THE FIRST AMERICANS FETISH (via Mike Daley):
Picture Profile: Bowden Book Defends Columbus": The Enemies of Christopher Columbus by Thomas A. Bowden (Stephen Goode, Insight)
"The chief purpose of this book is to warn that the enemies of Christopher Columbus are serious," Bowden writes early on in Enemies, "and that the ideas they endorse, if not refuted and rejected, will end in the death of science, the destruction of the cities and the impoverishment of the human race."Insight: What made you decide to write The Enemies of Christopher Columbus?
Thomas A. Bowden: The news reports of the protests in the months before the 1992 celebration of the 500th anniversary of Columbus' discovery of America. The enemies of Columbus made it very clear that for them Columbus represented everything they hated about America.
I wrote a pamphlet defending him and distributed it to campus Ayn Rand clubs. It got to them barely in time for the anniversary and I had in mind to expand the pamphlet. I knew the information to do so was out there and wanted to take a sabbatical to work on it. That was a pipe dream. But then came the Internet and online selling and publishing, and with that technology the project became much more feasible.
The attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, gave new urgency to the book in my mind. Those attacks on New York City and Washington were attacks on our civilization and our way of life. It became necessary once more to examine and to understand why our civilization is great and worth defending.
It was Western values and achievements that the enemies of Columbus denounced and attacked relentlessly. But it also is those achievements - natural law, self-responsibility, property rights, the scientific method and reason - that have made life so much better for everyone.
Those are ideas that Columbus brought West. Somehow we've lost the ability to celebrate the coming of Western civilization to America, and to be thankful for it. In fact the enemies of Columbus have been getting away with saying that it is a very bad thing that he came along. And certainly if we don't understand why Western civilization is worth fighting for and preserving, how are we to deal with the threat posed by Islamic fundamentalists who share the same contempt and hatred for America and the West that the enemies of Columbus express?
One of the surest indicators that the Left has moved on from 9-11 was the spate of Thanksgiving stories about how Native Americans have no reason to be thankful that the Pilgrims made it here. Apparently, they think we're ready to get back to bashing Western values, after a too brief period when they had sense enough to keep quiet.
Posted by Orrin Judd at December 6, 2003 9:08 AM
Columbus was a great mariner -- Morison rated him the best -- but an awful man.
There were other exporters of the western ideals who are far more attractive.
And it is an unquestionable fact that the Americans who met Columbus personally had no reason to be thankful. Hard to be thankful from the grave, anyway.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at December 6, 2003 3:37 PMHarry:
Ah, but you care only for yourself. Think of it from the perspective of someone who cared about their descendants.
Posted by: oj at December 6, 2003 4:06 PMThey don't have any descendants. They were exterminated.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at December 7, 2003 8:49 PMWho? There are Amerindians a plenty.
Posted by: oj at December 7, 2003 9:07 PMMost of the "extermination" of Indians was because of European diseases such as the common cold, which they had no built up resistance to. You can't blame that on genocide. But Harry has a good point. I'm sure that the early settlers gave the Indians no reason to believe that their ancestors would be better off for their being shot by the white men. Any race of people who would give up their sovereignty in such a way would deserve to become extinct. Ask the native Tasmanians how they have prospered under the Australians.
Not to say that modern day Indians aren't better off than they would be without Columbus. The Aztec regime was one of the most barbarous civilizations of history. The world has changed, and those who refuse to partake of the benefits of the civilization they now belong to out of nostalgia for their ancestors and spite for the European invaders are not, in my opinion, to be felt sorry for.
Posted by: Robert D at December 7, 2003 11:09 PMIf you will read my post, I referred to those Indians who encountered Columbus directly. Arawaks.
There are not any Arawak descendants, and the reason was not only, or even mostly, disease. The conquistadors, under the command of Columbus, the admiral of the Indiea, enslaved and worked them to death.
The impact of Europeans on Americans generally was pretty bad. There were something like 1,500 American languages, meaning something like 1,500 different societies.
Being neighbor to the Aztecs was no fun. But that was hardly the whole story.
As of today, descendants of Spaniards are still killing descendants of Maya. When is this improvement Orrin speaks of going to begin?
Posted by: Harry Eagar at December 8, 2003 6:05 PMTheir societies were crap.
Posted by: oj at December 8, 2003 7:46 PMHarry,
You are correct about the Arawaks, I was speaking more broadly about Indians in North and South America. Certainly the benefits of western civilization were not spread evenly across the New World. Those nations that were settled by Catholics did noticeably worse than the Protestant colonies of England.
OJ, whether their societies were "crap" or not, it is never a legitimate excuse for wanton killing.
Posted by: Robert D at December 9, 2003 12:26 AMWell, unless they believe in wanton killing.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at December 9, 2003 12:54 AMThe Spanish society was crap, too. If there was any difference between the Spain of Torquemada and the Mexico of Moctezuma, I could not say what it was.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at December 9, 2003 12:59 AMThen you've not read enough. The Spain of the Inquisition was a great society.
Posted by: oj at December 9, 2003 8:36 AMWell let's compare the Spain of the Inquisition and, say, Moctezuma's Aztec Empire.
Each was an aggressive, imperialist society with an economy based on slavery.
Each maintained social control by defining a group of outsiders and declaring that religion demanded they be slain.
I'm trying to think of something that came out of Spain in the 15th century that we value today. Coming up blank.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at December 9, 2003 3:22 PMA reduced Islam, The New World, universal Christianity...
Posted by: oj at December 9, 2003 4:37 PM