Monday, October 12, 2009

Happy Columbus Day

I spoke last time about the odd phenomenon of “new” knowledge, most of which comes from what my third grader learns at school. For instance, that there are now five oceans in the world (not four, like when I was a kid), and four states of matter instead of three. Another tidbit I picked up is that in many schools these days, Christopher Columbus is introduced as the “first foreigner” to come to the New World.

Now, on this point, I have to disagree. Foreigner? Yes. But, don’t forget that Leif Ericson landed in North America around the year 1000, almost 500 years before Columbus. Also, Native Americans migrated from Asia to North America across the Bering Strait region over the course of hundreds of years. They were not all from the same areas. So, I suppose some of these migrants would be considered original settlers, and later migrants would have to be considered foreigners as well.

Over time, Columbus Day has become one of those holidays that has sparked controversy over the process and scope of European settlement of America. Some see it as a memorial to a daring seaman who ushered in a new age. Spanish settlement spawned French, Dutch, and English exploration and settlement, which eventually led to the establishment of our country. Others see it as an inappropriate and insensitive celebration of one culture’s overtaking of another.

But, instead of delving into that debate, I’d rather share a few lines from a letter that Columbus wrote on February 15, 1493, describing his first encounters with the native peoples of the Caribbean. I find his comments fascinating, particularly those pertaining to his belief in God and the potential for the native peoples to believe in God also.

To me, the Indians’ first encounter with Columbus is just about the closest thing I can think of to aliens landing in a spaceship and little green men visiting me at Virginia Beach as I am reclining and reading a book on a warm summer day. It was that bizarre. Anyway, here are a few excerpts where Columbus describes the land and the native peoples. Enjoy.

“Spanola is a marvel; the mountains and hills, and plains, and fields, and land, so beautiful and rich for planting and sowing, and for breeding cattle of all sorts, for building of towns and villages. There could be no believing, without seeing, such harbours as are here, as well as the many and great rivers, and excellent waters, most of which contain gold.”

“It seems to me that in all those islands, the men are all content with a single wife; and to their chief or king they give as many as twenty. The women, it appears to me, do more work than the men.”

“Of anything they have, if it be asked for, they never say no, but do rather invite the person to accept it, and show as much lovingness as though they would give their hearts. And whether it be a thing of value, or one of little worth, they are straightways content with whatsoever trifle of whatsoever kind may be given them in return for it.”

“I gave gratuitously a thousand useful things that I carried, in order that they may conceive affection, and furthermore may be made Christians; for they are inclined to the love and service of their Highness and of all the Castillion nation, and they strive to combine in giving us things which they have in abundance, and of which we are in need.”

“And they knew no sect, nor idolatry; save that they all believe that power and goodness are in the sky, and they believed very firmly that I, with these ships and crew, came from the sky.”

“Since thus our Redeemer has given to our most illustrious King and Queen, and to their famous kingdoms, this victory in so high a matter, Christendom should take gladness therein and make great festivals, and give solemn thanks to the Holy Trinity for the great exaltation they shall have by the conversion of so many peoples to our holy faith; and next for the temporal benefit which will bring hither refreshment and profit, not only to Spain, but to all Christians.”

“This briefly, in accordance with the facts. Dated, on the caravel, off the Canary Islands, the 15 February of the year 1493.”

5 comments:

  1. This is just another example of the liberal anti "western civ" movement invading our public school system.
    Columbus's letter is indeed intriguing. Gold in the rivers, serene and happy natives, ample and ferile farming land. What queen wouldn't want to fund a return expedition!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Can someone explain to me exactly what is liberal and anti western? Are you talking about Christopher Columbus? Or his letter? What exactly is the example of the "movement" that is invading public schools? I just don't follow what exactly you are saying and want to make sure I understand what you are saying.

    -Crooked Steve

    ReplyDelete
  3. Crooked Steve – Thanks much for reading my blog. I would answer your question this way. Traditionally, historians and Americans in general have viewed the “great men of the past” in very favorable terms, i.e. Columbus, George Washington, Andrew Jackson. However, in the last couple of generations, the tide in historical studies has shifted to a less favorable view of such people, and a less favorable view of America in general. This reinterpretation is known as a liberal, or more anti-western view. This is the view that would assert that Columbus was not a hero, but rather one of many participants in an unfair exploitation and takeover of native peoples, that George Washington wasn’t so great because he was a slave owner, etc. As you are no doubt aware, in the polarized American climate of today, there is much debate between those who hold to the traditional (or conservative) view, and the liberal view. My view is that many of these men were in fact great men, though by no means perfect. For instance, I don’t like the fact that George Washington owned slaves. But I do think that he was a “hero.” In fact, I believe that there is no way that we would be a free, independent country today without him. He was that essential to our national founding. So, in short, the terms “liberal” and “anti-western” here apply to a method of interpreting and teaching history today, not to Columbus himself, or his letter. Take care and thanks again, Dave

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ok. But I am not sure why a deeper examination of our historical figures in a broader context is being called Liberal. Is it because liberal pertains to reform or progress as in the dictionary definition below (1). That is the closet definition of liberal I could find that made sense to me in this context. That is, views of these historical figures is being reformed. As a historian you know that the conquering people often write the history books. Years later the conquered sometimes get their voice. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so. Does it negate the accomplishments of people like George Washington? I don't think so. That fact that George Washington owned slaves is an important reality to some people. I grew up here in America and have had a very easy life compared to many both here an in other countries. I am lucky to live in a country where I can discuss such things without censorship or being shot. Is our country perfect? No. Did George Washington own slaves? Yes I guess (you are the expert). Was this wrong. Yes. Should that fact be documented. Yes. Does it mean that George Washington did not accomplish many great things? No. It is simply historical accuracy. Why call it liberal? Why not simply call it the truth. Same with Columbus. To many people he brought death, destruction, and disease to pristine lands. From these people's perspective, he was an evil man. As you said he opened up the lands here for further colonization which lead us to where we are today. Am I glad to live the life I am leading now that could not have been without Columbus or someone else staking the British claim? Yes. Do I think that to the people who were here first, Columbus was an invader? Yes. Both are true right? Wow, I rambled on way too long. Sorry to keep you. I don't think we disagree.

    -CS

    lib⋅er⋅al  [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl]
    Use liberal in a Sentence
    –adjective
    1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
    2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
    3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
    4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
    5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
    6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
    7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
    8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
    9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
    10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
    11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
    12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
    13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.

    ReplyDelete
  5. WOW! Looks like I really stirred the pot with my "liberal" remark. Thanks Dave for an excellent response and also thanks CS for your thought-provoking counter response.

    Many words have both literal and connotative meanings. I used "liberal" in the (currently) popular connotative sense: that habit in the media to ALWAYS emphasize the faults and shortcomings of America, it's founding fathers, etc. "Liberal", like "Communism", is a pure and lofty characteristic in it's literal definition, not a wrong thing at all. Like communism, though, it's practical outworking, as currently practiced, is a destructive force to our society.

    One other point. It is completely absurd for one generation to judge another generation of a century or two ago. Owning slaves in Washington's time was not the onerous act to them as it is now to us, just as unspeakable brutality in ancient times was commonplace, though it appalls us. It is not a matter of the "conquered people getting their voice"; the conquered people are long gone. It is rather today's people using the sins of long-ago generations as a lever to obtain preferential treatment. There is no better example of this than our insane laws giving Indian "tribes" preferential treatment with their Casinos. Case in point: the Pequot Tribe (so-called), in Connecticut, had to trace all the way back to 1905 to find a last existing member. They then "constructed" a group from her descendants to form a "tribe" and qualify to build a casino (which the mafia likely runs) and get special taxs breaks.

    Thanks again for sharing with me!

    ReplyDelete