Opinion
Columbus anything but a national hero
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Mohammed Abed:
- Local front of war on women's rights (September 22, 2005)
- Case for divesting from Israeli interests (September 30, 2005)
- Columbus anything but a national hero (October 13, 2005)
- Iraqi constitution guarantees division (October 28, 2005)
- Regents hear from divestment group (November 17, 2005)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Last Monday, instead of mourning the lives of millions of American Indians who were systematically slaughtered to make way for the society in which we currently live, we celebrated the "great achievements" of Christopher Columbus, the first European to "discover" the "new world." The myth about Columbus is that he was a hero of history, a fearless adventurer to whom we owe a great debt. The reality is that Columbus was a mass murderer who, during his tenure as governor of the Caribbean Islands and the mainland, instituted policies of slavery and systematic extermination of the native Taino population of the Island he called Espanola (Haiti and Dominican Republic).
The wider myth about the indigenous population of the Americas is that rather than being systematically eliminated, their deaths were an accidental byproduct of the introduction of new diseases to the continent. Alternatively, many were killed in the course of violent exchanges they initiated against "peaceful" settlers. At times, a massacre here and there will be acknowledged. However, after an initial expression of regret, these events will be explained away as "isolated incidents" rather than key episodes in a systematic project of extermination.
The first myth has even been parroted by respectable Holocaust scholars such as Stephen Katz from Cornell University. It seems to matter little to Katz that the historical record provides us with evidence that American Indian tribes were victims of purposeful biological warfare. To take one example, in 1763, Lord Jeffrey Amherst wrote to his subordinate Colonel Henry Bouquet "you will do well to infect the Indians by means of blankets as well as to try every other method that can serve to extirpate this execrable race." The "Indians" he was referring to were the Ottawa and Lenape peoples, both of whom were almost entirely wiped out.
The correct translation of the second myth (in light of the historical record) is that killing Indians in large numbers was justified because they failed to peacefully accept the violent theft of their lands or to quietly submit to their new rulers. Myth three is difficult to believe given the rate of extermination, the methods used, and the actual disposition of the indigenous population. Recent studies indicate that the pre-contact Indian population of North America was between 10 and 18 million people. In the 1890s, the indigenous population was 237,000 — a 98 to 99 percent, or near total extermination rate. It's difficult to believe such a high rate of attrition was the product of armed conflict between the native population and settlers or that "isolated incidents" could have a combined effect of this magnitude.
Denial of the massive genocide that took place in the Americas is common to almost every position on the political spectrum. One complaint is that those who try to shed light on the relentless atrocities suffered by American Indians can only be motivated by a "hatred" of America and its accomplishments. However, criticism is a necessary condition of social improvement, and the idea that something is amenable to improvement can happily co-exist with a healthy respect for its existing virtues. Another frequently cited objection is that "this is just the way history is made," so complaining about it is a form of meaningless resistance to history itself. The atrocities committed against American Indians are a mere relic of the past that cannot possibly be compensated for, and although what happened was regrettable, we now live in a society that respects the rights of all of its citizens and provides them almost boundless opportunities for economic and social improvement.
The oppression of Native Americans is not a relic of the past and what happened in the past has a significant effect on present day conditions. They continue to suffer at the hands of a government that reserves the "right" to define who's an Indian and who's not. They are denied genuine self-determination and political control over their traditional lands, even when those lands are available to accommodate their return. Instead, their communal existence is confined to "reservations," circumscribed areas where they have nominal control over their internal affairs. The social problems affecting Indian communities are often attributed to "laziness," "backwardness" or an "inability to adapt to modern life," rather than to the unrelenting institutionalized racism they face.
To accept that "this is the way history is made" is to deny the idea of moral and social progress. No ends justify the use of such atrocious means. Although it may not be possible to pay reparations in exact proportion to crimes of this magnitude, it is possible for the U.S. government to do everything in its power make amends, including granting American Indian communities true sovereignty over as much of their traditional lands as possible, provision of monetary compensation and bringing an end to institutionalized racism in all its forms. If one believes in the ideals of human freedom this country represents, then surely support for a solution of this form is a foregone conclusion.
Mohammed Abed (mabed@badgerherald.com) is a lecturer in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
15 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Muckrakers
President’s Visit Marked a Speech to One of the Last Groups Not Critical of Him
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
Mohammed, you're an idiot. How did that reference to Holocaust scholarship have anything to do with Columbus? You took what could have been an interesting and relevant article and turned it into another opportunity for Jew bashing.
I know it is politically incorrect to point it out, but in the West particularly the noble savages were eating each other, and bitter wars between the Sioux and Aztecs were probably inevitable. The noblest tribe of the lot, the Cheyenne, were being progressively defeated. The Navajo were some of the toughest people alive and might have been the buffer to keep the Aztec empire from expansion; after all, the Anastazi had built a large and complex social structure (if we had found the Chaco ruins in Europe we would have called them palaces). But to lament the European discovery of the Americas and the introduction of Western Civilization seems an odd concession for the descendents of the Europeans to make to the descendents of the tribes. I am not sure why endless conquests mostly resulting in stasis, without the wheel, with waterworks done in the most primitive way, which would have been the result of the non-discovery of America, would be preferable to what we have now, even for the Native Americans. They held conquest to be a legitimate means of acquiring land. And so it was.
If you want to lament for anyone, make it the Navajo, who had the best part of the Southwest and had driven their enemies (such as the Apache) into land the Navajo didn't want; because they had the desirable river land, the full might of Western Civilization fell on them early, with horse artillery. And credit the Navajo being smart enough to know they were beaten. Some did rather well out of the surrender. Others did not fare so well.
Christopher Columbus, master adventurer, had the determination to first require that Isabella the Great give him his titles and his credits before he would set out; and the determination to keep sailing on when everyone else was certain they would never find land ahead.
Hey, I'm all for getting rid of Columbus Day. No one would miss it, except for the millions of lazy ass government employees from local to federal who would actually have to work that day like everyone else in the world.
Land titles everywhere are all eventually based on the phrase "By right of conquest". Why should the US be different?
Mohammed is right, history can be a very messy process. This underscores why we need to make sure to fight his militant islamist friends wherever we can, lest we end up on the wrong side of history ourselves.
Gentlemen,
This is very a very interesting article. For your info., please search for an article written by Hispanic Focus "A rethinking of Thanksgiving."
Thanks.
The death and destruction of native americans gets two national holidays. We don't even celebrate our nation's independance as much as we celebrate the indian holocaust.
First column of yours I've ever agreed with. Still, why the needless dig on "Holocaust scholars"?
Mohammed,
Maybe you should look at how the Muslims in 630 CE exterminated dozens of civilizations and still persecute ethnic minorities today. How about the Assyrians and Yezidis in Iraq? How about the Shi'ia Harazis and the forced conversion to Islam of the Nuristanis in Afghanistan?
Yes, Columbus is no angel, but every civilization has a dirty history. You scream bloody murder about Columbus and then epitomize the Palestineans, many of whom are war criminals themselves who have targeted civilians.
Whether it is the United States, Israel, the Arab World, or China, every civilization has had a sorted past and dark history. The strength of the United States, at least, is the fact that we can have an debate about Columbus. I would like to see you go to Saudi Arabia and have the same conversation about the caliphs.
Do you think that the Aztecs would still be eating people?
i suppose you think the palestinians are right for resisting the systematic and violent expulsion from their homeland too. you crazy fool.
well ya know, white always makes right. south africa, germany (extermination of jews), afghanistan, iraq, the crusades, slavery, native american genocide, need i go on?
I think we should start a contest where we choose a topic for Mohammed to write about, and his job would be to figure out how to bash a Jew in the process.
Why is a lecturer writing Op-Ed articles? Doesn't that strike anyone as strange, so much for political neutrality
I'm pretty sure he wasn't ripping on Jews this time. If anything he was supporting Holocaust victims. Read "Modernity and the Holocaust" by Bauman if you get a chance, it was not an isolated incident as the author said, but the culmination of hundreds and hundreds of years of social interactions and processes.