Happy Bartolomé Day or Why Columbus Was a Wretched Evil Man

[wuapinmon]

http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/columbus_day/2.png


http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/columbus_day/3.png


http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/columbus_day/4.png
http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/columbus_day/5.png
http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/columbus_day/6.png

http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/columbus_day/7.png

http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/columbus_day/8.png

http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/columbus_day/9.png

http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/columbus_day/10.png

http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/columbus_day/11.png

[LA Ute]

I agree that Columbus did shockingly horrible things. I think even Ferdinand and Isabella (or their representatives) punished him for his "harsh methods" -- far too soft a term. But the Europeans were going to get to the Americas sooner or later. Would the English have been better for the native populations than Inquisition-era Spaniards? I am just wondering what better group of conquerors we might wish had done the job. (And in that era nations conquered, they didn't just show up in new territory and say "I come in peace, let's set up diplomatic relations.")

[wuapinmon]

You're looking at it from an imperial perspective. The point is to question why we still honor something so heinous with a federal holiday, not who should've done the slaughtering.

[Solon]

I teach about de las Casas in my ancient Greece class.

He argued against the theories that Native Americans were "natural slaves" as explained by Aristotle, a theory put forth by a Scot named John Major & expounded upon by Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda. Aristotle argued that certain people were slaves-by-nature since they lacked the "leading part" of their souls. He also opined that an Honor Code and strict prohibition of caffeinated soda were necessary to keep such natural slaves in line. (sorry wuap - just a joke. Not a shot at you. :p)

The other thing that's interesting to me is the way people harp on that word "discovered". This graphic at least concedes that it's a semantic argument, but it's a common criticism that Columbus didn't really "discover" anything. That's a smoke storm. For better or for worse, Columbus's journeys had an enormous impact on the history of the world. Chinese fishermen off the coast of Chile, ancient migrants crossing the Bering Strait during the Ice Age, and Leif Erickson did not.

Now, whether or not Columbus deserves a holiday is another question.

[LA Ute]

You're looking at it from an imperial perspective. The point is to question why we still honor something so heinous with a federal holiday, not who should've done the slaughtering.

That is a fair question and I agree it should be the primary one. But my question is important to me, you miserable vomituous mass; that's why I asked it! Why are you dodging it?

I really wish I had been taught about Bartolome when I was in grade school.

[DanielLaRusso]

What are you guys talking about? Isn't today the day we celebrate the failed attempt to discover the Northwest Passage by Martin Frobisher?

[GarthUte]

Is there anything liberals/progressives don't find offensive?

[DanielLaRusso]

Is there anything liberals/progressives don't find offensive?

Farmer's markets and quinoa, duh.

[wuapinmon]

Is there anything liberals/progressives don't find offensive?

Baseball, cognac, progress, and most anything recorded by The Stranglers between 1977-1982.


That is a fair question and I agree it should be the primary one. But my question is important to me, you miserable vomituous mass; that's why I asked it! Why are you dodging it?

I really wish I had been taught about Bartolome when I was in grade school.

To answer your question, I think the British were less bellicose than Spain ca. 1492 due to there not having been a Reconquista. So, in pure supposition, it might've been somewhat better. But, the diseases would've still killed the way they did, and the importation of African slaves would've still happened, regardless of the agent. However, the religious conversion would've probably been less clear with all of the competing sects post-Reformation. Catholicism might've been crushed if the British had had the wealth that Carlos V had to prosecute the Protestants. Who knows.




I teach about de las Casas in my ancient Greece class.

He argued against the theories that Native Americans were "natural slaves" as explained by Aristotle, a theory put forth by a Scot named John Major & expounded upon by Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda. Aristotle argued that certain people were slaves-by-nature since they lacked the "leading part" of their souls. He also opined that an Honor Code and strict prohibition of caffeinated soda were necessary to keep such natural slaves in line. (sorry wuap - just a joke. Not a shot at you. :p)

The other thing that's interesting to me is the way people harp on that word "discovered". This graphic at least concedes that it's a semantic argument, but it's a common criticism that Columbus didn't really "discover" anything. That's a smoke storm. For better or for worse, Columbus's journeys had an enormous impact on the history of the world. Chinese fishermen off the coast of Chile, ancient migrants crossing the Bering Strait during the Ice Age, and Leif Erickson did not.

Now, whether or not Columbus deserves a holiday is another question.

People who niggle over "discovered" remind me of 1991, and all of the rhetoric coming out of the Americas on the then approaching 500th anniversary of El Descubrimiento. Also, check out Von Sertima's They Came before Columbus to see an alternative history. The fact remains, the New World had no Iron Age civilizations along the length of the super continent. Jared Diamond notes that it was merely a question of when for conquest by the Old World.

[Solon]

Is there anything liberals/progressives don't find offensive?

I'm totally not offended by justice, beauty, and virtue (That's virtue, not chastity. It's possible that I can find chastity offensive).


To answer your question, I think the British were less bellicose than Spain ca. 1492 due to there not having been a Reconquista. So, in pure supposition, it might've been somewhat better. But, the diseases would've still killed the way they did, and the importation of African slaves would've still happened, regardless of the agent. However, the religious conversion would've probably been less clear with all of the competing sects post-Reformation. Catholicism might've been crushed if the British had had the wealth that Carlos V had to prosecute the Protestants. Who knows.

England probably wouldn't have been able to pull it off in 1492 - they were still too much of a backwater.
The guys at Jamestown a hundred & something years later would have held their own in kicking around the natives. Only problem was that the Indians* in Virginia fought back.

But, hey, archaeologists are finding out interesting things about the Jamestown folks all the time:
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-01/national/38945390_1_leg-bone-cannibalism-skull

*this term is intended to help keep GarthUte's PC-Anger-Advisory-System at Level Orange or lower. :D