|
  |
The allegation of
genocide is a serious one.
>What is included in your definition of the term?
Who's lying?
Following our dictum of "Teaching" (presenting two or more sides)
vs. "Preaching" (one side is sufficient) we find that the term
"Lies" is used not just by James Loewen (Lies My Teacher Told Me)
but by people on the other side of the debate.
Here an excerpt from Larry Schweikart's, 48 Liberal Lies about
American History we have an alternative statement of what is the
"greater truth."
LIE
#21:
COLUMBUS
WAS
RESPONSIBLE
FOR
KILLING
MILLIONS
OF INDIANS
|
Est imates
of Haiti's
pre-Columbian
population range as high as
8,000,000
people
....
When Christopher
Columbus
returned
to
Spain
...
[the
census]
of
Indian adults in
1496
[was]
1,100,000.
~James
W. Loewen, Lies My Teacher Told Me
When
Hernando
Cortes
and his Spanish
army
of fewer
than a thousand
men
stormed
into
Mexico
in
1519,
the
native
population numbered
about 22
million.
By the end of the
century, following
a series of devastating
epidemics,
only
2 million
people
remained.
~Bruce
Stutz,
Discover Magazine,
Feb., 21,
2006
Fo r
North America alone,
estimates of
native
populations
in CoLumbus's
day range from
2
to 18 million.
By
the end of the 19th
century
the
population
had
shrunk to about 530,000.
~David
J. Meltzer,
"How
Columbus Sickened
the World,"
The New Scientist, Oct.,
10,
1992
W ow.
Just,
wow. One
wonders
how
any
publisher
would
release
such
drivel,
let
alone
any
writer
actually
write
it.
Do
you
know
what
the
population
of Haiti
is as
of
2007,
according
to the
CIA World
Factbook?
8.7
million.
That's
right,
more than
four hundred
years
after Columbus
explored
Haiti,
when
there
were
supposedly
eight million
people
living
there,
the
population
hasn't
changed,
despite
a skyrocketing
population
growth
since
1961.
To
think
that
any
pre-modern civilization
could
eliminate
seven
million
people
in,
just over
two
years
defies
all
logic,
not to mention
history.
Remember,
Columbus's
original
voyage consisted of only
three
ships,
a carrack, and two
caravels.
Normally,
none
of these
ships
could
carry
more
than
one
hundred
men-when
Columbus
returned
on a
second
voyage,
this
time
to Haiti,
in
1493,
he
had
over one
thousand
men total.
Perhaps
a
mathematician
trained
in ergonomics
could explain how
one
thousand
men (of course,
many
died
en
route,
or were
sick)
could kill
seven million
people
in
three
years!
If o ne
begins
with
assumptions
that
such
astronomical
numbers
of Indians or
Native
Americans
existed
in
the
first place,
then
when
somewhat
reliable
census
methods
became
available
and
showed
a fraction
of
that,
one
is
left
with
no other
conclusion
than
the
"Columbian
exchange"
killed
most
of
the
natives
in
the
New World.
Of course,
if one
begins
with the
assumption
that the
sun
is cold,
then
explaining
sunburn
will
be
impossible.
Assumptions
are important,
and
when
it
comes
to
determining
the
impact
of European
diseases
and,
yes, violence
and
slavery,
on natives
in the
New World, they
are
necessary
for purposes
of measurement. In the past,
ridiculous
numbers
have
been
thrown
about.
One
author
claimed
56
million
people
died
as
the
result
of European
exploration
in the Americas,
but for
such
numbers
to
be even
remotely
true,
the starting populations had to be 100 million
or more.'
Most recent
research
puts
the
entire
native
populations
on both
continents
and the
islands
of the New
World
at
53 million.
But
an
interesting
trend
has
been
that
with each
new study,
the
population
estimates
fall: since 1976,
the
experts
lowered
their
estimates
by
four
million.
More
conservative
estimates
are that
there
were
a total
of (on
the
high
side)
8.5
million
for
all
of
North
America,
and
a
low
estimate of only 1.8
million.
The
"European
genocide"
crowd
has more
Indians
being
killed
or dying
of disease than
even existed
in all
the New World
put
together!
F urthermore,
historians
have used unrealistic
flexibility
in
determining
when
diseases first
appeared,
and who introduced
them.
One study
of 12,500 skeletons
from
sixty-five
burial
sites
found
that
pre-Columbian
disease
was rampant,
and
some
have
speculated
that
a
non-venereal
form
of
syphilis
was involved.
Several
anthropologists,
including
Henry
Dobyns,
now
subscribe
to the
"early
epidemic"
theory
of depopulation-in
other
words,
disease
was killing
large
numbers
of natives
long
before
the
first
Spaniard
ever
waded
ashore."
Daniel
Reff has
argued
for a
thorough
reconsideration
of
disease
as the
primary
source
of depopulation,
and
does
not
support
the inflated
numbers.'
David
Henige
correctly
labels
these
fabulously
high
estimates
as "numbers
from nowhere."?
Som e
truth
is
slipping
out,
however:
Rodolfo
Acufia-Soto,
although
accepting
the
extraordinarily
high
numbers,
attributes
the
deaths
to hemorrhagic
fevers
transmitted
by
rodent
hosts?
Acufia-Soto
found
that
epidemics
coincided
with
many
Spanish
"invasions"
and
would
look
like
Europeans
"caused"
illnesses
for which
they
were
not
responsible
at
all.
This introduces
a remarkable
dilemma:
On the
one
hand,
James
Loewen
and
others
castigate history
teachers
for
ignoring
"Afro-Phoenician"
voyages
(for
which
almost
no evidence
exists)
by
writing,
"Unlike
the
Norse,
the
Afro-Phoenicians
seem
to
have
made
a permanent
impact on
the Americas."
If
that's
true, however,
then
all of the claims
about
a
"biologically
naive"
or
"virgin
soil"
spread
of
European
diseases
must
be completely
rejected,
as the
Afro-Phoenicians
infected
the
Indians
first!
Moreover, no one
bothered
to keep
track
of
how
many
Indians
other
Indians
killed
in
warfare.
Not only
did
most
Indians
not
keep
records
of how
many
enemy
they
wiped
out,
different
tribal
customs
sometimes
deliberately
overestimated
and
sometimes
deliberately
underestimated
the actual
casualties.
It's
a reasonable
assumption
that
as
many
were
killed
in
warfare
with
each
other
as
in
conflicts
with
Europeans,
but it's
well
known
that
the Aztecs
slaughtered
hundreds
of
thousands
in
religious
ceremonies.
Scholars
who
looked
at
southwestern
regions
found
entirely
abandoned
or
depopulated
areas
that
are
dated
to a
century
before
Columbus
arrived.
Where
once
scholars
dismissed
Spaniards'
accounts
of
decaying
"great
houses"
or
empty
villages,
they
now
are
revisiting
those
observations
with
an eye
toward
other
explanations.
Victor
Davis
Hanson
estimates
that
the Aztecs
alone
killed
twenty
thousand
a year,
every
year,
in
their
ritual
sacrifices;
and
the
author
of Aztec
Warfare
puts
the
number
killed
at
a single
ceremony
in 1487
at
between
ten
thousand
and
eighty
thousand."
Perhaps
anti-Columbus
Indian
George P.
Horse
Capture,
who
said,
"No sensible
Indian
person
can celebrate
the
arrival
of Columbus,"!"
meant,
"No
sensible
Indian
other
than
those
who
survived
the Aztec
slaughters!"
SECONDARY SOURCE:
The Christopher
Columbus Controversy
by Michael S. Berliner, Ph.D.
THE PRO ARGUMENT:
"Glass hall full regarding Columbus"
Western Civilization vs.
Primitivism
Summary:
It was Columbus' discovery for Western
Europe that led to the influx of ideas and people on which America was
founded--and on which it still rests.
Columbus Day approaches, but to the
"politically correct" this is no cause for celebration. On the contrary,
they view the arrival of Christopher Columbus in 1492 as an occasion to
be mourned. They have mourned, they have attacked, and they have
intimidated schools across the country into replacing Columbus Day
celebrations with "ethnic diversity" days.
The politically correct view is that
Columbus did not discover America, because people had lived here for
thousands of years. Worse yet, it's claimed, the main legacy of Columbus
is death and destruction. Columbus is routinely vilified as a symbol of
slavery and genocide, and the celebration of his arrival likened to a
celebration of hitler and the holocaust. The attacks on Columbus are
ominous, because the actual target is Western civilization.
Did Columbus "discover" America? Yes--in
every important respect. This does not mean that no human eye had been
cast on America before Columbus arrived. It does mean that Columbus
brought America to the attention of the civilized world, i.e., to the
growing, scientific civilizations of Western Europe. The result,
ultimately, was the United States of America. It was Columbus' discovery
for Western Europe that led to the influx of ideas and people on which
this nation was founded--and on which it still rests. The opening of
America brought the ideas and achievements of Aristotle, Galileo,
Newton, and the thousands of thinkers, writers, and inventors who
followed.
Prior to 1492, what is now the United
States was sparsely inhabited, unused, and undeveloped. The inhabitants
were primarily hunter-gatherers, wandering across the land, living from
hand-to-mouth and from day-to-day. There was virtually no change, no
growth for thousands of years. With rare exception, life was nasty,
brutish, and short: there was no wheel, no written language, no division
of labor, little agriculture and scant permanent settlement; but there
were endless, bloody wars. Whatever the problems it brought, the
vilified Western culture also brought enormous, undreamed-of benefits,
without which most of today's Indians would be infinitely poorer or not
even alive.
Columbus should be honored, for in so
doing, we honor Western civilization. But the critics do not want to
bestow such honor, because their real goal is to denigrate the values of
Western civilization and to glorify the primitivism, mysticism, and
collectivism embodied in the tribal cultures of American Indians. They
decry the glorification of the West as "Eurocentrism." We should, they
claim, replace our reverence for Western civilization with multi-culturalism,
which regards all cultures as morally equal. In fact, they aren't. Some
cultures are better than others: a free society is better than slavery;
reason is better than brute force as a way to deal with other men;
productivity is better than stagnation. In fact, Western civilization
stands for man at his best. It stands for the values that make human
life possible: reason, science, self-reliance, individualism, ambition,
productive achievement. The values of Western civilization are values
for all men; they cut across gender, ethnicity, and geography. We should
honor Western civilization not for the ethnocentric reason that some of
us happen to have European ancestors but because it is the objectively
superior culture.
Underlying the political collectivism of
the anti-Columbus crowd is a racist view of human nature. They claim
that one's identity is primarily ethnic: if one thinks his ancestors
were good, he will supposedly feel good about himself; if he thinks his
ancestors were bad, he will supposedly feel self-loathing. But it
doesn't work; the achievements or failures of one's ancestors are
monumentally irrelevant to one's actual worth as a person. Only the lack
of a sense of self leads one to look to others to provide what passes
for a sense of identity. Neither the deeds nor misdeeds of others are
his own; he can take neither credit nor blame for what someone else
chose to do. There are no racial achievements or racial failures, only
individual achievements and individual failures. One cannot inherit
moral worth or moral vice. "Self-esteem through others" is a
self-contradiction.
Thus the sham of "preserving one's
heritage" as a rational life goal. Thus the cruel hoax of "multicultural
education" as an antidote to racism: it will continue to create more
racism.
Individualism is the only alternative to
the racism of political correctness. We must recognize that everyone is
a sovereign entity, with the power of choice and independent judgment.
That is the ultimate value of Western civilization, and it should be
proudly proclaimed.
SOURCE:
http://www.capmag.com/articlePrint.asp?ID=1967 (Oct. 2002)
Secondary Source: Columbus Day holiday arrives on stormy historical waters
|
|
Historian Loewen says Columbus, top, was a "racist killer,"
who allowed his dogs to eat Indians
|
|
|
October 9, 2000
Web posted at: 10:05 p.m. EDT (0205 GMT)
www.cnn.com/2000/US/ 10/09/christopher.columbus/
WATERTOWN, Massachusetts (CNN) -- According to the classroom rhyme,
Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492 and discovered America.
But these days, the old mariner is sailing into controversy ... even as a
federal holiday bearing his name is celebrated the second Monday of every
October.
The Italian explorer who flew the banner of Spanish monarchs is accused
of brutalizing the indigenous people of the Americas.
In Denver, Colorado, last weekend, Italian-Americans holding a Columbus
Day parade faced protests from Native Americans and Hispanic activists.
Scores of demonstrators were arrested, including American Indian Movement
activist Russell Means.
Some educators are also disturbed about how the story of Columbus is
being taught in the classroom.
Former history professor
James Loewen wrote a book titled, "The Lies My Teacher Told Me," in
which he maintains that virtually all textbooks and teachers still place too
much emphasis on the heroics of Columbus without mentioning his misdeeds.
Loewen calls Columbus a racist killer, saying he enslaved Indians, handed
them over to his men for sex and set in motion their annihilation.
"They would even take Indians from place to place with them -- as dog
food -- as a kind of mobile dog food," said Loewen. "When they got to where
they were going for the night, [they would] allow the dogs to tear one of
them apart and eat them." That story came from the contemporary account of a
priest, Bartolemy de Las Casas, who knew Columbus.
New World's first slave trader
Columbus' own diaries also extensively document his four voyages to the
new land to gain riches for his patrons, Spanish monarchs Isabella and
Ferdinand.
Columbus also brought with him diseases, against which the native people
had no defense.
"As a result of Columbus coming to Haiti, we find that by 1555 -- which
is about 60 years after he got there -- Haiti does not have any Indians
left, except a few mixed people, partly Indian, partly Spanish," said Loewen.
"It had had a population probably of about 3 million. That's complete
genocide." Columbus was the New World's first slave trader, sending
thousands of Arawak Indians to Spain. The African slave trade would largely
originate to replace cheap Indian labor which was dying off from the Spanish
sword and European diseases, some historians say.
Teaching complex history to fifth-graders
In Watertown, teacher
Mary Callahan struggles to teach her fifth-grade class about the
complexities of Columbus.
While her students learn that he did land in the Bahamas, they also learn
that Indian necklaces mattered more to the explorer than did the Indians
themselves.
"He says, 'I can get the gold that they have.' He wants to be rich.
Columbus wants to be a superstar," Callahan says in explaining Columbus'
motives to her class. Some educators say children could handle more facts
about the actions of the early explorers.
|
|
Columbus' coat of arms was given by the Spanish sovereigns
as a reward for his successful voyage of discovery
|
|
|
"It has to be done carefully. You don't want to crowd into their minds
horrible pictures of violence and blood -- we don't want to do what the
movies and television do to them all the time," said
Howard Zinn, historian and author of "A People's History of the United
States, 1492-Present."
"And yet at the same time, we must not hide the truth from them. Because
if you begin hiding the truth from them at that early age -- then it goes on
and on," he said.
Some Columbus critics say to sugar-coat his deeds is to be less vigilant
about evil, and that ignoring the truth of the past is a good way to repeat
it.
'Cultural Marxism'
However, Reform Party presidential candidate Pat Buchanan accused the
Columbus Day parade protesters in Denver of "cultural Marxism."
"I think what is going on here is an intolerant, militant left-wing group
is attempting to deny Italian-Americans their right to march under a banner
of their hero, who is also a hero of Western civilization," Buchanan said in
an interview Monday.
"It's all part of a political correctness, which is another name for
cultural Marxism. It is anti-European and anti-Western civilization,"
Buchanan said. "We have a right to our heroes, and they to theirs."
SECONDARY SOURCE: Goodbye, Columbus [and the SDSU mascot controversy]
By Lowell Ponte
FrontPageMagazine.com | 10/11/2000
“THOSE WHO CONTROL THE SYMBOLS control the race,” said the
late poet Allen Ginsberg. That is why battles over Columbus
Day, statues, and the Confederate Flag are not, as Clinton
Administration gestures are often called, mere “symbolism
over substance.” In today’s increasingly virtual and
vicarious culture, symbolism is, for many, their most
substantial reality, their deepest value and identity.
In a clash of symbols last Saturday, Denver police arrested
147 people who were protesting against a parade. Violent
protests there in 1991 shut down this annual Columbus Day
Parade, and none had been held since then until
Italian-American activists this year insisted on its
restoration.
These mostly-Native American and Latino protesters have
denounced Christopher Columbus as a kind of Adolf Hitler, a
white European enslaver who, in the words of American Indian
Movement spokesman and Chippewa Vernon Bellecourt, launched
“the American Holocaust” that killed “up to 200 million”
natives of the New World. No parade, they said, should honor
such a monster.
Until early last week a secret deal reportedly involving the
Clinton Justice Department had been struck with activists on
both sides and the City of Denver to permit a parade. The
backroom deal, as revealed by Fox News Channel, was to stage
a parade for “Italian Pride” that quietly deleted the name
of the Genoese explorer some accuse of genocide, Christopher
Columbus.
History has always been written by the winners.
At the same time protesters were rallying in Denver,
California State University San Diego (SDSU) students were
debating whether to retain their 75-year-old school name The
Aztecs and mascot “Monty Montezuma.” Here, as in so many
other places, PC thought police were denouncing this use of
symbols.
And, in this case, the battle is quite serious. Many
Mexican-American activists, including several allied with
Vice President Al Gore and the Democratic Party, wear the
brown berets of Aztlan. They openly talk of re-claiming the
Southwestern United States for Mexico.
Aztlan, namesake of the Aztecs, was originally a mythic
island far to the east of Mexico that, according to Native
American legend, sank suddenly and caused survivors to flee--rather like Atlantis, and perhaps with the same ancient
origin. But if you scheme to use the Aztec name and symbol
for political organizing and propaganda, you cannot permit
white and black kids at SDSU to use it for their football
team. You must expropriate the symbol back from them by
declaring it your exclusive property and trademark.
But in the case of San Diego State University, I applaud
what the radicals are doing. Who, after all, were this tribe
history calls the Aztecs? They were the Roman Empire of
North America. Sophisticated and brilliant, they built a
capital in the middle of a lake more dazzling than anything
in Europe. They had highly advanced mathematics and
astronomy and a calendar more accurate than Christendom’s.
But the Aztecs, like the Romans, were also warlike
imperialists who brutally conquered, taxed, exploited and
enslaved the peoples around them. They sent raiding parties
with razor-sharp obsidian-edged swords as far north as the
Southwest United States to bring back captives for human
sacrifices to their bloodthirsty gods - if we take the
Spanish propaganda and not that of today’s revisionist
whitewashers (or should we say white-dirtiers?) of the
Aztecs to be the true story.
One reason Conquistador Hernando Cortez with a mere handful
of Spanish soldiers could overthrow this mighty empire is
that other Native American tribes rallied to him as a
liberator who would free them from the evil Aztecs. In
much the same way, many Californios in the 1840s welcomed
the
Americans as liberators who would free them from the
oppressive military dictatorship of Mexico, something that
Aztlan activists want kept out of any history California
schoolchildren are taught. But, hey, the same Mexican
government that has pressured the United States to adopt
Spanish as a second legal language insists that Mexico has
only one legal language - and it’s not the surviving
language of the Aztecs or any other native peoples, but the
tongue of the conqueror, Spanish.
Was Cortez a brutal exploiter and enslaver? Yes. Were the
Aztecs brutal exploiters and enslavers? Yes.
And 85 percent of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans are Mestizo,
carrying in their bodies the genes of both Native Americans
and Spaniards. To command them to hate Columbus and Cortez
is to demand that they hate part of themselves, that they
favor one grandparent and despise another. This is
self-alienating and dehumanizing.
Aztec is not a synonym for Mexican. It is one Mexican tribe,
one nation among many. It is one of the most brilliant and
most brutal of tribes in human history.
But, in the name of political correctness, it is right that
San Diego State University reject names associated with a
murderous imperialistic people who practiced slavery,
genocide, and human sacrifice. If we are to repudiate
Columbus and all the evils he brought, we must use the same
yardstick to reject the same evils committed by certain
Native Americans.
Or we can accept that we are descended from both the lovers
and the killers and strive to transcend the bars of light
and darkness that threaten to imprison each of us. |