Five hundred and thirteen years ago, Rodrigo de Triana shouted: "Tierra! Tierra!" The sailor aboard the Pinta spotted land--the New World--after more than two uneasy months at sea. "I," Christopher Columbus noted of his first encounter with the natives, "in order that they might feel great amity toward us, because I knew that they were a people to be delivered to our holy faith by faith rather than force, gave to some among them some red caps and some glass beads, which they hung round their necks, and many other things of little value." Columbus reported that the "Indians" were "pleased" and "became our friends." Columbus found the encountered pleasing too, describing them as "very gentle." The relationship between Europeans and Native Americans went downhill from there.

The Indians gave the Europeans syphillis. The Europeans gave the Indians smallpox. Despite the best efforts of countermythologists to make it so, Europeans did not introduce the Indians to slavery or war. Columbus found evidence of both within a few days of arrival and noted it in his journal. He found no sign of iron, the wheel, or a written language. Europeans would export such handy staples of post-Stone Age societies to the New World. But Europe's military superiority, alongside the white man's lust for gold, religious converts, and land--as well as the geographic isolation of the Native Americans that impeded their immune systems to combat fatal diseases--decimated the primitive people in the decades that followed.

One's view of the Americas, or more specifically the nation that bears that name, generally determines one's view of Columbus. "Happy Columbus Day," like "Merry Christmas," is increasingly heard as an insult. Enemies of the Italian sea captain celebrate Indigenous People's Day, protest Columbus Day observances, and compare Columbus to Hitler. Columbus kidnapped, enslaved, and exploited, his detractors exclaim. Indeed, he did. He also discovered the continent Americans live upon. Truth commands that we remember his misdeeds. Proportion suggests that we remember him first for his magnificent find.

It may disturb you, but I agree.

Guido

I disagree with you're assessment Dan. I like to think that I love my country, but I certainly view Christopher Columbus (who was an Italian, not one of my countrymen.) In an alltogether negative light.

NOTE: Though I harbor no illusions about the left's idealized view of native american society, they are just that, illusions.

Nit-pick:

"...as well as the geographic isolation of the Native Americans that impeded their immune systems to combat fatal diseases...."

I believe this is incorrect. A few months ago I was watching a PBS program titled "Guns, Germs & Steel"
(http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/),
named after a book of the same title by Jared Diamond (http://www.wwnorton.com/catalog/spring99/gunsgerms.htm).

Dr. Diamond, professor of physiology at the UCLA School of Medicine, persuasively argues that the main players in human history are geographical accidents concerning the locations of primary livestock (e.g., cows, sheep, pigs and horses) and staple crops (e.g., wheat, corn, etc.). In particular, he argues that high culture (including technology) cannot arise without these 'material' foundations.

One aspect of his argument is that, because the native Americans lacked indigenous livestock, they did not cultivate animals, and therefore, they did not live in close proximity to them. As a result, they were not exposed to the diseases such animals carry (e.g., small pox), and did not develop immunities to them.

"Dr. Diamond ... persuasively argues that the main players in human history are geographical accidents concerning the locations of primary livestock ... and staple crops."

Why are you such a sucker for reductivistic explanations? Three points: (1) From the CDC: "Smallpox is not known to be transmitted by insects or animals." (2) The "staple crop" corn is American not European. What kept the Indians from cultivating it more successfully? (3) Abundance of material resources often goes wasted by bad cultures and terrible forms of government.

Reductionism is cool.

(1) I'm no physician, so all I can do is quote the good Dr. Diamond: "For thousands of years, the people of Eurasia lived in close proximity to the largest variety of domesticated mammals in the world – eating, drinking, and breathing in the germs these animals bore. Over time, animal infections crossed species, evolving into new strains which became deadly to man. Diseases like smallpox, influenza and measles were in fact the deadly inheritance of the Eurasian farming tradition – the product of thousands of years spent farming livestock."

(2) I never said corn wasn't indigenous to America. Diamond argues that the conjunction of indigenous primary livestock and staple crops that is necessary for cultural and technological development. ("What kept the Indians from cultivating it more successfully?") Accordingly, because American lacked indigenous primary livestock, the kind of livestock that can pull a plow, they were unable to cultivate their crops more successfully.

(3) You of all people should know the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition.

Reductionism destroys merit.

(1) So it's between the CDC and Diamond on Smallpox. I'll take the CDC, though I'm no expert either.
(2) I'm no farmer, but it seems to me that there are animals indiginous to the America's that could through domestication become good livestock and plow-pullers.
(3) Necessary and Sufficient condition? You didn't mention either in your original post! At one point you imply a NC, but then you exaggerate by claiming that indiginous plants and animals are "the main players in human history." That implies more than a necessary condition.

It seems to me there is some obvious truth in Diamond's thesis if weakened, but as stated by you (and as I've heard it stated from someone who has read the book), it simply tries to dismiss what seems to be the much larger contribution to civilizational success of culture. The Americas are enormous, and have an enormous variety of plants and animals. Give the mezoamericans a few more thousand years and they would have made livestock and staple crops from what God gave 'em.

excuse me? but what pray tell did Christopher Columbus find? i was unware that the western hemisphere was lost. if i go to las vegas, i can't claim to have found it.

If nobody from your part of the world had previously known that Las Vegas existed, yes you could.

Christopher Columbus discovered America because he was the first to tell of the new continent to Europe. Europe (and now the US) has led the world in advancements in civilization. Therefore, bringing a new continent to the attention of the civilized world of the time is accurately portrayed as discovering it. I realize that some scandanavians and Chinese sailed to the continent before Chris did, but give him credit for his hard work and bravery.

If a beautiiful but obscure little town's presence is suddenly brought to the attention of a large audience, the little town is said to be discovered. There are serious criticisms to be made of Columbus so kindly retract your claws over the trivial and nothing.

To Skeptic--no, there is no native North American animal that could be trained to pull a plow. Maybe a dog? A llama? No buffalo could be controlled. Horses, cows, oxen were all imports.

And to Guido--Wow, a special day.

Lois-- I may very well be wrong, but I think that domestication involves taking wild animals and through gradual breeding and raising and perhaps bodily deformation an increasing ability of control. I think that use of animals over generations, particularly say a thousand years, changes them. So, once again I may be wrong, but over a thousand years can't we imagine bison and elk that were more useful to man than they are now? Moreover, the lack of plow-drawing animals is not a complete excuse for lack of agriculture. One can develop smaller scale plowing methods, such as can be man-drawn.

I still think that the reductivist claim Ralph made is exaggerated, though, as usual for exaggerations, it certainly contain some truth. There's a lot a great stuff in the New World, I just find it incredible that the lack of Old World herd animals (which have been herded for millenia) is the main player explaining the difference in technology between the old and new worlds. If plant and animal populations were really "the main players in human history", fixing the crappy parts of the world would be really easy--send them chicken and cows!

Besides, Ralph's nitpicky point on small pox still falls, according to the CDC.

Great men (and women) are sometimes horrible human beings. Columbus fits in that category, as do Tycho Brahe and Isaac Newton.

Just another case of white men acting badly.

Columbus was a wicked man. I know this because my history teacher at my community college told me so. He is a very bright man. He used to play banjo for Peter Paul and Mary during the sixties. He lived on a commune in Vermont for 3 years in the early seventies. He became a Unitarian minister in the eighties but quickly converted to wiccan, an Earth based religion. He is very wise. Very wise indeed.

Hey, Sarge? Can ya'll get your teacher to get me one'a them baskets or chairs them wiccans make?