I lead an admittedly insular life. I spend my waking hours in the presence of the Marines I treat and one or two other Navy personnel, or if I get to go home, with my wife. I may exchange pleasantries with a neighbor or a shopkeeper now and again, but I'm rarely a part of the general hustle and bustle that defines the life of the modern man. If I read the news or hear about a story, it's almost always via the internet on a news website or a social networking site.
I say all of this to illustrate the point that if I come into contact with an idea, it's probably well established in the mainstream culture.
Thus, it was somewhat surprising when I encountered several articles and read multiple comments yesterday about the assorted evils of Christopher Columbus, including, but not limited to, his introduction of European "rape culture" to the Americas, his "looting" of the riches of the Caribbean, and his murder of "peaceful, innocent natives." The crux of the issue was the very existence of "Columbus Day," and the propriety (or impropriety) of our national holiday celebrating his voyages.
I'm not going to debate any of that. Much of history is a matter of perspective, and if your perspective is that Christopher Columbus was the leering, drooling, insatiable, lecherous, 15th century incarnation of Molech, then far be it from me to disabuse you of that notion. As one of my former co-workers would say, "whatever floats your boat and finds your lost remote."
Instead, I'd like to address the notion that the actions of Christopher Columbus, and indeed that the character of the man himself, are somehow significantly more detestable than the actions and character of any other scout or explorer in history.
In examining this premise, it helps to consider the history of humanity in terms of philosophy and migration.
Throughout human history, and in fact as far back as our earliest records, people have been divided into two groups.
"Us," and "Them."
"Us" is anyone with whom the individual or group identifies and associates. Historically, this has taken the form of family, clan, village, tribe, nation, or other cooperative collective. Sometimes, "Us" was just a small cluster of people. Rarely, it was an empire. Sometimes there were subgroups within "Us" that identified as "Us" on a more intimate and bonded level than the "Us" that defined the larger group. But in the end, everyone, sedentary or nomadic, tribal or familial, voluntarily or of necessity, self-identified as part of an "Us."
Of course, every "Us" had a "Them." "Them" was anyone who wasn't "Us." More significantly, throughout most of recorded history, "Them" represented a group that is very likely to kill, rape, and possibly eat "Us" if given the chance. Even in instances where trade and commerce happened between "Us" and "Them," it was out of the necessity born of the fact that neither "Us" nor "Them" had the power to take what one wanted from the other by force. "Them" was a group to be feared and mistrusted, and if possible, wiped out, to secure more space, more resources, and a better standard of living for "Us." Sometimes "a better standard of living" simply meant "taking away the shiny things that they have so that we can have them." So it has always been.
History is a great patchwork of groups that constantly shifted according to desire, need, and ability. Groups displaced and annihilated other groups, only to be displaced and annihilated by yet more groups over time. Groups grew and shrank, moved and settled, killed and gave birth, connived and schemed, and generally took whatever actions seemed to benefit the "Us" with which they self-identified.
It is an indisputable fact that if you are alive and reading this today, you come from a succession of groups of "Us" that out performed, outnumbered, outlived, and indeed wiped out an attendant succession of groups of "Them."
Furthermore, it is a folly beyond belief to think that any group in history had a unique genesis in a certain land and lived in peace and harmony with one another, forsaking all conflict and living in tranquility. People need resources to survive. Those with resources survived until those without resources or those with greater resources displaced them. Even acknowledging the occasional famine or outbreak of disease that eliminated a group and freed up some resources, the vast preponderance of historical evidence shows that the primary means of extinction for self-identifying groups of humans is the violent action of other groups of humans. In short, every group that had something worth having, obtained that something by wiping out another group.
Doubt this premise? Consider this. There is a reason why teachers like Ghandi and Mother Theresa stand out in history. The ideas that "we're all just people," and "everyone matters," and "we should always treat others with the love and respect that we normally reserve for ourselves" are revolutionary ideas. They are revolutionary because they contravene human nature. These ideas are revolutionary because people have not thought or lived according to these ideas in any statistically significant numbers or for any significant amount of time. They stand counter to the biological imperatives that undergird the "Us vs. Them" paradigm that defines human history. These ideas are not now, nor have they ever been, normal.
I'm not going to start throwing around arguments about "revisionist history," or "cultural sensitivity," or even "tradition," because all of that is at best tangential to the point. Those are inflammatory phrases that people like to use as an excuse to get all riled up and maybe bask in the warm glow of a little self-righteousness now and then.
The point is this: If you want to apply modern cultural mores or idealistic moral standards to one individual or group in one era of history, you need to apply those same standards to all individuals and groups throughout all eras of history. And when we start doing that, well...everyone ends up with a hefty share of skeletons in the historical and cultural closets.
So why not leave the high horses at home, put the indignation and self righteousness in the mothballs for a while, and just take the chance to enjoy another holiday? There's no point in arguing over who "discovered" what unless we're willing to discover a little something about ourselves in the process. Besides, I'm all in favor of anyone who discovers a reason not to go to work on a Monday.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Hey, what's a day off, if I can't practice and pursue my hobby of self-righteousness?? Thanks for ruining the thrill of my righteous indignation. ;)
Matt,
I take issue with your paradigm.
1. the emphasis on resources being at the heart of aggression and dispersion is a too materialistic view of man's motivation, in my opinion.
2. The role of religion is preeminent. I continue to be impressed with Mel (who is an idiot) Gibson's 'Apocolypto' and its roughly accurate portrayal of C. American indigenous Peoples--by which I mean, the demonic Aztecs. If Cortez was after resources and the effective displacement and colonization of modern Mexico he would not have tried to conquer an entire civilization with the men he had carried over with two mere caravels. It takes a religious anger, a righteous fury to blaze into the jungles of Mexico and bring down the Aztecs with the forces and resources he had at his disposal.
3. I do concede that resources and the desire to trade for them was paramount in motivating the Euro-Explorers. However, the subsequent displacement of the indigenous was very different based on who took control and how they thought.
For example, the French in the interior of the modern U.S. intermarried with the aboriginals and focused more on trade and integration than colonization. Many men were sent to evangelize and convert the natives, and they continued their work despite the torture and death many of them faced. In Mexico and the Caribbean, the Queen of Spain declared all the natives to be citizens of the Crown and a mission system began, with the intent to convert and extend Christendom in the Americas. Meanwhile, in Jamestown, the British settlement, one of the governor's diaries read: It was a harsh winter, we were forced to eat rats, squirrels, Indians and other forest creatures.
To conclude, there is a clear theme of us v. them in history, but the legacy of Spain, France and Rome to make the them a part of a single us serves to cast doubt on your paradigm.
Scott,
I'll respond on a point-by-point basis for clarity.
1. Perhaps it would help to view it less as materialism and more as survival instinct. For thousands and thousands of years--indeed, the majority of human history--humans did not have the luxury of pursuing anything more noble than survival. Even the artwork we have from ancient cultures consists mostly of practical items (pots and decorated tools) and totems and religious statuary designed to better the chances of obtaining food and procreating (totems, fertility goddesses, and the like.) I grant that certain societies have created fine art and pursued higher and nobler avocations, but these societies are the exception rather than the rule, and are afforded this luxury by virtue of plentiful resources, which freed up time and energy that would otherwise have been directed towards more acquisitive pursuits.
2. Cortez is a bit of a tough nut to crack, and perhaps not the best example of your point, given that the historical record is at best muddied and at worst schizophrenic where Cortez is concerned. A whole spectrum of motives and even actions have been applied to Cortez, most no doubt spuriously. Perhaps a better example would be the Franciscan and Jesuit missionaries who ventured into Latin America and the American Southwest. Yet even then, when viewed in light of human history, we have an exception that proves the rule, where men from cultures with plentiful resources had the time and liberty to pursue that which is noble without exclusive attention to physical requirement.
3. Once again, in using examples from the last 2000 years, and in fact mostly from the Renaissance era of southern European history, we have an exception that I believe proves the rule.
In fact, the history of the Middle Eastern region from whence sprang the church does little more than bolster my premise. In the histories of the Persians, the Egyptians, the Sumerians, the Medes, The Assyrians, and yes, even the Hebrews, is a history of tribes wandering and settling in search of food and security, now supplanting another tribe, now being supplanted.
The very idea of missionary zeal is arguably a Modern Middle Eastern idea, born of the Yahwists who eventually gave reluctant birth to the Christian church and later (though this is a more convoluted association) the Muslims. Prior to this very brief and very recent period in history, we see an "Our God vs. Your God" paradigm (and indeed, we see a return to this idea in modern Muslim thought) where supremacy was determined by material gain, the efficacy of hunting expeditions and agrarian enterprise, and success or failure in the violent extirpation of nearby groups deemed either a threat or a coveted success.
To conclude, I postulate that your exceptions prove my rule.
Matt, that was a fantastic response. My being right, proves you to be more right!
Well I'm not going to argue with that!
Well said! Interestingly, this is much the same perspective I heard from several Maori tribesmen in NZ, that the Maori took the land from another people before them, so they can't call the white settlers evil, even if they wish they still had the land.
Post a Comment