.jpg)
A review of "The Enemies of Christopher Columbus"
Despite
protestations to the contrary, this is a racist book. It excuses White
atrocities against American Indians, hardly mentions slavery, and explicitly
defends massive ethnic cleansing of the Indians. The author, one Thomas Bowden,
is a member of the "Ayn Rand Institute", a small right-wing sect that
venerates the Russian-American science fiction writer and self-proclaimed
philosopher Ayn Rand.
Philosophically, this book is very shallow. On the one hand, Bowden attacks cultural relativism. On the other hand, he excuses White brutality against Indians with the argument that this was normal during the 15th and 16th centuries, and we shouldn't judge medieval peoples by our modern standards. But what is this if not cultural relativism? Further, Bowden argues that there are objective principles by which we can judge if a culture is better than others. The foremost of these principles seems to be individualism. But since all individuals are different, and their views constantly shifting, how can individualism be an objective criterion of anything? The author also argues that "reason" and "science" are such principles. But reason untempered by morality is evil. The transatlantic slave trade was eminently reasonable, at least for the slave traders. Science has lead to Auschwitz and the A-bomb. Genetic engineering might be the ultimate triumph of science, but it might also lead to global fascism. Individual self-preservation is hailed by Bowden as the zenith of reason, but why then does he condemn the Indians? They presumably fought Columbus to preserve their own lives and freedom, rather than being enslaved or killed!
The book argues that the Whites had the right to displace the Indians and steal their land, since the Indians were more primitive. But the Incas, Aztecs or Mayas were not necessarily worse than Late Medieval Europeans. In passing, the author even admits this, but condones their destruction anyway. Is this not covert racism? He argues that since the Indians lacked an idea of private ownership, it was OK for the Whites to take their land. If you can't mine precious minerals on your land, you have no rights. To Bowden, this idea is presumably one of the things that makes Western civilization more advanced!
Often, the author is heavily anachronistic. The fact that the 21st century West have certain traits that are more advanced than 15th century Indian culture, is used to justify attacks on the Indians by 15th century Western culture. But the positive things in the modern West represent a break with the atrocities of the Spanish Empire, or the treaty violations of the US. True, the American Indians didn't invent the UN Declaration of Human Rights, or the Geneva convention. But neither did Columbus, the Pilgrim Fathers or Andrew Jackson. Ironically, Bowden has the same logic as die-hard Stalinists: if "progress" happens in the bye and bye, say 500 years later, ruthless violence is justified today. It's unclear why Indians, faced by enslavement or death, should accept such a logic. Their reaction was rather: This may have been a jungle before you arrived, but at least it was *our* jungle!
But wasn't Western culture even in its Late Medieval version somewhat more advanced than many Indian cultures? First, the question of who is "advanced" is a highly relative one. The Iroquis didn't have Renaissance art or science, but they had more gender equality than the Europeans. So who was more "advanced"? Second, even if we concede that Late Medieval or Early Modern Europe was more advanced, the problem with the conquista was that the Indians saw very little of it. They only saw the dark heart of the West, which cries out "Kill all the brutes". And not just the brutes! The Cherokee in the US adapted to Western culture: they intermarried with Whites, adopted Christianity, developed an alphabet, lived in normal houses. Yet, the Cherokee were ethnically cleansed by the US government and the state of Georgia anyway. Bowden supports this, since the Cherokee owned all land in common. Therefore they had no rights. Racism! Another revealing example is the Jesuit state established in Paraguay during the 17th and 18th centuries. Here too, the Indians learned from the Whites, setting up modern agriculture and even small scale industry. What happened? The conquistadors attacked Paraguay and enslaved the Indians. In sum, they didn't want the Indians to assimilate the progess of the West.
Latin America became a virtual caste society, with Indians and Blacks at the bottom, mestizos somewhere inbetween, and Whites at the top. The US wasn't much better. Even Indians that attempted to integrate, like the Cherokee, were displaced on the flimsiest of pretexts. At an unguarded moment, Bowden admits that the Americas might have become like the West given enough time, or perhaps due to peaceful influence. But if so, why not support that? No, says Bowden, "progress" went much faster due to the conquista. But this was "progress" only for the Whites. Does Bowden also support Muslim invasions of medieval Western Europe? I don't think so. But why not? After all, the Muslims were more "advanced" than the Latins at the time. Yet, I suspect that the Ayn Rand Institute prefer centuries of peaceful cultural diffusion in this case...
Thomas A. Bowden bizzarely suggest that the Indians should be grateful to Columbus. I beg to disagree. They should be grateful to people like Bartolome de Las Casas or the Jesuits, who showed them the progressive, humane side of the West. Or even to Queen Isabella, who had the punk removed in the first place.
Philosophically, this book is very shallow. On the one hand, Bowden attacks cultural relativism. On the other hand, he excuses White brutality against Indians with the argument that this was normal during the 15th and 16th centuries, and we shouldn't judge medieval peoples by our modern standards. But what is this if not cultural relativism? Further, Bowden argues that there are objective principles by which we can judge if a culture is better than others. The foremost of these principles seems to be individualism. But since all individuals are different, and their views constantly shifting, how can individualism be an objective criterion of anything? The author also argues that "reason" and "science" are such principles. But reason untempered by morality is evil. The transatlantic slave trade was eminently reasonable, at least for the slave traders. Science has lead to Auschwitz and the A-bomb. Genetic engineering might be the ultimate triumph of science, but it might also lead to global fascism. Individual self-preservation is hailed by Bowden as the zenith of reason, but why then does he condemn the Indians? They presumably fought Columbus to preserve their own lives and freedom, rather than being enslaved or killed!
The book argues that the Whites had the right to displace the Indians and steal their land, since the Indians were more primitive. But the Incas, Aztecs or Mayas were not necessarily worse than Late Medieval Europeans. In passing, the author even admits this, but condones their destruction anyway. Is this not covert racism? He argues that since the Indians lacked an idea of private ownership, it was OK for the Whites to take their land. If you can't mine precious minerals on your land, you have no rights. To Bowden, this idea is presumably one of the things that makes Western civilization more advanced!
Often, the author is heavily anachronistic. The fact that the 21st century West have certain traits that are more advanced than 15th century Indian culture, is used to justify attacks on the Indians by 15th century Western culture. But the positive things in the modern West represent a break with the atrocities of the Spanish Empire, or the treaty violations of the US. True, the American Indians didn't invent the UN Declaration of Human Rights, or the Geneva convention. But neither did Columbus, the Pilgrim Fathers or Andrew Jackson. Ironically, Bowden has the same logic as die-hard Stalinists: if "progress" happens in the bye and bye, say 500 years later, ruthless violence is justified today. It's unclear why Indians, faced by enslavement or death, should accept such a logic. Their reaction was rather: This may have been a jungle before you arrived, but at least it was *our* jungle!
But wasn't Western culture even in its Late Medieval version somewhat more advanced than many Indian cultures? First, the question of who is "advanced" is a highly relative one. The Iroquis didn't have Renaissance art or science, but they had more gender equality than the Europeans. So who was more "advanced"? Second, even if we concede that Late Medieval or Early Modern Europe was more advanced, the problem with the conquista was that the Indians saw very little of it. They only saw the dark heart of the West, which cries out "Kill all the brutes". And not just the brutes! The Cherokee in the US adapted to Western culture: they intermarried with Whites, adopted Christianity, developed an alphabet, lived in normal houses. Yet, the Cherokee were ethnically cleansed by the US government and the state of Georgia anyway. Bowden supports this, since the Cherokee owned all land in common. Therefore they had no rights. Racism! Another revealing example is the Jesuit state established in Paraguay during the 17th and 18th centuries. Here too, the Indians learned from the Whites, setting up modern agriculture and even small scale industry. What happened? The conquistadors attacked Paraguay and enslaved the Indians. In sum, they didn't want the Indians to assimilate the progess of the West.
Latin America became a virtual caste society, with Indians and Blacks at the bottom, mestizos somewhere inbetween, and Whites at the top. The US wasn't much better. Even Indians that attempted to integrate, like the Cherokee, were displaced on the flimsiest of pretexts. At an unguarded moment, Bowden admits that the Americas might have become like the West given enough time, or perhaps due to peaceful influence. But if so, why not support that? No, says Bowden, "progress" went much faster due to the conquista. But this was "progress" only for the Whites. Does Bowden also support Muslim invasions of medieval Western Europe? I don't think so. But why not? After all, the Muslims were more "advanced" than the Latins at the time. Yet, I suspect that the Ayn Rand Institute prefer centuries of peaceful cultural diffusion in this case...
Thomas A. Bowden bizzarely suggest that the Indians should be grateful to Columbus. I beg to disagree. They should be grateful to people like Bartolome de Las Casas or the Jesuits, who showed them the progressive, humane side of the West. Or even to Queen Isabella, who had the punk removed in the first place.
No comments:
Post a Comment