From: BROWNH@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
Subject: Re: 500th Anniversary of the Admiral's Voyage
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:36:27 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"HISTORY%RUTVM1.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU"
Comments: To: HISTORY%RUTVM1.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU

Andrew, I'm being sucked in to this discussion by thoughtful and inter-
esting reflections such as your own. I have things I should be doing,
but your contribution keeps me from them.

Yes, the significance of Columbus depends upon a subjective factor.
If the pettyness of Columbus' own personal achievement is to become
signficant in terms of its momentous consequences, then we assign it
significance. Why not fixate on Isabella who financed the voyage? Be-
cause our ideological committment is for the merchant venturer.

It seems to me off hand that if we praise Columbus, then we approve of
the order that resulted from his actions. If I were Native American
(which I'm not, but my wife is in part, and Thanksgiving in our house-
hold is day of mourning), then the result would seem pernicious. Argu-
ably 90% of the New World population quickly died, and a cruel regime
hostile to decent or moral relations amont people and between people
and the natural environment was imposed, and from a Native American
perspective, a majority perspective at the time and thus the consensus
historians are so fond of, Columbus was a disastor. From the colonists'
viewspoint, if they happened to benefit in terms of status or standard
of living from the colonizing of the New World, then Columbus was un-
doubtedly a good thing.

So the question might seem to reduce to whose ox was gored. From a na-
tive american viewpoint, Columbus was the beginning of the end, as guilty
objectively speaking of genocide as Hitler; from the perspective of the
descendents of the colonists, regardless of some petty issues concerning
Columbus' personal behavior and motives, the outcome was nevertheless
an acceptable one, perhaps even a good one.

But, of course, most of us today, are not simply partisans of one side
or the other. Around here, anyway, Native Americans are much integrated
into society at large and have to confront it as citizens, and many
people, particularly in the Afro-American community here, are descended
from Indians.  The most dynamic tribe in Connecticut, the Pequots, in
fact has a good percentage of members who otherwise would be classified
as Afro-Americans. So I must conclude that our inclination to praise
Columbus or condemn him has far less to do with history (sorry to admit
this on a history list) than our own ideological positions today.  Those
who feel they benefit from the capitalist system (that is likely to in-
clude petit bourgeois academics) are likely to feel Columbus was really
significant,perhaps even virtuous, while those who feel themselves ex-
ploited by the capitalist system are more inclined to identify with the
victims and to downplay Columbus, even condemn him.

I'm sorry to allow a third glass of wine to unloosen my lips, but I can't
help feeling that the discussion of Columbus is ideologically loaded.
If so, then there is not much hope people will learn from each other in
the disucssion: the discussion is simply the field of combat from con-
tradictory positions today. In other words, I would not expect to find
profound or significant insights about Columbus. Secondly, professors
and aspiring students are most likely to represent the viewpoint of the
petit bourgeoisie.  After all, historians traditionally played the role
of the high priests of the emergent European nation state.  That role
may have collapsed in the late 19th century, but I have plenty of evi-
dence that historians today still feel morally obliged to lay the fig
leaf on the status quo, however morally objectionable that situation
might be. But, as Marx suggested, the bourgeoisie find themselves in a
highly contradictory position under capitalism. I won't belabor the
point, but assuming we are academics of various shades, we have the
freedom to flop readily between two ideological positions.  On one hand,
we could dutifully support capitalist exploitation of the working claSS
and think of Columbus in positive terms. On the other hand, we could
identify with the working class and condemn Columbus. I suspect both
positions are quite rational, but the difference is our class allegiance.
Since the petit bourgeoisie is a contradictory class, its only honorable
stance is to support the working class the capitalists. How one reacts
to Columbus is more a symptom of one's class allegiance than any serious
historical analysis.

So much for three glasses of cheap wine.

Haines Brown (brownh@ccsua.ctstateu.edu)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU