From: adrummon@UXA.CSO.UIUC.EDU (drummond andrew)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
Subject: Re: 500th Anniversary of the Admiral's Voyage
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:23:24 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Comments: To: history@psuvm.bitnet

In the recent heated discussions concerning Columbus, genocide, and all
that, I think I see two basic positions.  On the one hand, there are those
which argue that the results of an action are the only events that matter.
(Read "matter" as having significance.  Otherwise, I don't mean to impart
any positive or negative values.  Significance is a concern I'll address
momentarily.)  On the other hand, there are those which argue that the
intentions leading to an action are the most significant part of an event,
and are therefore most worth of study, with mere results being only
accidental.  It looks like a restatement of the popular discussion between
followers of Kant's categorical imperative and practitioners of the principles
of utility, except that it's hidden behind other discussions:

For example, in our discussion, we have found people arguing about results,
intentions, and the "meaning" of various events.  Imagine asking a person
to decide which of the following two events is significant: (Remember,
pick only one, and, since this is an absolute either-or choice, no
waffling.)  (A) The Holocaust is significant because Hitler planned and very
nearly carried out the destruction of a people.  Millions of people died.
(B) The "Conquest of Paradise" is significant because the Spaniards brought
many diseases with them when they came to the "New World."  Millions of
people died.  We could discuss whether or not the Spaniards knew they would
infect and kill millions, but that is one of the points of contention.  On one
view, we can't make the choice: Millions of people died, so it doesn't matter
which event was significant; perhaps if we knew the numbers, we could make
a decision.  From the second view, we would have to say that only the
Holocaust was significant becuase it was intentional.

In practice, however, we could maintain neither position for very long,
because both events were significant.  The discussion of intention, however,
needs to be addressed in a straightforward fashion.  I'll add my two cents'
worth on the question of significance here:

Significance revolves around the question "why?".  Why do we do history and
how ought we to do it?  Why is some one event significant and not another one?

Some people, I think, read history books, and write them if they care, in
order to find examples from the past either to emulate or to despise.
Christpoher Columbus, with all the faults he had, was a brave man, and bravery
is worthy of emulation.  Adolf Hitler was an evil man, and evil is never worthy
of emulation.  This is not to say that only great men, fair or foul, make
history; rather, history is a guide for future conduct (as if past events
will somehow happen again).

Another similar approach is a bit less personal, but searches equally for a
guide for conduct; it assumes that some events happen as a result of other
events, and that by studying past events, we can determine those actions
which are most likely to obtain our goals, whatever those goals may be.
For example, before the war for Kuwait, "NO MORE MUNICHS" was a commonly
heard expression, history's lesson, if you will, being that "YOU NEVER GIVE
AN INCH TO A BULLY", a universal prescription for action.  Frequently, we make
use of analogies in these cases, even as I have used analogies in this paper.
The recognition of analogous situations can allow an historian to create
"stock" characters or events which he will use again and again.

However, the problem with stock characters is that their use can limit the
interpretations we place on events: One story becomes authoritative and
its characters get locked into place.  By casting Columbus as a HERO and
protagonist of the story, I must necessarily create some villain for him
to oppose.  The Villain could be those savage, naked natives or it could
be "The Great Unknown", depending on what sort of play I want to present.
In either case, it becomes a story of a certain kind.

When a story is recognized, however, it becomes possible to recast its parts.
Some people would argue, for example, that Lucifer can be seen as a HERO
in "Paradise Lost", with that "Better to reign in Hell than be a Servant
in Heaven" twist.  Likewise, we could retell the story of Columbus: Just
make Columbus the greedy, rapacious villain and let the peaceful, friendly
natives be our (doomed, noble, tragic) heroes, and we can make an entirely
different story out of the same parts.  To do this, all it takes is the
choice of a few words, especially those simple words such as "good", "greedy"
and "noble".  By recasting the parts, and retelling the story, we can provide
new interpretations of past events and expand the possibilities of our
future: we aren't quite as limited in our choices.

A new problem results, however, when there are two competing, equally
compelling versions of the same story, are vying for that one AUTHORITATIVE
position: COLUMBUS, by hercules, WAS a HERO!  No, he WAS a VILLAIN and a THIEF.
As the stories get locked into place, the recognition that both are stories
gets lost once again: only one can be THE version of the events.  By
concentrating on the stories once again, we forget that these are only stories
and more importantly, we forget that there can be other stories in there as
well.

Of course, I might be wrong.

Thanks for reading this far,

      Andrew Drummond.
      Department of History
      University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.