As students of the George Washington University and many other schools around the country trudge off to class on this national holiday, there will be little, if any, discussion on the holiday being ignored. If there is any conversation, it will surely be to ensure that people understand why it should be ignored. Some even think ignorance should be replaced by activism against the holiday’s supposedly deplorable source.
If you don’t already know, today is Columbus Day. Although Christopher Columbus was heralded as a hero for hundreds of years after his voyage, modern multiculturalists have torn his name to shreds. Although the District of Columbia, Columbia University, Columbus, Ohio, Columbia, South Carolina, etc… are named after the man, these stand as nothing more than bloody reminders of the West’s imperialistic past to some. Indeed, in many ways the heritage of the western world’s exploration of the New World is irrevocably tied to Columbus and his journey.
And the story of Columbus is not without its historical falsities. For example, no serious thinkers at the time of Columbus’ departure believed the world to be flat. The most obvious misconception is that Columbus did not discover America, but the Americas, which were not even named so until after his death. The Vikings were on our continent long before Columbus set sail. But there have been other disputes as well. Some claim he was a “genocidal maniac” who’s main legacy is wanton slaughter. Others see him as a religious fanatic with mass conversion in mind (as if that would make him a fanatic).
But the Christopher Columbus critic is a med-school specimen of insane multiculturalism, riven with the pathologies particular to that world-view. It triggers every multiculturalist cliche, from “White Man vs Dark Man” to “Christianity vs. Rich Indigenous Culture” to “Rich Imperialist vs. Poor Localist.” They also claim he brought slavery to the New World. This radical revisionism demands evaluation.
William J. Connell, a historian at Seton Hall University, has studied Columbus extensively and was featured in a New York Times article on the subject in 2000. Connell claims that, despite the shortcomings of Columbus’ actual landing spots, it is without doubt that Columbus brought glory to exploring the New World, and his popular voyage was seen as opening the proverbial floodgates to western exploration. His arrival marks ”where we as a country and as a hemisphere began our identity,” said Mr. Connell. ”It’s a question of the contact that matters. There wasn’t a significant or important tradition that survived from the voyages of the Vikings.”
As for claims that Columbus brought slavery to the New World, they are radically mistaken. It is now believed that slavery existed amongst the tribes of the western hemisphere for centuries prior to the arrival of Columbus. In fact, Columbus’ views of slavery were rather benign and average for the time. Whereas many held slavery as a product of racial prejudice, Columbus’ concept of slavery was rooted in the Aristotelian concept that ”if a person is captured in war, they’re legitimately a slave,” Connell explains. ”There was nothing racial about it.”
The Times article then addresses the claims of genocide:
Moreover, widely spread accounts that Columbus’s followers wiped out the Taino people of the Caribbean were inaccurate, says Jorge Estevez, himself of Taino lineage, who is a program coordinator at the National Museum of the American Indian in Manhattan. Mr. Estevez says that although many natives were murdered, fell victim to European diseases, or were taken captive, others intermingled with the Spanish settlers. And the settlers who were given Tainos as slaves were required to pay taxes on them, resulting in the undercounting of the Tainos as a form of tax evasion and leading to reports of their eradication.
In fact, most of the “devastation” caused by Columbus was accidental, caused primarily by the unintentional exposure of disease to natives.
These inaccurate criticisms are rooted primarily in Columbus’ status as a western and Catholic hero. His mission of conversion, though seen as deplorable by irreligious people, was without a doubt a mission of love undertaken with the salvation of of a backward people in mind. Are we to believe that the indigenous faiths of the Americas, such as the Aztecs, were better and more peaceful than Christianity? If we are to teach children of the evils of Columbus’ conversion mission, shouldn’t we explain to them that in one day 20,000 Aztec slaves were slaughtered in a religious sacrifice?
We as a society have gone back and drawn a Snidely Whiplash mustache on Columbus’ luckless countenance. Formerly a hero, he is now a villain. As usual, the truth is somewhere in between the two. But if we as a society are to chose between Che Guevara and Christopher Columbus, the choice is easy. As Mr. Connell says, “‘Celebrate’ is a word we could use for Columbus’s genius, his persistence against the odds in getting people who were much more powerful than he was to back him in a risky enterprise that had results way beyond anyone’s imagination. We can celebrate his enterprise and ingenuity. A more appropriate word for what happened would be ‘commemorate.’ ”
I’ll commemorate the brave actions of Christopher Columbus. Will you?
Dylan Waco, writer of the Left Conservative and a friend of The Northern Agrarian, has some wonderful points to make regarding this election and Naderconservatism. Having previously been posted on the Conservative Heritage Times, I repost it here in its entirety:
The greens are decentralists that lean toward statism as the lesser evil.
The libertarians are decentralists that lean toward big business as
the lesser evil.
The advantage of the libertarians is that they are more consistent
ideologically and far less prone to bureaucratic elitism .
The advantage of the greens is that they at least play lip service to
the “permanent things”, and don’t regard “growth for the sake of
growth” as inherently righteous.
Those that attacked Justin Raimondo’s endorsement of Ralph Nader in 04
(when he didn’t run as a Green, but still ran on essentially Green
principles) as a member of the Old Right would do well to compare
Nader’s record to that of the highly regarded hero of the Old Right
John T. Flynn. On decentralist principles such a comparison is in no
way favorable to Flynn.
Nader is to the populist right of both the major parties and their
likely candidates on foreign policy, trade, sovereignty and if one is
being honest immigration (aside from Tancredo, Nader is the only well
known American political figure I know of who has openly talked about
eliminating Z visas and drastically limiting, if not abolishing the
entry of skilled workers into the American labor force) . Pat Buchanan
himself openly hinted that he would vote Nader in 2004, before lamely
groveling at the feet of the almighty GOP and endorsing George W.
Bush, suggesting that Nader is more principled about his decentralist
and yes “paleo” ideas than Buchanan is at this point.
Nader’s most recent book, “Seventeen Traditions”, is an almost Kirkian
analysis of the old Republic and how to restore America to its
promise, via the promotion of personal and public virtue. Outside of
Chronicles Magazine, such sentiments are virtually never expressed on
the paleo right anymore.
To steal a bit from Clyde Wilson’s description of John Taylor of
Caroline, Nader is both more conservative AND more radical-populist,
then the modern elected officials on each “fringe” of the respected
parties. The only reason people find this confusing, is because people
are reflexively dishonest about the nature of our political system and
heritage due to years of indoctrination and serial lying in the
schools, media, et. (more…)
Some reading for the Nadercons (trademark) out there:
“Old Right Nader” by Justin Raimondo
“Ralph Nader: Conservatively Speaking” an interview with Pat Buchanan
“Nader v. Bush” by my hero, Bill Kauffman. Replace Bush with McCain and Kerry with Obama and it still makes sense.
Ralph Nader’s Statement to Ron Paul Supporters
Conservative Ralph Nader by Jack Hunter (The Southern Avenger) It’s not reading but it’s still good. In the interest of fairness, Jack endorsed Chuck Baldwin. Edit: I found the text here.
There is some other interesting commentary on the idea, but this is a good start. If anyone has anything else, leave it in the comments.
Filed under: Religion
Pope Benedict alludes to the American worship of money and after recently declaring financial systems to be “built on sand” reiterates Christ’s inimical view of money and riches:
“Now with the collapse of big banks we see that money disappears, is nothing and all these things that appear real are in fact of secondary importance. Those who build their lives only on things that are visible, such as success, career, money, should keep that in mind. The only solid reality is the word of God.”
The Pope is obviously a God-hating liberal.
Filed under: Sports
From Nathan at Nathancontramundi:
Stanford offensive lineman Chris Marinelli:
“I grew up with a bunch of Irish and Italian Catholic people back home. And all the Irish Catholic people, all they talk about is Notre Dame this, Notre Dame that. And they’ve never even been there, ya know. So I hate those guys, I hate that school.”
Go Irish!
No rightward-thinking person is ever comfortable in the company of Reds. I was a contented and passionate Ron Paul supporter during the primaries, and I remain an unapologetic admirer of the man and his accomplishments during the primaries. But even in a campaign I supported wholeheartedly, the “9/11 Truth” wackos and militia types left me a bit uncomfortable. If one of the unavoidable facts of endorsing a Presidential candidate is the necessity of dealing with some unsavory fellow supporters, nothing challenges the tenacity of a traditionalist, Old Right conservative more than the socialists and beatniks that hitch their wagon on the Nader campaign. But in an election year with two horribly unacceptable candidates, a wealth of knowledge and understanding can be found amongst a supposed man of the Left. The two most obvious conservative alternatives, Libertarian candidate Bob Barr and Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin, are unacceptable for a few reasons.
Bob Barr is very clearly an opportunistic man. Whereas Paul was a terrible politician with earnest passion in his cause and in possession of sincere goals, Barr has been a political chameleon for years. Swept into office during the 1994 “Republican Revolution,” Barr carved a political career during the 90s as a Drug-warrior (even as far as keeping medical marijuana illegal), author of the “Defense of Marriage Act” in 1996, a supporter of the PATRIOT Act after 9/11, a supporter of the Iraq War Resolution in 2002, and was the author of a silly ban on Wiccan practitioners in the military. He has since renounced his views on each of those subjects, opposing the Drug War, federal legislation protecting marriage, the PATRIOT Act and the Iraq War. Republicans rightly attacked Kerry for his lack of political principle, and Barr deserves similar scrutiny.
Chuck Baldwin represents ideological purity for traditionalist conservatives but is accompanied by some serious problems as well. His desire to reopen the investigation into 9/11 is an early warning sign, and further investigation reveals radical comments on 9/11 as “punishment from God for American sin” and his numerous affiliations with anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic characters in radical Baptist circles. Character counts in a candidate, and his tendency towards the support of extremist theories is enough to worry any clear-headed intellectual. Neither a political chameleon nor a radical conspiracy theorist, Ralph Nader offers a conservative alternative.
That being said, there is more to supporting a Nader candidacy than settling for a third-party candidate not named Barr or Baldwin. Nader is a clear and articulate voice for the small-is-beautiful, “Come Home America” Old Right. While both major candidates debate the issue of American intervention abroad form the Old Left, Neo-Wilsonian perspective, sparring over how many years in Iraq are appropriate while not even addressing the vast American Imperium upon which the sun never sets, Nader hopes to return to a humble foreign policy. While “conservative” John McCain has more in common with the leftist Progressive Godfather Woodrow Wilson and foreign-provocateur FDR than with “Mr. Republican” Robert A. Taft, the “leftist” Nader offers a chance to return to traditional conservative foreign policy . Wilsonian progressivism, so arrogant in its stifling of civil liberties and constitutional freedoms that it made Bush look like an attorney for the ACLU, has now become a staple of the Right. But Nader wants to end both foreign-policy products of that ugly word, “Progressive.”
On economics, Nader–an enemy of the large and friend of the small–even discusses the threat big business and big government has on competitive markets:
“ Concentrated corporate power violates many principles of capitalism. For example, under capitalism, owners control their property. Under multinational corporations, the shareholders don’t control their corporation. Under capitalism, if you can’t make the market respond, you sink. Under big business, you don’t go bankrupt; you go to Washington for a bailout. Under capitalism, there is supposed to be freedom of contract. When was the last time you negotiated a contract with banks or auto dealers? They are all fine-print contracts. The law of contracts has been wiped out for 99 percent of contracts that ordinary consumers sign on to. Capitalism is supposed to be based on law and order. Corporations get away with corporate crime, fraud, and abuse. And finally, capitalism is premised on a level playing field; the most meritorious is supposed to win. Tell that to a small inventor or a small business up against McDonald’s or a software programmer up against Microsoft.
Giant multinational corporations have no allegiance to any country or community other than to control them or abandon them. So what we have now is the merger of big business and big government to further subsidize costs or eliminate risks or guarantee profits by our government.”
Even movement, populist conservatives have reasons to support Nader. While the major candidates bow at the alter of Israel, supporting billions in aid without any check on where it goes and unwilling to sheath their sabers in regards to Iran, Nader represents real, productive change on the topics. While both candidates pucker up to La Raza and have no concern about vast amnesty programs and open borders, Nader takes a surprising stand against both. On immigration:
“This is very difficult because you are giving a green light to cross the border illegally. I don’t like the idea of legalization because then the question is how do you prevent the next wave and the next?
We have to control our immigration. We have to limit the number of people who come into this country illegally. First of all, we have to say what is the impact on African-Americans and Hispanic Americans in this country in terms of wages of our present stance on immigration? It is a wage-depressing policy, which is why the Chambers of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, Tyson Foods, and the Wall Street Journal like it. The AFL-CIO has no objection to it because they think they can organize the illegal workers because they have been so inept at organizing other workers.”
Conservatives find themselves in the wilderness again. It could be argued that true conservatism never quite found its way out. But now conservatives face another election where key issues are left unaddressed by major candidates. While Bush deficits spiral out of control, neither candidate offers a real solution. Nader offers a conservative alternative, eliminating the income tax for people making under $100,000 a year, and cutting it for those above while simultaneously cutting the ridiculous amounts spent overseas on foreign adventures. Conservatives are upset about billions of tax dollars being used to bailout Corporate Republican fat-cats, undermining capitalism and market competition. Conservatives are wary of any policy that takes power out of the hands of Americans and into the hands of foreign governments and bureaucrats, and Nader hopes to roll back the sovereignty-shredding WTO and NAFTA. Patriotic conservatives worry about millions of jobs and billions of dollars going to Communist China. Federalist conservatives want more state power and less federal power; in education, in the economy, in privacy and social issues. A Nader presidency would deliver conservatives from the wilderness that finds them with all of these concerns and no answers.
But beyond a policy based argument, Nader speaks to the heart of conservatism. Maybe not mainstream conservatism, but a conservatism separated from mass-consumerism and talk-radio, Fox News demagoguery. A candidate that is an enemy of corporate America and a friend of the environment is not a pinko-commie, but a conservative.
“The resources of nature, like those of spirit, are running out, and
all that a conscientious man can aspire to be is a literal
conservative, hoarding what remains of culture and of natural wealth
against the fierce appetites of modern life.”
-Russell Kirk
Is there a candidate speaking more directly to America-First, localist, populist, agrarian conservatism than Ralph Nader? I think not. Go, Ralph, go!
