Juneteenth

[IanforHeisman]

[son of a gun]

41 minutes ago, TheSanDiegan said:

Everything you said is factually correct. Thus, I think it is important we recognize his accomplishments while not celebrating the individual.

This is consistent with everything I have said on the subject in this thread (please revisit my upthread posts in their entirety).

While the man was typical of his time (as far as Conquistadors go), he was in fact responsible for what was arguably the single greatest act of "discovery" in the history of Western Civilization if not mankind, based on the still-unfolding consequences of the colonization of the New World.

Therefore, as opposed to making him the poster child for the evils of 15th and 16th century colonization of native peoples, maybe we can appreciate the chutzpah it took to i) sell the voyage to investors, and ii) actually undertake it. Think about the cajones required to sail off the edge of the flat world through uncharted waters marked Thar Be Dragons based on nothing but Pure Belief. Thar be dragons? How about them be balls... giant f*cking balls.

As was said; Columbus was an awful man, even for the time. Disease aside (controlled or not is something else), Columbus was a brutal man on par with some of history's worst dictators. The only difference, there were people that took that power away from him when they found out about his acts.

As for discovery, well, no. That goes to a viking, Leif Erikson, about 500 years earlier, when they landed in Newfoundland. Even then, that's discounting the natives that had been in the Americas for millennia before then.

[TheSanDiegan]

59 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

No, 50% of the native population died from murder, mutilation and suicide.  Not disease.  Disease killed off most the rest after that.  The murder, mutilation and infanticide was a DIRECT result of Columbus's actions.  That's genocide.    

 

I would humbly suggest you read two books (if you have not done so already): 1493 by Charles Mann, and Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. Both will help fill your knowledge and might modify your perspective, if even marginally.

Given modern estimates by scholars of the native Taino population in 1492 ranged from 60,000 to 8 million (Mann, pg. 11), howTF can one account for 50% of X when X is unknown? 

However, what is accepted consensually by scholars is that disease killed off approximately 95% of native populations, including those in the Caribbean, inclusive of the Taino, who occupied other islands besides Hispaniola.

What also are not in dispute are the accounts of missionary priest Bartolomé de Las Casas, who documented the ecological destruction on Hispaniola resulting from the ecological release of pests accidentally imported by the Spaniards, resulting in wholesale destruction of crops, and inducing within the Taino the belief they could drive the Spaniards from their lands through hunger. The resulting scorned-earth policy ensured both the colonies and the native population centers would fail.

You are correct in that less than 50% of the low-end estimate of the Taino population remained on Hispaniola by the time the Spanish took an official count in 1514, which tally a total of 26,000 individuals.

But to simply attribute the massive tragic losses to "murder, mutilation, and suicide" is neither factually nor historically accurate, and represents a gross oversimplification of the conflict that - over the course of two decades - decimated the native population.

When looked at in its totality, the decimation of the Taino shares much more with the subsequent losses of native populations at the hands of all Europeans (and later Americans) than not.

Once again - smallpox, encephalitis, measles, hepatitis, viral pneumonia, influenza, tuberculosis, typhus, cholera, scarlet fever - all came to the New World by way of the Columbian Exchange, and these are what willed 95% of the natives, inclusive of the Taino, not acts of cruelty.

[TheSanDiegan]

11 minutes ago, son of a gun said:

As for discovery, well, no. That goes to a viking, Leif Erikson, about 500 years earlier, when they landed in Newfoundland. Even then, that's discounting the natives that had been in the Americas for millennia before then.

No. While the Vikings were the first to "discover" the Americas, their colony on Nova Scotia failed within the year, was never reestablished, and their discovery had no lasting impact on humanity whatsoever.

So just no.

It was the voyage of Columbus that forever changed the course of humanity. By contrast, the Vikings' voyage had the lasting impact of a mouse fart. And I say this as a proud 1/4-Norwegian.

Interesting footnote though: they treated the Inuit with as much hostility as every other European colonizer treated natives through the 17th century and beyond.

[TheSanDiegan]

I know the thread has taken a turn away from the OP, but Happy Juneteenth everyone! 

[FresnoFacts]

Happy Juneteenth.

But no Ronna, the GOP did not enthusiastically welcome the new holiday. There were Republicans who voted against it in Congress. And if the GOP did not create the national holiday when they had a chance under Trump it is a little late to try to take credit for a new holiday now.

 

[smltwnrckr]

5 hours ago, TheSanDiegan said:

Everything you said is factually correct. Thus, I think it is important we recognize his accomplishments while not celebrating the individual.

This is consistent with everything I have said on the subject in this thread (please revisit my upthread posts in their entirety).

While the man was typical of his time (as far as Conquistadors go), he was in fact responsible for what was arguably the single greatest act of "discovery" in the history of Western Civilization if not mankind, based on the still-unfolding consequences of the colonization of the New World.

Therefore, as opposed to making him the poster child for the evils of 15th and 16th century colonization of native peoples, maybe we can appreciate the chutzpah it took to i) sell the voyage to investors, and ii) actually undertake it. Think about the cajones required to sail off the edge of the flat world through uncharted waters marked Thar Be Dragons based on nothing but Pure Belief. Thar be dragons? How about them be balls... giant f*cking balls.

But that's not why we have celebrated him. We've celebrated him because - as pointed out earlier - Italian and Irish Americans wanted the accomplishment of an Italian and to a lesser extent a catholic to be recognized as particularly significant to american history in the late 19th century. Ironically, the kind of thing that race baiters in state legislatures are gnashing their teeth about right now.

I'm fine with historians focusing on processes and systems more than individuals. 'Great Man' history is boring, and the Atlantic history exerts I know generally agree that the conditions meant that someone was going to be the first to 'discover' and colonize the Americas by the end of the 15th century. 

[thelawlorfaithful]

1 hour ago, FresnoFacts said:

Happy Juneteenth.

But no Ronna, the GOP did not enthusiastically welcome the new holiday. There were Republicans who voted against it in Congress. And if the GOP did not create the national holiday when they had a chance under Trump it is a little late to try to take credit for a new holiday now.

 

It was unanimous in the senate and overwhelming in the house. The gop is the reason for the season. Sorry pal, enjoy your gop National holiday and go have a bbq.

[smltwnrckr]

Also, everyone should be wary of guys like Jared Diamond. He's fine, and his books are interesting. But these guys come from areas outside of history and decide that they can approach history like a scientist and explain everything with a singular grand theory.  (Turchin, Pinker, others, too) It's fun to read, but it's generally shoddy history, it's generally overdeterministic and it generally seeks to do something different than the discipline of history is set up to do.

[TheSanDiegan]

1 hour ago, smltwnrckr said:

I'm fine with historians focusing on processes and systems more than individuals. 'Great Man' history is boring, and the Atlantic history exerts I know generally agree that the conditions meant that someone was going to be the first to 'discover' and colonize the Americas by the end of the 15th century. 

Exactly. If it hadn't been Columbus, it would have been someone else.

However, by the same token, the same holds true for most discoveries and inventions. Yet we recognize the achievements of those who pioneered new ground in their respective fields, and Columbus should be no exception.

While the genesis of the holiday may have been rooted in Italian-Americans, that was never the focus of the day during the mid-to-late 20th century. The focus instead was the recognition of Columbus' achievements - promulgating the idea the earth was spherical, the chutzpah of sailing into the Great Unknown, and of course, the change in the course of history resulting from the 'discovery' of the New World.

[TheSanDiegan]

25 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

Also, everyone should be wary of guys like Jared Diamond. He's fine, and his books are interesting. But these guys come from areas outside of history and decide that they can approach history like a scientist and explain everything with a singular grand theory.  (Turchin, Pinker, others, too) It's fun to read, but it's generally shoddy history, it's generally overdeterministic and it generally seeks to do something different than the discipline of history is set up to do.

Dr. Jared Diamond was/is the head of Anthropology at UCLA. Anthropology and history are too closely intertwined to cast such aspersions on his work. After all, anthropology studies the evolution not just of our physiology but of our culture as well.

[Jeffkills]

On 6/17/2021 at 10:56 PM, bornontheblue said:

I had no clue Juneteenth was a thing until last summer . I grew up in rural Idaho potato country, so cut me some slack . Hell yeah it should be a national holiday . Emancipation is something that should be celebrated in our history. I don’t get the opposition to it from the crazies on the conservative side, and I’ve seen some  pretty racist comments about it on social media . 

Happy Juneteenth everybody ! 

Emancipation is goood.

Abolitionists laid the foundation. 

[smltwnrckr]

19 minutes ago, TheSanDiegan said:

Dr. Jared Diamond was/is the head of Anthropology at UCLA. Anthropology and history are too closely intertwined to cast such aspersions on his work. After all, anthropology studies the evolution not just of our physiology but of our culture as well.

Anthropology and history are quite different, methodologically. And even then, his deterministic approach is old school anthropology that a lot of people in that field critique.

And I basically said in shorter words what historians say about his work - interesting ideas, some good observations but ultimately trying to do a little too much intellectually with him trying to fill in the gaps left by the scope of the project. Theres a reason his greatest admirers in history are economic historians... they sometimes do the same thing.

Historian JR McNeil wrote one of the most generous reviews of Guns, Germs and Steel written by an academic historian. And it basically says what I'm saying, but leaning into praising the things the book does well.

https://nicspaull.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/guns-germs-and-steel-critique-mcneill.pdf

I think people should read it. It's a cool book, and I do think that geographic determinism has at least some role to play in history. But people should also be wary when these guys claim to explain everything in history with geography or some statistics or the scientific method. 

 

[youngredbullfan]

1 hour ago, smltwnrckr said:

I'm fine with historians focusing on processes and systems more than individuals. 'Great Man' history is boring, and the Atlantic history exerts I know generally agree that the conditions meant that someone was going to be the first to 'discover' and colonize the Americas by the end of the 15th century. 

True, but an interesting counterfactual is...

What if the Ottoman Empire didn't prohibit Christian access to continental trade? 

 

Then there may be no Columbian Exchange for another hundred years or something. Maybe even longer, depending on how antsy those pesky alleged Euro fishermen on the Newfoundland Coast got.

[smltwnrckr]

1 minute ago, youngredbullfan said:

True, but an interesting counterfactual is...

What if the Ottoman Empire didn't prohibit Christian access to continental trade?

 

Then there may be no Columbian Exchange for another hundred years or something.

Lol. I was just having a conversation with my advisor who does california history. He hates the term 'it is what it is,' but then when I was talking about some counterfactual he was like, "I always just say when people bring up counterfactuals, if things were different they'd be different." I was like, how is that different than it is what it is? 

[youngredbullfan]

4 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

Lol. I was just having a conversation with my advisor who does california history. He hates the term 'it is what it is,' but then when I was talking about some counterfactual he was like, "I always just say when people bring up counterfactuals, if things were different they'd be different." I was like, how is that different than it is what it is? 

Eh, as long as you don't go overboard with it I think counterfactuals can be a creative way to get across historical contingency to your reader/audience. 

Discussing them also eats up class time so that you don't have to go into depth on the book you skimmed, if I recall correctly.

[halfmanhalfbronco]

12 hours ago, TheSanDiegan said:

I would humbly suggest you read two books (if you have not done so already): 1493 by Charles Mann, and Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. Both will help fill your knowledge and might modify your perspective, if even marginally.

Given modern estimates by scholars of the native Taino population in 1492 ranged from 60,000 to 8 million (Mann, pg. 11), howTF can one account for 50% of X when X is unknown? 

However, what is accepted consensually by scholars is that disease killed off approximately 95% of native populations, including those in the Caribbean, inclusive of the Taino, who occupied other islands besides Hispaniola.

What also are not in dispute are the accounts of missionary priest Bartolomé de Las Casas, who documented the ecological destruction on Hispaniola resulting from the ecological release of pests accidentally imported by the Spaniards, resulting in wholesale destruction of crops, and inducing within the Taino the belief they could drive the Spaniards from their lands through hunger. The resulting scorned-earth policy ensured both the colonies and the native population centers would fail.

You are correct in that less than 50% of the low-end estimate of the Taino population remained on Hispaniola by the time the Spanish took an official count in 1514, which tally a total of 26,000 individuals.

But to simply attribute the massive tragic losses to "murder, mutilation, and suicide" is neither factually nor historically accurate, and represents a gross oversimplification of the conflict that - over the course of two decades - decimated the native population.

When looked at in its totality, the decimation of the Taino shares much more with the subsequent losses of native populations at the hands of all Europeans (and later Americans) than not.

Once again - smallpox, encephalitis, measles, hepatitis, viral pneumonia, influenza, tuberculosis, typhus, cholera, scarlet fever - all came to the New World by way of the Columbian Exchange, and these are what willed 95% of the natives, inclusive of the Taino, not acts of cruelty.

Good post.  There is a difference between the Taino and the specific Arawak people though.  The Arawak people, absolutely lost half their population through direct actions of Columbus and his men.  They infanticided one entire generation so as their kids could avoid the torture, mutilation and murder.  This historical record.   Much of the rest would die of disease.  

Is genocide by negligence still genocide?  Does intent need to be a factor in genocide if the party was still acting with malice and their actions greatly reduced the population to unsustainable levels?  If you torture, mutilate, murder and rape to death an entire people, is it genocide even if your intent was not explicitly to remove a population?  Without all that rape and torture, mutilation, murder disease does not wipe out the rest.

Did he intend to wipe out the Arawak people?  No.  Did his brutality make it the end result?  Yes.  Genocide?  I say yeah.  Intent does not matter when acting in a knowingly reckless way with malice.  Similar to how we define murder charges.  You can be charged with murder even if you never wanted to murder the person.

JMHO.

 

[halfmanhalfbronco]

12 hours ago, TheSanDiegan said:

No. While the Vikings were the first to "discover" the Americas, their colony on Nova Scotia failed within the year, was never reestablished, and their discovery had no lasting impact on humanity whatsoever.

So just no.

It was the voyage of Columbus that forever changed the course of humanity. By contrast, the Vikings' voyage had the lasting impact of a mouse fart. And I say this as a proud 1/4-Norwegian.

Interesting footnote though: they treated the Inuit with as much hostility as every other European colonizer treated natives through the 17th century and beyond.

 

The vikings were not even the first Europeans in written history.  St. Brennan the explorer based on writings certainly made it to North America, at least to Greenland.  

[tailingpermit]

The girlfriend and I spent a night in St Augustine after driving back from Jacksonville.  Among other things in the local, we found this to be pretty cool being the holiday…

 

[tailingpermit]

I also learned - though I should’ve known this - that Florida was under British rule years after the Declaration of Independence.