Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    RE: 0
    
    I agree 100% with what you've said...only to add that to the extent
    that it was truly "Manifest Destiny" can we find in the scriptures the
    prophecy of that destiny, and moreso the END that should come upon
    reaching that "destination."
    
    I do believe if it was Manifest Destiny, and Europeans HEARD or FELT
    the call of it, so much so that they themselves profess it, then it
    must be, stands to reason, that the Almighty God put out the decree and
    that it is in fact written in the book of these times, this heaven and
    earth, this generation of man.
    
    In the introduction of the Oxford "Apocrypha" it says that Columbus was
    inspired to sail the West Coast of Africa from a scripture in the
    bible...I'll enter it tomorrow.
    
    For practical purposes, in the subjective view of then Europeans it is
    perhaps correct of them to say of Columbus, "he discovered the New
    World", because for them, though others were there and others had come
    and gone, Europeans had not officially discovered it.  
    
    One major question I have is this, IF Europeans thought it was their
    Manifest Destiny to have the land, why did they have to kill the
    inhabitants and take the land?  To say that they learned that from the
    Children of Israel who took the land from the Caananites is
    interesting...before I go further I'm going to study up on what
    happened to the Israelites so that they lost their inheritance!  To see
    if Europeans paid full attention to that.  
    
    This is a new aspect of this for me...
    
    Playtoe

re Note 436.1 by SWAM1::DOTHARD_ST:

>     One major question I have is this, IF Europeans thought it was their
>     Manifest Destiny to have the land, why did they have to kill the
>     inhabitants and take the land?  

        While there was a good deal of outright killing, much of it
        followed years of incompatible cultures and attitudes towards
        morality and territory.  In retrospect, it is hard to imagine
        the European culture, with its values and patterns of
        resource use, being able to live in harmony in the same land
        as the Native Americans and their values and patterns of
        resource use.

        Bob

	Columbus found Native Americans to be an excellent source of slave
stock.  The indigenous peoples were no match for the conqueror.  Their
weapons, mostly made of wood, offered little resistance against the sword.

Richard

    re 2
    
    Was conflict avoidable?  Would you say that because it happened proves
    that it was unavoidable?  If not, I'd venture to say that the total
    extermination of the Indian population in the America's could have been 
    avoided?  But then again, perhaps it's a matter of perception...
    
>        morality and territory.  In retrospect, it is hard to imagine
>        the European culture, with its values and patterns of
>        resource use, being able to live in harmony in the same land
>        as the Native Americans and their values and patterns of
>        resource use.
    
    In what ways was this "live in harmony" tested or attempted, to bring
    you to that conclusion.  I'm sure if the Europeans who first came had
    in mind sharing the knowledge with the natives and building together
    WITH them, the "live in harmony" could have ultimately been realized as
    much as any other different groups can live together.  
    
    However, it is my understanding that this was never the interest nor
    objective...and that's why it becomes an "invasion" and not merely a
    settling..."settling" implies "like a leaf falling from a tree SETTLES
    on the ground"...there is no violent conatations in "settle/ing".  The
    Indian's perceived it correctly, they used to say something about a
    "forked tongue"...
    
>        While there was a good deal of outright killing, much of it
>        followed years of incompatible cultures and attitudes towards
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    How many years do you estimate it took before the outright killing
    really began to characterise the European-Indian relationship?
    
    And after the killing got in full swing, what was the possibility that
    the killing could be stopped prior to the full extermination of
    Indians?
    
    Are these difficult questions?
    

    RE: 3
    
>	Columbus found Native Americans to be an excellent source of slave
>stock.  The indigenous peoples were no match for the conqueror.  Their
>weapons, mostly made of wood, offered little resistance against the sword.
    
    "I saw and behold a RED HORSE......and unto him as given a GREAT
    SWORD."   (Revelations 6)
    
    So perhaps it was Manifest Destiny, what happened to the Indian...and
    in that sense it was unavoidable?  
    
    If so, and MD forces compel us so strongly, then we are in for a very
    serious ride....come Armaggedon!
    
    Playtoe

    I've been reading an old history book, written about 100 years ago,
    called "The Influence of Sea Power on History." Quite naturally it
    covers the early years of North American colonization by Europeans.
    One of the things it outlines is that there were two very different
    attitudes and processes of this colonization.

    One group, mainly Spain and Portugal, came to conquer and then use 
    the existing population to provide things for the home country. Not
    trade so much as just take. Trade requiring give as well as take.

    The other group, mainly England and Holland, came to set up self
    sufficient colonies that would grow and engage in two way trade.

    These differences also made a difference in how the native population
    was treated. In the first case, Spain etc, what happened was that the
    top of the command chain was cut off and replaced with Europeans. Thus
    you had a mixed population with the lower classes being native and
    little more then slaves at best. The upper classes didn't want to
    work themselves nor did they want to develop a large European
    population. Genocide would have been quite counter productive here.
    Many people were killed as a result of battles but generally the
    population gave in rather easily. Death by sickness was probably
    unavoidable and not intentional. However, improving or even changing 
    anything was not a goal of the invaders. Plunder was the priority.
    BTW, even today the population of south and central America is mixed
    with a very hierarchical and class conscious population.

    In the north, first off there was no hierarchical structure and 
    secondly the new arrivals wanted to use the land rather than have
    someone else do it all. This resulted in the new arrivals "pushing"
    the natives away. I believe that most of the early arrivals just
    assumed that the indians they found could and would sell the land. 
    That was after all what they were used to. Now we know that the
    concept of land ownership was completely foreign to the native
    American but I believe the first "buyers" were trying to be fair.
    As the European population grew the native American population
    resisted being pushed. Thus a natural conflict based on lack of
    understanding and different values developed. The European and 
    American styles of war also differed and this resulted in a type
    of war that the native Americans could not win. Genocide in the
    north made things easier because the immigrants wanted room more 
    then slaves. Though that changed to some extent later.

    In the south there was a lot of missionary work. This invasion was
    the effort of nations with state churches of very little tolerance.
    I myself have a hard time accepting the Catholic church of Spain of
    Columbus' time as being a really Christian church. They don't relate
    to the church I know. Needless to say a lot of forced "conversion"
    took place. While I believe that the government supported this I believe
    that the major intent of the missionaries was to save souls not aid
    and abet the rule of slaves. That of course was a side effect that 
    the government appreciated and benefited from.

    In the north there was less missionary work and little of it forced.
    Missionaries acted, for the most part, on their own with support
    from home churches rather then home governments. That some missionary
    work was abused can not be denied but in general I believe that most
    of it was designed to make things "better" according to European
    understandings of goodness. Certainly Christians, in my belief, have
    an obligation to tell others of Christ and it would have been immoral
    for the immigrants not to do so.

    			Alfred

    re 6
    
    I personally, feel that is perhaps, again, true from the standpoint of
    Europeans, but from Europeans only.
    
    Although the attitudes and processes of Spaniards and Portugese vs
    England and Holland differed in kind, the type of attitudes and
    processess both held brought about a singular form of treatment upon
    Indians and Africans.  In both cases, Indians and Africans were
    enslaved, killed and removed from homelands to facilitate the success
    of European's plans in the New World.
    
>    of war that the native Americans could not win. Genocide in the
>    north made things easier because the immigrants wanted room more 
>    then slaves. Though that changed to some extent later.
    
    In other words, killing off the Indian made it easier to achieve
    success by providing space to bring in more African slaves....
    
>    In the south there was a lot of missionary work. This invasion was
>    the effort of nations with state churches of very little tolerance.
>    I myself have a hard time accepting the Catholic church of Spain of
>    Columbus' time as being a really Christian church. They don't relate
>    to the church I know. Needless to say a lot of forced "conversion"
>    took place. While I believe that the government supported this I believe
>    that the major intent of the missionaries was to save souls not aid
>    and abet the rule of slaves. That of course was a side effect that 
    
    It's nice to think that the major intent was to save souls...but it is
    really true?  My studies on Slavery, depict the African slave who'd go
    to the "white man's" church by day and to the backwoods church by
    night.  Many black people reject christianity today because they were
    offended by the way it was presented, as a tool to facilitate their
    bondage and oppression.  Surprisingly enough, however, we find that the
    major slave revolts were lead by "backwoods" ministers, or at least
    black men who were very much into the bible.  Even today the greatest
    leaders of black people are of a religious platform.
    
    Then again, I am persuaded that had God not *included* the spreading of
    the gospel in the program designed for European "Manifest Destiny", the
    bible probably would not have been involved AT ALL.  
    
    In the first Chapter of Isaiah, God is speaking of his Children (of
    Israel).  And they have been carried away to a strange land.  In verse
    11 or 12 it says, "Had I not left you this small remnant, you would
    have become like Sodom and like unto Gomorah."  What it says to me is
    that had it not been for the bible being involved in all this, black
    people would have had NO support for courage and strengh, and would
    have succombed to fears and become homosexuals and harlots for the most
    part.  But it was because of that "remnant".  Now what does it infer by
    "remnant"...surely it implies that black people foreknew God prior to
    the "remnant."  and after all they are his Children who were cast into
    bondage for 400 years...no other people on earth fit that discription.
    
    If black people had not known God prior to the bible being preached to
    them, it would not be a "remnant" to them....but it DID prove to cause
    them to remember the morality they practiced in Africa...please study
    the Songhai Civilization, the civilization which Europeans found
    flourishing when they arrived.
    
    Playtoe
    

	"I saw two or three villages, and their people came down to the
beach calling to us and offering thanks to God.  Some brought us water,
others food, and still others jumped in the sea and swam out to us.  We
thought they were asking if we came from the heavens.  One old man got into
the boat, and the others, both men and women, cried, 'Come and see the men
who have come from heaven, and bring them food and water.'

	"Many men and women came, each bringing a gift and offering thanks
to God.  They threw themselves on the ground and pointing at the sky, called us
ashore...

	"But, should your Majesties command it, all the inhabitants could be
taken away to Castile, or made slaves on the island.  With fifty men
we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want"

				- from Christopher Columbus, log of his
				  first voyage, 1492

    
    There's a movie premiering on Oct 9th of this year called "1492.  The
    Conquest" or something to that effect.  It should be interesting to
    see how they deal with the subject.
    
    Anybody have any reading recommendations dealing with the subject?
    
    Jill

First Strike Theater, the arts and entertainment arm of the Pikes Peak
Justice and Peace Commission (see Note 66.23), has put together a lively
and amusing musical revue called "America the Booty-ful," subtitled, "The
Columbus Chronicles and Chronic Ills."

It has been performed in several locations in southern Colorado.  I know
several more performances are planned.  I'd be happy to post the dates
and locations in Note 5 when I get the information.

Peace,
Richard

From Christopher Columbus' BOOK OF PROPHECIES:

"It was the Lord who put into my mind - I could feel His hand upon me - the
fact that it would be possible to sail from here to the Indies...All who heard
of my project rejected it with laughter, ridiculing me...There is no question
that the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit, because he comforted me with
rays of marvelous illumination from the Holy Scriptures...For the execution of
the journey to the Indies I did not make use of intelligence, mathematics, or
maps.  It is simply the fulfillment of what Isaiah had prophesied...No one
should fear to undertake any task in the name of our Savior, if it is just and
if the intention is purely for His Holy service...the fact that the Gospel must
still be preached to so many lands in such a short time - this is what
convinces me."

What was Chris's purpose for sailing to the Indies?

jeff

If it was the Lord who inspired Columbus to sail west to the Indies,
you'd think he would have at least given him a hint that a rather
large continent was in the way.

Ben

    
    .-1
    
    Hi Ben,
    
    Why would God have given him a hint?  
    
    The point of the posting is to show further how Christian men and
    the Bible were at the center of U.S.A.'s origins.
    
    jeff

re: Note 497.65 by jeff

>What was Chris's purpose for sailing to the Indies?

As I recall, it was commerce.  Columbus hoped to find a shorter (less 
expensive) route to India, the better to buy spices and the likes.

And how did Columbus treat the natives he chanced upon in the "New World"? 

Peace,

Jim

    Columbus took sail because he was inspired by God to spread the 
    "good news?"
    
    Well, then imo, he sure had a peculiar way of doing it.  Putting entire
    civilizations into slavery and bondage to procure primarily gold, which
    was never found in the quantities dreamed about, but which did result in 
    the death of millions and the extinction of many tribal communities.
    
    I guess the goodness of Columbus' "good news" is relative based
    upon whose perspective you're considering.  To me, Columbus is no
    shining role-model of what it is to be a Christian.
    
    My humble opinion, of course,
    
    Karen 

    
    .-1,2
    
    Your free to add your opinions  of course but you get off the point. 
    
    Let's let Columbus speak for himself and not add our modern spin.
    
    jeff

    Re: Columbus
    
    I feel that the use of "God" in his statements was done only because
    it was an accepted "writting" term. By this I mean that all maner
    of speaking usually envoked God in a praise. I further submit that
    the frequent evoking was due to the strong impact the church had on
    everyday life at that time in history, and *not* because people
    believed so much more then.
    
    Columbus's motives were simple profit ( I'm not saying that was good
    or bad)....pure and simple.
    
    Marc H.

    
    Today we are finally getting more of the truth about Columbus' voyage
    and the events that unfolded after his arrival in the 'new world'.  How
    can that be called a 'modern spin'?
    
    Carole

re: Note 497.70 by jeff

Jeff,

You asked the question, Karen and I merely attempted to supply answers for 
you.  Perhaps the example of Columbus is not conducive to the point you're 
trying to make (which wasn't mentioned in your Columbus note).

I've seen translations of some of Columbus' logs, and they certainly were not 
models of spreading the Christian Gospel.  Instead, he seemed far more aware 
of the riches of the natives, and ways that treasure might be obtained, as 
well as the importance of the natives as fresh fodder for slavery.
    
Peace,

Jim

Columbus was a proponent of an end-of-the-world theory that stated that
the anti-Christ was going to appear in India; he felt it was important
to get there and to convert as many people as possible and as fast as
possible.

/john

    re: .74
    
    I think that's one of the inherent dangers of fantacism, of any sort. 
    It may begin with noble or admirable intentions, but usually winds up
    extremely destructive.  In Columbus' case he may have wanted to express
    the power and saving grace of Holy Spirit whose hand he felt upon him, 
    however, I believe he primarily manifested instead the power some 
    associate with the anti-Christ.
    
    Karen

    Actually, most of the Indians that died shortly after Columbus's
    visits died from European diseases from which the Indians had no
    immunity.  This was a totally unforeseen event, and would have happened
    sooner or later, anyway.  That is if one assumes that Europeans would
    have eventually visited the Americas.
    
    However, some of the Spanish laity were quite brutal to the Indians
    that survived.  Apparently the Church was responsible for lessening
    their burdens quite dramatically, in time.
    
    My take on Columbus's motives is that they were primarily an interest
    in economic gain for himself.  Conversion fo the Indians seemed to be a
    pretty much a secondary venture.  His intense interest in finding gold
    and in being declared a Viceroy seems is the reason why I say this.
    
    Mike

    
    thanks all.  Your opinions are interesting but are just that -
    opinions.
    
    It is clear, according to Columbus's own words (who knew nothing of 
    political correctness), why he set out for the Indies.  I see nothing 
    posted at all substantive to discredit his words.
    
    jeff

	Gee Jeff, you have a way with words. You are able to make a "thanks" 
seem like a dig.......




Glen

    Jeff,
    
    I don't believe anyone is trying to discredit Columbus' words, only to
    add that there is ample evidence showing he very clearly had commercial 
    purposes in mind as well.  I think that this relates a more
    comprehensive view of Columbus' intentions. 
    
    The other point raised was how Columbus acted upon the words you cited 
    when he encountered civilizations in the "new world," which I feel is
    extremely important to reflect upon for anyone concerned with Christian 
    witnessing. 
    
    Karen 

    
    In one of the few episodes on Columbus that I've been able to catch
    on PBS, Columbus' initial landing (at the island of San Salvador, I
    believe) was discussed.  He himself wrote about the gentleness and
    kindness of the native peoples who greeted him and his party.  They
    gave them food and welcomed them.  Columbus stayed a few days and
    then left - after 'pirating' a number of the young native men for
    the continuing trip.
    
    Now, whose behavior between these two groups would *you* say was the
    more Christlike?
    
    Carole

    I'm not sure where the "pirating" claim comes from.  Did Columbus write
    that in his journal?

    
    Was it wrong either socially (at the time) or Biblically for Columbus to 
    remove these people?
    
    jeff

    Sure it was immoral.  Columbus would have objected if his officers or
    crew were held by the native Americans he encountered against their
    will.

    
    I agree with Patrick.
    
    Carole

    
    I agree that it was wrong (in the absolute sense).  So, Christopher
    Columbus sinned.  Who has not among us?  It is not contradictory for
    him to have been led by the Holy Spirit or his desire to achieve a
    Biblical end and also to have sinned.  As a matter of fact this is what
    happens all of the time in the Christian experience.  The flesh
    struggles against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh.  I've
    heard this experience described as "3 steps forward and 2 steps back".
    I am intimately familiar with it myself.
    
    I never commented on Columbus's degree of faith or sanctification.  I
    only pointed out that by his own words the advancement of the Christian
    faith was a goal.
    
    jeff
    

    "3 steps forward, 2 steps back", I'm not familiar with that text.
    
    "Why not say - as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as
    some claim that we say - "Let us do evil that good may result"? Their
    condemnation is deserved.  Romans 3:8
    
    Great good does not justify small evil.
    The ends do not justify the means.

    Jeff, as gently as I can, conversion of the Indians was not the primary
    reason that Columbus set out on his explorations.  He wanted to get
    rich and obtain power for himself.  While he was at it, he wanted to
    bring the Christian religion to the Indians.  Incidentally, on his
    return to the West Indies (2nd or 3rd trip, I forget which), he
    discovered that some people he left behind in a settlement on his
    previous trip had been killed by the local Indians.  It seems those
    good Christians had behaved quite rapaciously toward the Indians in
    taking their pleasures and searching for gold, and one of the local
    Chiefs had finally had enough.   When Columbus discovered what had
    happened to his people, he went on a rampage himself.  Hardly the act
    of a man whose primary interest is in spreading the Gospel, I shouldn't
    think.
    
    And this is not a matter of opinion, but of history.
    
    Mike
                  

    What are you saying Mike?  That a native American killed one of
    Columbus' men in retaliation for rape.  And the Columbus in retaliation
    for that killing, killed many native Americans?

    What book "not a matter of opinion, but of history" recounts that?

    What book specifically?  I don't know.  The situation which I described
    was reported on the PBS documentary series on Columbus now being
    re-broadcast over the last couple of weeks. 

    I imagine that this can be supported by actual historical documents.

    By the way, what I said was several of Columbus's men were involved in
    dealing harshly (acting rapaciously) with the local Indians, and they
    were all killed by the locals.  A legitimate act of police work, I
    should think.  Columbus not being present at the time.

    With a sincere hope that you consider this sufficient documentation to
    reassure yourself that I did not make this story up, I leave it in your
    hands to research this further, should you be desirous of learning the
    exact truth.
    
    Mike

    .23
    
    See .8.  Columbus was a pirate and a slave trader.
    
    Richard

From Chapter 1 of Howard Zinn's _A People's History of the United States_.

	      COLUMBUS, THE INDIANS, AND HUMAN PROGRESS

Arawak men and women, naked, tawny, and full of wonder, emerged
from their villages onto the island's beaches and swam out to get
a closer look at the strange big boat. When Columbus and his
sailors came ashore, carrying swords, speaking oddly, the Arawaks
ran to greet them, brought them food, water, gifts. He later
wrote of this in his log:

"They ... brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and
many other things which they exchanged for the glass beads and
hawks' bells. They willingly traded everything they owned....
They were well-built, with good bodies and handsome features....
They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a
sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of
ignorance. They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane....
They would make fine servants.... With fifty men we could
subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want."

These Arawaks of the Bahama Islands were much like Indians on the
mainland, who were remarkable (European observers were to say
again and again) for their hospitality, their belief in sharing.
These traits did not stand out in the Europe of the Renaissance,
dominated as it was by the religion of popes, the government of
kings, the frenzy for money that marked Western civilization and
its first messenger to the Americas, Christopher Columbus.

Columbus wrote:

"As soon as I arrived in the Indies, on the first Island which I
found, I took some of the natives by force in order that they
might learn and might give me information of whatever there is in
these parts."

The information Columbus wanted most was: Where is the gold? He
had persuaded the king and queen of Spain to finance an
expedition to the lands, the wealth, he expected would be on the
other side of the Atlantic -- the Indies and Asia, gold and
spices. For like other informed people of his time, he knew the
world was round and he could sail west in order to get to the Far
East.

Spain was recently unified, one of the new modern nation-states,
like France, England, and Portugal. Its population, mostly poor
peasants, worked for the nobility, who were 2 percent of the
population and owned 95 percent of the land. Spain had tied
itself to the Catholic Church, expelled all the Jews, driven out
the Moors. Like other states of the modern world, Spain sought
gold, which was becoming the new mark of wealth, more useful than
land because it could buy anything.

There was gold in Asia, it was thought, and certainly silks and
spices, for Marco Polo and others had brought back marvelous
things from their overland expeditions centuries before. Now that
the Turks had conquered Constantinople and the eastern
Mediterranean, and controlled the land routes to Asia, a sea
route was needed. Portuguese sailors were working their way
around the southern tip of Africa. Spain decided to gamble on a
long sail across an unknown ocean.

In return for bringing back gold and spices, they promised
Columbus 10 percent of the profits, governorship over new-found
lands, and the fame that would go with a new title: Admiral of
the Ocean Sea. He was a merchant's clerk from the Italian city of
Genoa, part-time weaver (the son of a skilled weaver), and expert
sailor. He set out with three sailing ships, the largest of which
was the Santa Maria, perhaps 100 feet long, and thirty-nine crew
members.

Columbus would never have made it to Asia, which was thousands of
miles farther away than he had calculated, imagining a smaller
world. He would have been doomed by that great expanse of sea.
But he was lucky. One-fourth of the way there he came upon an
unknown, uncharted land that lay between Europe and Asia --- the
Americas. It was early October 1492, and thirty-three days since
he and his crew had left the Canary Islands, off the Atlantic
coast of Africa. Now they saw branches and sticks floating in the
water. They saw flocks of birds. These were signs of land. Then,
on October 12, a sailor called Rodrigo saw the early morning moon
shining on white sands, and cried out. It was an island in the
Bahamas, the Caribbean sea. The first man to sight land was
supposed to get a yearly pension of 10,000 maravedis for
life, but Rodrigo never got it. Columbus claimed he had seen a
light the evening before. He got the reward.


So, approaching land, they were met by the Arawak Indians, who
swam out to greet them. The Arawaks lived in village communes,
had a developed agriculture of corn, yams, cassava. They could
spin and weave, but they bad no horses or work animals. They had
no iron, but they wore tiny gold ornaments in their ears.

This was to have enormous consequences: it led Columbus to take
some of them aboard ship as prisoners because he insisted that
they guide him to the source of the gold. He then sailed to what
is now Cuba, then to Hispaniola (the island which today consists
of Haiti and the Dominican Republic). There, bits of visible gold
in the rivers, and a gold mask presented to Columbus by a local
Indian chief, led to wild visions of gold fields.

On Hispaniola, out of timbers from the Santa Maria, which had run
aground, Columbus built a fort, the first European military base
in the Western Hemisphere. He called it Navidad (Christmas) and
left thirty-nine crew members there, with instructions to find and
store the gold. He took more Indian prisoners and put them aboard
his two remaining ships. At one part of the island he got into a
fight with Indians who refused to trade as many bows and arrows
as he and his men wanted. Two were run through with swords and
bled to death. Then the Nina and the Pinta set sail for the
Azores and Spain. When the weather turned cold, the Indian
prisoners began to die.

Columbus's report to the Court in Madrid was extravagant. He
insisted he had reached Asia (it was Cuba) and an island off the
coast of China (Hispaniola). His descriptions were part fact,
part fiction:

"Hispaniola is a miracle. Mountains and hills, plains and
pastures, are both fertile and beautiful ... the harbors are
unbelievably good and there are many wide rivers of which the
majority contain gold ...

There are many spices, and great mines of gold and other
metals..."

The Indians, Columbus reported, "are so naive and so free with
their possessions that no one who has not witnessed them would
believe it. When you ask for something they have, they never say
no. To the contrary, they offer to share with anyone...." He
concluded his report by asking for a little help from their
Majesties, and in return he would bring them from his next voyage
"as much gold as they need ... and as many slaves as they ask."
He was full of religious talk: "Thus the eternal God, our Lord,
gives victory to those who follow His way over apparent
impossibilities."

Because of Columbus's exaggerated report and promises, his
second expedition was given seventeen ships and more than twelve
hundred men. The aim was clear: slaves and gold. They went from
island to island in the Caribbean, taking Indians as captives.
But as word spread of the Europeans' intent they found more and
more empty villages. On Haiti, they found that the sailors left
behind at Fort Navidad had been killed in a battle with the
Indians, after they had roamed the island in gangs looking for
gold, taking women and children as slaves for sex and labor.

Now, from his base on Haiti, Columbus sent expedition after
expedition into the interior. They found no gold fields, but had
to fill up the ships returning to Spain with some kind of
dividend. In the year 1495, they went on a great slave raid,
rounded up fifteen hundred Arawak men, women, and children, put
them in pens guarded by Spaniards and dogs, then picked the five
hundred best specimens to load onto ships. Of those five hundred,
two hundred died en route. The rest arrived alive in Spain and
were put up for sale by the archdeacon of the town, who reported
that, although the slaves were "naked as the day they were born,"
they showed "no more embarrassment than animals." Columbus later
wrote: "Let us in the name of the Holy Trinity go on sending all
the slaves that can be sold."

But too many of the slaves died in captivity. And so Columbus,
desperate to pay back dividends to those who had invested, had to
make good his promise to fill the ships with gold. In the
province of Cicao on Haiti, where he and his men imagined huge
gold fields to exist, they ordered all persons fourteen years or
older to collect a certain quantity of gold every three months.
When they brought it, they were given copper tokens to hang
around their necks. Indians found without a copper token had
their hands cut off and bled to death.

The Indians had been given an impossible task. The only gold
around was bits of dust garnered from the streams. So they fled,
were hunted down with dogs, and were killed.

Trying to put together an army of resistance, the Arawaks faced
Spaniards who had armor, muskets, swords, horses. When the
Spaniards took prisoners they hanged them or burned them to
death. Among the Arawaks, mass suicides began, with cassava
poison. Infants were killed to save them from the Spaniards. In
two years, through murder, mutilation, or suicide, half of the
250,000 Indians on Haiti were dead.

When it became clear that there was no gold left, the Indians
were taken as slave labor on huge estates, known later as
encomiendas. They were worked at a ferocious pace, and died by the
thousands. By the year 1515, there were perhaps fifty thousand
Indians left. By 1550, there were five hundred. A report of the
year 1650 shows none of the original Arawaks or their descendants
left on the island. The chief source --- and, on many matters the
only source of information --- about what happened on the islands
after Columbus came is Bartolome' de las Casas, who, as a young
priest, participated in the conquest of Cuba. For a time he owned
a plantation on which Indian slaves worked, but he gave that up
and became a vehement critic of Spanish cruelty. Las Casas
transcribed Columbus's journal and, in his fifties, began a
multivolume History of the Indies. In it, he describes the
Indians. They are agile, he says, and can swim long distances,
especially the women. They are not completely peaceful, because
they do battle from time to time with other tribes, but their
casualties seem small, and they fight when they are individually
moved to do so because of some grievance, not on the orders of
captains or kings.

Women in Indian society were treated so well as to startle the
Spaniards. Las Casas describes sex relations:

"Marriage laws are non-existent: men and women alike choose their
mates and leave them as they please, without offense, jealousy or
anger. They multiply in great abundance; pregnant women work to
the last minute and give birth almost painlessly; up the next
day, they bathe in the river and are as clean and healthy as
before giving birth. If they tire of their men, they give
themselves abortions with herbs that force stillbirths, covering
their shameful parts with leaves or cotton cloth; although on the
whole, Indian men and women look upon total nakedness with as
much casualness as we look upon a man's head or at his hands."

The Indians, Las Casas says, have no religion, at least no
temples.

"They live in large communal bell-shaped buildings,
housing up to 600 people at one time ... made of very strong
wood and roofed with palm leaves .... They prize bird feathers
of various colors, beads made of fishbones, and green and white
stones with which they adorn their ears and lips, but they put no
value on gold and other precious things. They lack all manner of
commerce, neither buying nor selling, and rely exclusively on
their natural environment for maintenance. They are extremely
generous with their possessions and by the same token covet the
possessions of their friends and expect the same degree of
liberality...."

In Book Two of his History of the Indies, Las Casas (who at first
urged replacing Indians by black slaves, thinking they were
stronger and would survive, but later relented when he saw the
effects on blacks) tells about the treatment of the Indians by
the Spaniards. It is a unique account and deserves to be quoted
at length:

"Endless testimonies ... prove the mild and pacific temperament
of the natives. . - . But our work was to exasperate, ravage,
kill, mangle and destroy; small wonder, then, if they tried to
kill one of us now and then.... The admiral, it is true, was
blind as those who came after him, and he was so anxious to
please the King that he committed irreparable crimes against the
Indians...."

Las Casas tells how the Spaniards "grew more conceited every day"
and after a while refused to walk any distance. They "rode the
backs of Indians if they were in a hurry" or were carried on
hammocks by Indians running in relays. "In this case they also
had Indians carry large leaves to shade them from the sun and
others to fan them with goose wings."

Total control led to total cruelty. The Spaniards "thought
nothing of knifing Indians by tens and twenties and of cutting
slices off them to test the sharpness of their blades." Las Casas
tells how "two of these so-called Christians met two Indian boys
one day, each carrying a parrot; they took the parrots and for
fun beheaded the boys."

The Indians' attempts to defend themselves failed. And when they
ran off into the hills they were found and killed. So, Las Casas
reports, "they suffered and died in the mines and other labors in
desperate silence, knowing not a soul in the world to whom they
could turn for help." He describes their work in the mines:

"...mountains are stripped from top to bottom and bottom to
top a thousand times; they dig, split rocks, move stones, and
carry dirt on their backs to wash it in the rivers, while those
who wash gold stay in the water all the time with their backs
bent so constantly it breaks them; and when water invades the
mines, the most arduous task of all is to dry the mines by
scooping up pansfull of water and throwing it up outside...."

After each six or eight months' work in the mines, which was the
time required of each crew to dig enough gold for melting, up to
a third of the men died.

While the men were sent many miles away to the mines, the wives
remained to work the soil, forced into the excruciating job of
digging and making thousands of hills for cassava plants.

"Thus husbands and wives were together only once every eight or
ten months and when they met they were so exhausted and depressed
on both sides ...they ceased to procreate. As for the newly
born, they died early because their mothers, overworked and
famished, had no milk to nurse them, and for this reason, while I
was in Cuba, 7000 children died in three months. Some mothers
even drowned their babies from sheer desperation.... In this
way, husbands died in the mines, wives died at work, and children
died from lack of milk and in a short time this land which was so
great, so powerful and fertile was depopulated.... My eyes
have seen these acts so foreign to human nature, and now I
tremble as I write...."

When he arrived on Hispaniola in 1508, Las Casas says, "there
were 60,000 people living on this island, including the Indians;
so that from 1494 to 1508, over three million people had perished
from war, slavery, and the mines. Who in future generations will
believe this? I myself writing it as a knowledgeable eyewitness
can hardly believe it .... "

Thus began the history, five hundred years ago, of the European
invasion of the Indian settlements in the Americas. That
beginning, when you read Las Casas -- even if his figures are
exaggerations (were there 3 million Indians to begin with, as he
says, or 250,000, as modem historians calculate? -- is conquest,
slavery, death. When we read the history books given to children
in the United States, it all starts with heroic adventure---there
is no bloodshed---and Columbus Day is a celebration.

    Today is Columbus Day in the US.
    
    For me, it has been without much fanfare.
    
    Richard
    

	It is a shame that the event has been so widely ignored.
	While there is no disputing that the European coming to the
	New World was a disaster for the Amerind culture, it does
	mark the begining of the modern era. The end of the middle
	ages. I'm reminded of the Time Magazine "man of the year".
	One year Hitler was named that and the editors pointed out
	that for good or for ill he had made the biggest difference
	during the year.

	For good or for ill Columbus' trip was a very significant
	event and should not have been so widely ignored.

			Alfred

    Well for me Columbus Day has been special for the last 19 years.  It is
    my son's birthday.  He told me when he was younger that he had chosen
    Columbus Day as his birthday as a clue for him to remember that like
    Columbus he was here as an adventurer exploring a new world.  
    
    Ro
    

    Alfred,
    
    Yes, for good and ill, Columbus's journey was an extremely 
    significant event.  I can't say that I noticed a lack of attention
    paid to it this year, than in recent years gone by however.  (Seems
    like the historical significance, however, is sometimes in competition 
    with the retail industry's excuse to have another sale.)  
    
    Roey,
    
    Patrick *never* ceases to amaze me!  What a profound young man.
    
    :-)
    
    Karen

I agree with Alfred, that that particular European arrival begat a disaster 
for Native Americans.  As far as it marking the beginning of the "modern Era", 
I'd say that was simply coincidental timing, more an effect than a cause.

However, many people seem to forget another group of Europeans who explored 
and set up trading posts in the "New World" some 500 years before Columbus.

While they are historically and popularly portrayed as cruel and warlike 
conquerors, sackers and looters, the Vikings were primarily very astute
explorers and traders

Peace,

Jim

    "From the fury of the Northmen, deliver us."

    From an Anglo-Irish prayer of a few centuries ago.

    The Vikings ranged from terror to nuisance in Europe, the Atlantic, and
    the Mediterranean from the end of the Western Roman Empire to the 16th
    century.

    
    I thought I'd give an update on the movie "1492" that I mentioned back
    in August.  It's a 2-1/2 hour movie and while it can be slow in some
    places.  I really enjoyed it.  I think the movie is a fairly objective
    view and I've seen several notes in here that seem to support facts
    that they presented in the movie. 
    
    Anyway, Columbus was trying to get support for his greatest passion;
    discovery.  The setting starts in Spain with the Inquisition and the
    Fall of Granada from the Moors.  Columbus who has sought refuge in
    a monastery is given an audience with the queen's council.  The are
    considered the authority and do not want to be questioned.  However,
    a powerful man who is close to the queen is also present and tries to
    persuade the council to allow the mission because if Columbus was 
    right, Spain had much to gain monetarily.  The council denied Columbus'
    request.  Back at the monastery Columbus goes into a rage because this
    is something he's been trying to accomplish for nearly a decade.  He
    starts throwing books and the monks eventually stop him and make him
    do penance by taking an oath of silence.
    
    A shipmaker/seaman who has heard about Columbus' ordeal comes and says 
    he has a friend, banker, who can get him an audience with the queen.  
    The banker of course interested in monetary gains.  The seaman in
    discovery.  The queen sees him after the fall of Granada.  Columbus by
    then knowing how the game is played takes of Spain increasing it's 
    domain and wealth and extending their faith.  The queen is unconvinced
    and said people are saying it can't be done.  He said last week people
    were saying that Granada was impregnable.  Her ego stroked and
    impressed that he's willing to stand up to her - she grants his
    request.  Now, Columbus is an Italian and treated like a foreigner 
    despite the fact that he's lived in Spain for some time.  His desires
    are to keep discovering and to do so, he must be funded.  So he strikes
    a deal with Spain to let him have 10% of everything and be governor.
    They don't like it, but the queen allows it.  The nobles are already 
    plotting how to cheat him out of it.
    
    Columbus sets sail having told everyone it would take six weeks, but
    knowing it was much further.  The crew almost mutinies but he promises
    the first one who sees land a handsome reward and the quiet down.  In
    about 3 weeks they see land.  The natives they first meet come out with
    wooden spears and he has his people refrain from any violence.  Think
    about it...he's a discover...why interest would violence serve for him?
    The natives accept them and they start teaching some of the natives 
    spanish so they have interpretters and they try to find gold because 
    he needs to go back and show that his mission is a success so that
    there will be other missions, but they don't find much gold of any
    great quality.  He leaves 39 guys behind to build a fort and returns to
    Spain with the best of what their is to try to convince the queen to 
    allow him further exploration.
    
    Back in Spain his reception is warm, but the nobles are out to
    discredit his adventure to take the bounty for themselves, but again 
    Columbus is able to work with the queen and gets what he wants.  They
    try to send people to undermine Columbus because he is the governor
    or viceroy, but Columbus appoints his brothers to high positions to
    surround himself with people he trusts.  Not really a wise decision
    being that none of them have any experience of this nature.  Columbus
    goes back with about a thousand men and supplies to build the first
    town.  He takes plans by Leonardo Da Vinci to base this city on.  Quite
    a feat considering the resources.  Upon there arrival they find that
    their fort and 39 seaman have been murdered and burned.  There is no
    explanation.  Some of the people with him want revenge.  He tells them
    there will be no revenge because they have no idea which tribe is 
    responsible and he refuses to punish the innocent.  He goes to a tribe
    that he knows and talks with them, they say they know nothing.  He asks
    for their help and they give it.  The abuse starts happening after
    that.  How well could you or I control 1000s men?  And remember the 
    climate in which they are coming from?  An act of violence from one 
    man who in the movie is pitted against Columbus at every turn, is the
    last straw for the natives.  The tribes join together and start killing
    Spainards.  Columbus jails the man who violated his order.  However,
    later his friends break him out of jail and start setting fire to the
    town then they flee to the woods.  There is a fight against those loyal
    to Columbus and those loyal to this other man.  This man lures Columbus
    deeper into the woods.  Yet, a couple of natives show up to guide his
    way to the man.  The man tells Columbus that he is not a Spaniard and
    his children will never inherit anything and then he kills himself.
    Then a hurricane rocks the island and ruins the town.  Columbus leaves
    people to rebuild and goes back to Spain.  A priest who hated the 
    hard conditions in San Salvador and who Columbus had chastised for not
    wanting to help these people more sided with the noblemen and twisted
    the story to make it sound like Columbus single-handed had lead the
    destruction.  Columbus was sent to Castille.  The monastery and other
    friends pleaded on his behalf and he was finally set free.  Almost
    all of his families possessions had been taken from them.  He sits in
    on a council session in the back when they announce the discovery of
    the new world, and the council hating him announce that Amerigo
    Vespucci, another Italian, has discovered it.  This is a slap in
    Columbus' face, but he knows in his heart what really happens.  He 
    then has an audience with the queen and once again she grants him the 
    right to go back to the new world.  The movie ends with his son,
    Fernando, asking him to recount his discoveries and it's through these
    memoirs that Columbus' name is restored to its rightful place in
    history.
    
    Jill

re: Note 436.47 by Patrick "EIB: Rush on 17, Pat on 6" 

>                      -< Woshippers of Odin, Thor, etc. >-

Does this automatically label them evil?  cruel?  

I never said they were lily-white, Patrick, but they certainly DID discover 
the "New World" long before Columbus did.  In a much more peacable and 
mutually beneficial way than Columbus did, according to historical accounts. 

My original point was to ponder the celebration of Columbus' discovery over 
the Scandinavian discovery of the "New World".  Why do you think that is?
Perhaps it was because they had a different understanding of God than 
Christians (as did ALL of Europe until Christianity swept over the land, often 
with much bloodshed).

Peace,

Jim

>My original point was to ponder the celebration of Columbus' discovery over 
>the Scandinavian discovery of the "New World".  Why do you think that is?

	I think it's because their coloney did not last. Of course as a 
	person of Scandinavian desent I grew up thinking as much about Leif
	Ericsen as I did whatshisname. :-) 

	Also the Italians have better lobbiests then the Norwegians.  :-)

			Alfred

    The Italians have better food, imho. ;-)
    

    He's been mentioned a few times lately.  I thought this article on him
    was interesting:
    
    http://www.khouse.org/columbus.html