Spanish American War

Mr. Zucker argues…

Welcome back, JZ. Its been awhile.

The American story can be summarized as the follows. America is different or unique from the European countries in its treatment of foreign nations and cultures. Unlike Europe, America has the moral mission of democracy that allows it to interfere with other countries for good benefits. Basically, American motives are to spread democracy, free markets, and the virtues of a Christian civilization across the world. European imperialists tended to interfere in other countries for their own economic self-interest and to balance their power in the competition between European nations on the continent. However, America does not have the same baggage. So, she tends to act out of altruism. This doesn’t mean that self-interest is never involved. Rather, our interests tend to coincide with the overall desire to spread democracy and capitalism. So, yes, we benefit from our adventures; but, so do the countries that we influence. The benefits are never exactly equal but are proportional allowing both areas to grow according to their circumstances. Also, yes, we do mess up at times. But, this actually proves our innocence. If we had planned to take over areas for our own self-interest, one would think that our mistakes would be more minimal since our actions would be planned.

Okay, so this story would be…in technical terms…A LIE!!!

America in the late 1800s and the early 1900s demonstrates that all of these principles are basically false. Americans entered into the Spanish American War believing that they were trying to liberate Cubans from Spanish oppression. However, the stories that they were fed were generally exaggerated by the Yellow Press in America for the media’s desire to earn profit. The best example of this was the story on the explosion of the Maine that blamed the Spanish for the mining of the harbor. This story had no real research before it was printed. William Randolph Hearst, the owner of the newspaper, told his reporters to give him information and that he would give them a war. President McKinley was highly influenced by his advisor Mark Hannah who wanted to benefit Wall Street interests. Why would Cuba help in this? Well, they wouldn’t. But, by attacking Cuba, America could attack Spanish interests in the Philippines and this would open up China to American trade. Plus, Cuba was up for grabs by the farming community that wanted to lower tariffs and increase farm trade with the island.

Of course, JZ, you will argue that all this proves is that American interests coincided with democracy. However, at the beginning of the war, the American congress promised under the Teller Amendment that America would respect Cuban sovereignty at the end of the war. Then, at the end of the war, the American congress passed the Platt amendment that allowed the American government to intervene at any time if US interests were under threat. The US then went on to support Cuban dictators all the way up to the Cuban revolution in 1959. In the Philippines, the revolutionary leader, Emilio Aguinaldo, originally called for American help. However, after the US marines defeated the Spanish, the American president McKinley argued that the US needed to take care of the Philippines and remained. Aguinaldo led an insurrection against the US for democratic control of the Philippines. After 5 years, the US had killed well over 300,000 Filipinos.

The US is exactly like their European counterparts. The US has economic and political interests in regions of the world. The US government simply uses different techniques to dominate countries. Instead of direct control, US government will often provide aid to corrupt dictators who follow US interests. US negotiates, with the backing of its military force, to open countries to US based companies. These companies can then take advantage of the local populace through low wages and buying up the best land. In other words, the US is the new HEGEMON!!! (If you don’t know the word look it up.)


JZ responds…

Well, traitor…sorry, Mr. Zucker…let me respond (LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT)


Your analysis of American actions is close to a conspiratorial view of the US government. The US government is not like European kingdoms because the US lacks a centralized power system that makes unified decisions. Rather, the US is a system of checks and balances that does not allow for one faction or interest to dominate over the others. What may appear to be a unified decision or policy is really the accumulation of many different interests. What does tie everyone together is a base line belief in the institutions and virtues of democracy. This means that all factions are guided by the desire to protect checks and balances, civil liberties, separation of powers, economic competition, and a degree of laissez-faire government.

Your examples seem pretty well documented. The problem is that the different groups you show were not guided by the same interests. William Randolph Hearst was corrupted by the desire to gain profits through exaggerated stories. However, this does not mean that his stories determined the president’s decision to go to war or the Congress’ decision to agree to war. After the Maine incident, the president did not go to war but actually waited several months. The main incident that changed everything was the De Lome letter. This letter was intercepted from the Spanish ambassador. The letter basically said that the president of the US was spineless and could easily be negotiated into a false peace. Once the US would leave, the Spanish could dig in with their military and make it impossible to be removed. This forced McKinley’s hand into war because he needed to protect his office and the Cuban people from the lies of the Spanish empire.

The war with the Philippines was definitely a tragedy. But, it was inevitable. If it were not fought between the Filipinos and the Americans, it would have been fought with the Germans or Russians. The Germans and Russians also wanted the Philippines for a launching point into China for trade and military reasons. The Americans offered protection from this possibility. Also, unlike the German or Russian monarchies, the American imperialism spread the institutions and values of democracy over the long run.

True, American economic interests guided the war effort in both Cuba and the Philippines. But as you said in the overall narrative of American history, this provided for growth on both sides of the Pacific. This is the idea of comparative advantage. The Philippines worked hard at what they were good at during this period of history. They were good at farming while the US was moving to an industrial state. So, the Philippines sold farm goods to American and provided a way station for the American goods into China. America benefited from cheap farming goods and Filipinos benefited from the largest and strongest economic market in the world.

The two biggest problems in your argument, Zucker, are first that you assume similar motives of the American government and second that the only factor in decision making is American economic interests. The story is far more complicated. That is why my side of the schizophrenic personality is better with the ladies.

Causes of Civil War

Mr. Zucker argues…

Well, JZ, I hope that you had an excellent Thanksgiving.

The immediate cause of the Civil War appears to be that of slavery. Most historians have argued that the Civil War was this great moral crusade against the institution of slavery. This has become part of the mythology of United States history. It allows for people to believe that the United States is a truly unique country. Unlike its European brothers and sisters, the United States is supposed a nation that is driven by intentions of morality, not self-interest. In this viewpoint, slavery is an exceptional problem that detracts from the greater story of American history. Abraham Lincoln is therefore portrayed as a great moral hero who reunited the country and ended the one great moral blight that threatened to end the basic foundations to the country. The end of the Civil War then appears to be a great moment in God’s guidance of a distinct country that is destined to follow a new path that will guide the rest of the world.

The Civil War was not about a crusade against the institution of slavery. Rather, it was an attempt to control the lifestyle and mode of economic organization of the South. The Northern dominated federal government was largely led by the philosophy of the Federalists and their predecessors. Even when the Federalists officially died out, the succeeding Democratic-Republicans, like Jackson, tended to compromise the states’ rights philosophy for a strong unifying centralized government. This wing of the states’ rights crowd was further pushed to the fringe with the creation of the Whig party and then its descendant, Republican Party. All of these parties basically agreed with tariffs to protect industry, a long term development towards industry, and a final faith in the unifying power of the centralized government.

The notion that Abraham Lincoln was attempting to end slavery is more myth than fact. Lincoln claimed that he was against slavery due to its dehumanizing effect upon black humans. However, he also stated that he had no intention of ending slavery. Rather, he simply did not want it to expand out into the territories. Why not? The answer is rather clear. If slavery remained in the South, then Lincoln and others believed that it would die out in competition with industry and manufacture. If he was truly against the institution of slavery, then he would have attacked it immediately before the Civil War and definitely during the war. However, note when he finally did attack it. His Emancipation Proclamation was given in the last couple years of the war. And, it only applied to the deepest Southern states in the Union. Why didn’t it apply to the states on the border of the North? These “border” states were pro-slave and pro-union (read here federal government power). Lincoln was obviously trying to bolster the unifying power of the federal government by not attacking slavery too strenuously.

The only group that truly saw slavery as an immoral institution was the religious abolitionist movement in the North. They made up the minority even in the North. Individuals, like William Lloyd Garrison, advocated for a moral separation from the South over the institution of slavery. However, most people in the North did not even favor a separation or a willingness to fight in the military. Most members of the Northern military tended to be Irish immigrants looking for some basic work. Wealthier members of the “Northern Society” cliché tended to pay $300 for replacements. And, this was done after Lincoln created a draft due to the lack of soldiers.

The real reason for the Civil War was Federal power in guiding an industrial economy. The Northern powers wanted to create stronger tariffs, an extended railroad system, and government investment in the infrastructure of the economy. The Southern states’ representatives kept opposing these moves. Without the Southern representatives in Congress, the Northern Republicans moved on all of this after the beginning of the Civil War. So, in the end, America appears to be just like any other country attempting to pursue economic self-interest.


JZ replies…

Wow, Mr. Zucker, I didn’t know that you found your true self over Thanksgiving. Can we say Confederate, traitor, or terrorist….

The Civil War was about slavery. Even most of your arguments admit to this. Lincoln did not go right after slavery at the beginning of the war because it was politically impossible to do so. Any politician knows that he must compromise in the short term to achieve his long term goals. Yes, it was true that Lincoln often appeared to be inconsistent in his program. When he ran for president, Lincoln would give different speeches to different audiences. He would tell Northern audiences that he was against slavery while telling Border State audiences that he was not going to attack the institution. However, the reason for this was that he had to create a coalition of political forces to get him into the presidency. He needed to find common ground amongst interest groups that were often in opposition. He found the common principle in a desire to create a strong federal government that would keep the nation united.

It was also true that Lincoln did not attack slavery even early on in the Civil War. However, the reason for this had to do with keeping his coalition viable and keep the European forces out of the war. He feared that the early efforts of the war were not going well. In fact, most of the Northern generals were failing in their military aims. Britain was considering entering into the war to help the Southerners. The Northern victories at Antietam and Gettysburg changed all of this. Once the Northern armies won these two battles, the British decided to stay out of the war. Now, Lincoln could call for a moral fight against slavery to unite the Northern states. However, he could not risk losing the support of the Border States. So, he created an emancipation for the slaves in the deep South to create confusion in the Southern armies while keeping the Northern coalition united.

Yes, it is true that the Republicans in the North attempted to enact their plans for federalizing the economy and infrastructure with the Democrats out of office. However, this says nothing about their intentions over slavery. In fact, one could interpret their moves away from agriculture as an assurance to never return to an economic mode of organization that depends upon slave labor. In fact, following the war, the Radical Republicans pushed for full political and economic equality for blacks in the South. Radical Republicans, like Thaddeus Stevens, pushed for black freedmen to have full citizenship, voting rights, holding political office, and even have some economic redistribution of land.

The American story may not be a direct line of progress. However, Mr. Zucker, you have eliminated any of the ideals that America was built upon and its imperfect development over time. Of course, American history included elements of the typical human self-interest and economic desires for progress. However, American foundations also included desires for political equality, individual civil rights, respect of differing traditions, and accountability over government. The means at achieving these goals have differed. At times, the means to these goals have been through elite decisions in the federal government. At other times, the means were through social movements. At some times, war has been used to imperfectly gain unity and rights. While the movement towards these goals has definitely been imperfect, the elements of motives and desires have always been organized around and through the higher ideals of the Revolutionary and Constitutional period.

Jacksonian Democracy

Mr. Zucker argues…

Well, JZ its been awhile. You will notice that I am a man of the people. I believe that power ought to be dispersed as much as possible. I am sure that you agree unless you are some elitist snob…..

President Andrew Jackson coalesced and developed the movement of New Democracy that had begun to develop after the War of 1812. New Democracy was a belief that all individuals ought to be able to participate in the American System. Up to the War of 1812, the general belief on democracy was that the best leaders for America were those who had a specific stake in society. This included the educated classes and the investors who had an economic reason to see America either develop or deteriorate. Otherwise, according to the elitist form of democracy, the mob would take over and dominate.

By the 1820s, farmers had gained more power in the United States. Due to the victories of the Anti-Federalists through the Democratic-Republican party, the farmers had gained major footholds in the power of government. Also, as the farmers continued to expand western territories, they gained more voice in government. Farmers established territories that then became states. So, they were able to gain power in local governments and in representation for Congress. This eventually coalesced into their ability to unite and elect Andrew Jackson into the executive office. Jackson and his supporters believed that property requirements for voting needed to be eliminated. This would allow for the experience of the common farmer to be the deciding element in the process of law making. Also, it would place a check on the abuse of centralized power since farmers are usually distrustful of federal government.

This movement began the modern era of democracy that is still with us today. The principle that the common person should be able to participate in political decision making began with Jackson and has continued until our present principle of “one man, one vote”. Jackson’s movement helped to reign in the National Bank. The Bank had become too powerful and was known for corrupt management. Also, it was not providing the circulation of money needed for farmers to expand their investment. True, the economy suffered for a while due to the local banks. However, in the long run, the national economy continued to grow without centralized management.

Jackson’s leadership for the common man eventually led to the major democratic movements of the modern period. The Civil Rights movement, women’s suffrage, and all other moves for greater voting power owe their allegiance back to the Jacksonian era. Without this New Democracy, that emphasizes the experience of each individual to influence the system, we would still live in a Republic defined by elites.


JZ replies…

Oh, Mr. Zucker, you are so naïve. Oh yes, you are a “man of the people”. What does that mean?? Which people? Whose people? I think you are more of a legend…in your own mind!!!


First, I want to deal with your historical interpretation of the Jacksonian Age. How can you possibly refer to it as the beginning of the Modern Age. Jackson did not cause the movement of New Democracy. He rode the coat tails of a movement of western settlement. Since the farmers were the only ones to move out to the West, they of course took more political power. However, Jackson did not cause a change in mindset about the power of people. Rather, he utilized the social changes to ride a wave into the White House. This was evident through a number of his decisions that did not favor the rights of the common person. He did nothing to limit or get rid of slavery. He forcible moved the Native Americans from Georgia in a disastrous march during the dead of winter. And, his closest advisors were friends of his from the richest of the plantation owners. Jackson was not a promoter of the common man. He used them as a tool for his accession to power.

True, Jackson did dismantle the National Bank in favor of the farmers and smaller “wild cat” banks. However, Jackson over rode South Carolina’s nullification of an excessive tariff in order to protect the authority of the central government. By doing this, he created a principle of federal control over tariffs that would eventually anger the “common man” and push the South closer towards secession and Civil War.

But, this is the underlying problem with your entire argument. You assume that lowering the property requirements on voting instantly guarantees the growth of democracy. This assumes that democracy is largely an institutional practice of voting. But, it doesn’t look at the deeper values of democracy that must be developed in order to ensure a democratic tradition. Democracy needs a sense of individual empowerment and real influence over the process. Voting is simply a manifestation or ritual of the overall process.

Jackson did not create real institutions that would allow for common farmers to influence the democratic process. He did not raise the number of representatives for common farmers as shown by his refusal to enter the Republic of Texas into the Union. He did not include common farmers into his cabinet of advisors. He did not find a way to compromise with the states on their power of nullification. And, his ridding the country of the National Bank did not ultimately resolve the farmers’ need for a growing level of currency in the economy.

In the end, Mr. Zucker, you end up allowing for the tool of democracy. But, you do not see the need for the substance of democracy.

Was American Revolution Radical??

Mr. Zucker argues…

Well, JZ, its go time once again. Lets see if you can keep up with me this time. I doubt it considering that your last blog entry was, lets say, a little, in a technical word, WRONG!!!

The American Revolution was a Radical Revolution. Most people don’t realize it but the American revolution actually changed major social and political norms in society. Most Historians, up to the present, have considered the American Revolution as significantly different than the one in France. The French Revolution has been considered to be radical because it stressed total equality on economic, political and social grounds. Typically, most American historians have argued that the American Revolution was a conservative revolution because it simply changed the political institutions in the country. Furthermore, the revolutionaries didn’t get rid of the basic hierarchy of relationships between the educated elite and the common person.

However, this viewpoint has missed the multiple changes that took place in ideals and social relationships. The Revolutionaries attacked the notion of hierarchy by criticizing the King of Britain and belief that the individual should be second to the good of the empire. Instead, the new belief centered around individual natural rights, following John Locke’s social contract philosophy. This forced the government to be accountable to the people instead of the opposite way around.

This new philosophy of natural rights proved to be a force that attacked the basic social, political and economic relationships of the local colonies. Colonists no longer showed absolute respect and subordination to the local governors and mayors. Before the revolution, common people were expected to leave room on the roads as governors and mayors passed in a sign of subservience. However, after the revolution, commoners walked side by side with leaders. This may seem small and symbolic. But the action showed that people in the colonies no longer accepted deference to leaders. This was then shown in the colonists’ demands for greater forms of representation and the creation of a republic.

Women challenged their traditional status in the colonies. Western tradition had argued that women ought to be in the home and subservient to their husbands. However, during the revolution, women argued for their own independence and their rights to political participation. Women, like Molly Pitcher, openly participated on the battlefield. Abigail Adams, wife of future president John Adams, wrote him a letter demanding that women be included in the creation of the Constitution. Premarital pregnancy rates increased showing a rebellion of young women and men against traditional norms of marriage, sex, and general relationships with the older generation.

Even slaves challenged the norms of the colonies. Black slaves used the fight between Britain and America to choose sides. Their choice was of course based upon who offered the greater freedom. This eventually spilt over after the war. Numerous northern colonies officially condemned slavery outright. Many people believed that slavery was on its way out altogether.

In the end, the American Revolution did resort to conservative counter revolutionary moves after the failure of the Articles of Confederation. However, the spirit and ideology of the Revolution itself was a radical move.


JZ replies…

Wow. That was an incredible argument Mr. Zucker. I guess I have no response…except for…oh yeah…you just forgot a few small exceptions like…

The American revolutionaries were largely led by the wealthy elite of the colonies. These elite were well educated merchants, lawyers, bankers and land owners. They feared the democratic mob. They were actually Loyalists to the British empire up until the few years before the revolution. Even Samuel Adams was a lawyer in favor of the British accused of the Boston Massacre. He did this for fear that the soldiers would not receive a fair trial from the American mob. Plus, remember that many individuals like Sam Adams were actually very conservative in their religious and social mindset.

The other problem with your argument is the beginning and ending point that you are putting on the issue. If you look at the issue simply from the time of the Revolution, you might be correct. But, look at what eventually happened. When the Articles of Confederation began to show weaknesses, the leaders of the revolution formed a national constitution that placed power in a strong federal government. This government could tax, build a strong national military, and create laws that were imposed upon the nation as a whole. This re-established hierarchy in America and created a group of natural aristocrats, or people who had risen to the top of leadership through their own natural talents.

It is true that people in America challenged certain social norms. However, does this really show radical change? Slavery still existed throughout the southern states in America. Racism began to grow with most white southerners seeing themselves above blacks whether or not they owned slaves. Yes, Abigail Adams threatened her husband that women would rebel if they weren’t included in the Bill of Rights. They weren’t. Her husband replied to Abigail that women did have power-in the HOME. So, how did things really radically change for women following the revolution? True, people shared the streets with governors and mayors. WOW. What a change. How is this not simply a small symbolic move that didn’t have much effect elsewhere?

In the end, the American Revolution had some changes in thought patterns and practices. But, nothing changed to the extent of the radicalism in France.

Try again next time, Zucks.

American Revolution: Was it Justified??

Mr. Zucker says….

So JZ, I read your last argument and all of the replies from your little minions. I don’t think that you totally understood where I was going. So, this next argument is an addition to the last one. I hope to help you in your ignorance by edumacating you and your supporters. This argument is slightly different as I will be addressing whether the American colonists were really justified in their rebellion. My answer would be…um…NO!!!

The main justification for the American rebellion can be found in the document that all Americans treat as their secular Bible…The Declaration of Independence. So, lets start there with our criteria for judging the validity of the revolution. Jefferson argued that a revolution is justified only when the basic natural rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness have been violated (whatever this last right means anyways). So, lets use these criteria for our evaluation.

The first major complaint was that the colonists were being overtaxed by a tyrant monarch. Well, the Stamp Act and the following Townshend Acts were all imposed in order to pay back the debts from the French Indian War. This very war rid the colonists of their dreaded enemies, the French and established a Golden Age of peace and economic prosperity until the eve of the Revolution itself. Plus, the English citizens were paying far more in taxes back in the mother country. This may be the reason why the American colonists complained about paying taxes but didn’t support a revolution until far into the war. Hmmm… how much has really changed???

The second major complaint of the colonists was a lack of representation. However, remember the time period. Even the English back in the mother country didn’t get to vote in large numbers. Only wealthy individuals with land got a voice in government. Furthermore, the English did believe that they represented all people. Under the notion of virtual representation, the members of Parliament represented all people in the empire including the colonists. In their beliefs, any poor decision for the colonies would hurt the interests of the whole empire. Oh yeah…and the founding fathers really changed the way things were done anyways. Following the American Revolution, guess who got to vote…You got it-Rich White Males with Property and Education!!! Wow they really kept to their ideals.

Finally, the Americans complained about the British quartering their soldiers in American homes and spying on the colonists. However, what was left out of the argument was that the American revolutionary leaders had created the environment in which this was necessary. Remember that the revolutionary leaders in the Sons of Liberty had led riots against the King’s appointed leaders over the Stamp Act. The women formed nonimportation groups. Merchants were trading in the black market with the French and the Spanish. And, the revolutionary leaders were passing out propaganda about the need to end the taxes established to pay back war debts. Is it so surprising that the British would use their army to stop the growth of an internal rebellion?

Finally, as to my argument last time about the parallel between then and now, I think it is even stronger at this point. Granted that there is a huge difference between the religious fanaticism of terrorists today and the beliefs of the founding fathers. However, think about the similarities. Just as Britain had a sense of prosperity and peace following the win over the French, so too have the Americans felt the same sense of security and growth since the end of the Cold War. Just as the British believed that their way of economic and political life should be spread out to the world, so too have Americans believed this for the last decade. What happened during this time? A small group of American colonists convinced the larger, more moderate population, to join their rebellion as the British mistreated the local citizens through poor policies and military abuses. Hmm…see any connections…Can we say Abu Ghraib? Anyways…look forward to your arguments JZ.


JZ Replies….

Mr. Zucker, calm down. Don’t get all upset over me and my supporters. Hate the playas, don’t hate the game.

Let me start with your criteria. I wouldn’t want to only use the Declaration of Independence. I would also point out the arguments of Thomas Paine and Common Sense. There he argued that the American colonists had grown up like a child and deserved their independence from a far away parent, the English king. He argued that local control was necessary because a monarch ruling from an empire far from the American continent could never truly understand the needs and problems of the people in the Americas.

This was demonstrated by the English inability to deal with the problems faced by the colonists. Yes, it was true that the colonists had great economic prosperity. However, even during this prosperity, the colonists faced periods of depression. They had no say in how to manage these periods. In fact, the English king could and often did dissolve the local assemblies that were trying to deal with the problems of the local economy. Also, the colonists lacked a wide variety of choices and options in trading in the international economy. This goes back to Paine’s argument that developed colonies should have their own freedom and choice to decide on whom to trade with regardless of the economic plusses or disadvantages under one empire.

While it was true that the colonists had created some of the hysteria that led to the need for the British army, the British troops were a part of the problem themselves. The British troops saw the American colonists as second class citizens. This often led to the abuse or mistreatment of local American colonists from British troops. Americans did not support the revolution, as you said, until well within the war. What changed them? One idea is that the British troops so abused local citizens that they felt they had to change over to the American revolutionary side. However, why were the colonists abused by their own army? Probably, because they held an inferior status in an empire that was supposed to be their home as well.
True that virtual representation was the criteria used for representation at that time. But, this is the point. The American leaders were trying to argue for a new form of political representation. This required a criticism of the very system that was being used at the time. The American leaders were advocating for a more direct form of representation that they believed would solve the tensions created by the mercantile and Parliamentary system of their day. Yes, the leaders were not perfect in their application. But, they established a system that could develop into a more thorough democracy over time.

As for your parallels, you still are comparing apples and oranges. The British had direct control over the Americans and the Americans of today do not have direct control over the Middle East. The ideas of the American leaders were about Enlightenment notions of the social contract and political representation. The Islamic beliefs today are about religious interpretations of Islam and anger of Western culture coming into the Middle East. Come on Zuck, you gotta be kidding about the similarities. See you next time.

Christopher Columbus

Mr. Zucker argues…

Well, JZ, we begin a new year. Once again, I will show you who is the boss. So, quit you jibber jabber and listen to the master.

Christopher Columbus should be revered as a hero for Western civilization for bringing Western culture to the discovered continent in the Western Hemisphere. European society had been primitive and backwards for centuries since the fall of the Roman Empire. However, due to new technologies, information and trade routes, the European kingdoms were creating great strides in civilization that would provide the foundations for democracies and capitalism today.

The Protestant Reformation had created a new sense of individualism and virtue that would eventually lead to democracy. Martin Luther’s rebellion against the Papacy ended the dependence of the peasant on the Catholic Church. Now, peasants were taught how to read in order to find salvation in the Bible. While this was a far way off from individual freedom and democratic rights, this movement formed the initial steps for that development.

The Scientific Revolution was providing the tools for a better advancement in knowledge of the physical world. Bacon, Descartes, Galileo, Copernicus and Newton all forged the basic method of how to find the natural laws that run the biology, chemistry and physics of the natural world. This would eventually lead to medical cures for diseases, possibilities for new forms of transportation, and the creation of urban centers.

England, France, and Spain were all developing nation states in order to compete for power amongst each other and the threat of the Ottoman Empire. This led to a centralization of power and organization. Now nations could develop navies, investment for exploration, and organized trade routes. Trade routes would eventually lead to more peaceful relationships between nations. Otherwise, wars would get in the way of creating international profits.

This is what was symbolized by Columbus’ discovery of the “New World”. Yes, it wasn’t a New World for the natives. However, the “New World” is referring to the transportation of the Western European culture to the Western Hemisphere. Don’t get me wrong. I know that the Natives had incredibly complex cultures and spiritualities. But, can you imagine a Western Hemisphere still operating from a tribal, farming, and fragmented basis. While the Native beliefs should be respected, they were based on mythic story telling, not the objectivity of science. In the end, Native beliefs, while they should be admired, are part of an Old World that was passing away everywhere to make room for the new beliefs of the European Enlightenment.





JZ replies…

Good to hear from you again, Mr. Zucker. Nice arguments. However, you sort of, how can I put this…are wrong!!!

All that you have said is true that the eventual road to democracy, science and Enlightenment were a part of the developments from Christopher Columbus. However, what you have left out here is the road to that development. Yes, it is true that the forces that pushed Columbus to “discover” the New World included the Protestant Reformation, nation state building, and science. However, the intent was not to create a new world to benefit individual rights and social progress.

Kingdoms were out for profits, competition, and the balance of power. The New World represented a new territory in their battle for European dominance. The explorers saw the Natives either as obstacles to this development or tools for extracting wealth. Christopher Columbus met the Arawak tribe in Hispanola. From what we know of Columbus’ diaries, he described them as peaceful peoples without any knowledge of violence or individual power seeking. He then concluded what great slaves they would make. Natives did die from disease. However, Columbus and the Spanish helped this process by congregating the Natives onto slave plantations where disease and depression spread rapidly. Some historians estimate that the population of the Natives declined from about 70 million to 100,000 over one century.

JZ, you argue that the European civilization’s new ideas were so patently superior to the native form of life. You seem to assume that everyone will simply accept that Democracy, Science and Enlightenment are just obvious signs of progress. However, take a look at what these ideas have wrought. Exploration and nation state building led to the annihilation of native populations in America, Australia, and South America. Diverse cultures have been forced to integrate with the national culture or be exterminated. Science has brought us incredible developments in medicine and technology. But, these have produced massive amounts of waste damaging our environment. We have created war making machines that took over 40 million lives in two world wars. Now, we have a weapon, made from science, that could destroy whole urban centers. And, true, that we live in democracies. But, do we really have much say in what our political leaders do? Or, are we just an anonymous number in these huge mega societies we have created? Native societies were small and therefore much more personal.

Now, I am sure that you will argue that all of this is small and insignificant to the grander story here. The point is that Columbus brought the foundations to the growth of a progressive civilization. But, aren’t you just arguing that the ends justify the means? If we remove Columbus’ true motivations and the initial consequences, then aren’t we just arguing that, eventually, good will come from people’s actions? But, I guess this doesn’t matter to us since we came after the annihiliation of 70 million people.