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.
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.
posted by JZFormidableOpponent at 12:39 PM
107 Comments:
testing...
testing testing
1, 2, 3 Can you hear me?
Mr. Zucker has a valid point in saying that without European expansion, America might not be what it is today. It is because of the Europeans that we have most of the technologies that we have today. However, I think that the Europeans were in it for the wrong reasons. Explorers like Christopher Columbus were trying to get riches and expand their kingdoms. The only reason that Columbus found the new world was to find a quicker route to Asia for trade. I think that Europeans came to America completely disregarding the Indians. Before the European arrival, the Indian population was thriving, with a population of 70 million. They were living relatively peacefully also. With the European arrival, they brought slavery, disease and death.
testing?
testing?
I agree with JZ because he says that Christopher Columbus did not travel across the ocean to further the progression of the Americas. Christopher Columbus was in it for the riches that a faster route to Asian and the Indies might provide. Thus I agree with Davidwashere8 when he said, “Explorers like Christopher Columbus were trying to get riches and expand their kingdoms.” But how can a person who wants riches also want to progress the culture of a land that he didn’t know existed? The answer is that he couldn’t have wanted both because one, he didn’t know that the Americas were there, two, his sole purpose was to find a fast route to Asia, and three, he didn’t prepare to “unload” Western European culture onto whoever he met. He was prepared to buy and or trade with the people that he met. It just happens when he met the Native Americans that he saw the differences in lifestyle and culture so he could have an influence on others.
Howard Limburg
Period 3
I agree with both JZ and Mr. Zucker on certain points. Mr. Zucker has a valid point that democracy, science, and enlightenment aren't necessarily part of progress because they have had many negative effects. I disagree with him that they are not a part of progress, everything that is invented has positive effects and negative effects and these negative effects are just a side effect of progress. On another note, I agree with JZ that the European Kingdoms were out for profits, competition, and the balance of power. The European powers were out to find a quicker way to China, so it is obvious that they wanted those things and not just to force their culture on the natives. I agree with Howard that Colombus didn't go to the Americas to convert the natives, he just happened upon them and decided to take advantage of them without consent from Spain.
I agree with eric when he said that Columbus wasn't out to convert the Indians. I mean, how could he have if he didn't know that North America existed.
David Dukesherer
Period 2
Sry I didnt put my name on my main response.
Eric- Although I find your claim that Columbus stumbled upon the Indians and decided to take advantage of them to be correct, I think you have misinterpreted history when you claimed that he did so without the consent of Spain. In such expeditions as his, there was no sort of direct communication with Spain available. The leaders of such expeditions were sent out with King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella's favor. It was almost expected that they would do all possible to maximize the profit gained from the trip. I am sure that even if he was able to ask Spain for directions, they would have been perfectly fine with his actions.
John Gunderman
Period 2
I think that JZ has a really good point when he says, "...true, that we live in democracies. But, do we really have much say in what our political leaders do?" I find this especially interesting in the truth behind that statement. Although we live in a democracy, we cannot truly vote for the person who best represents us, or even our next door neighbor. (well,we could but they could never get elected) The reason for this is the fact that political parties choose our leaders for us. It is lofty members of those parties that pick from among them the best canidate. From among them. Not from among everyone. Now, in most respects you can't blame them, since they need to select someone they know has a chance and that reflects what they want, but what about the rest of us? to them we are just a consumer, and they are trying to "sell" us the canidate. Since there is nothing else for us to do, we just shuffle over to the polls and vote for the people that have funding and real backing. Because really it is money that makes all the difference. (sad truth)
John Gunderman
Period 2
oh....
My agreement is on JZ: competition was everywhere. The Portuguese, for example were growing enormously rich from profits and slave trade in Africa. He at first went to the Portuguese to fund his expedition, but they denied him. He then went to Spain and received finances and ships. Their reasoning behind this was obvious. They were jealous and in competition with the Portuguese and many other reasons.
Columbus wanted to find a quicker route to India. He wanted to expand riches and wealth, as other explorers did. Fortunately, for us, he miscalculated the size of the world and ended up in the Americas....BY ACCIDENT! What he thought was India was the Bahamas and other South American countries. As JZ said, the inhabitants new nothing of violence, corruption, or power-seeking. This would make them great slaves. It would make the Spanish's lives much easier as slaves could do most of the manual labor for them. This was a huge profit as they didn't pay the slaves and they were getting paid through the labor. I can go on and on, but let me get to the point. People like Eric, john g., David, and Howard all have similar viewpoints: Columbus wasn't out to expand the Americas or colonize there, or get slaves. He took advantage of the situation, miles from Spain, he could basically do whatever he wanted. After all, his profits would be Spain's also. True, America today would probably be tribal, rural, and primitive if the Natives weren't kicked out/enslaved by Columbus and his men. But who's to say someone else wouldn't have discovered it sooner or later. Europe was in competition with each other. Someone was bound to discover a huge continent and start colonizing...
-Jason Jeffrey, Period 2
test
test
hello!
testing to see that it works at my house
bladimir Gonzalez, Period 1
I would definitely have to agree with JZ based on the principle that Columbus did not have the initial motive of finding this form of tribal society in the New World. First of all, he wasn't even trying to find this New World; he was trying to find a much quicker route to Asia. Secondly, his motives were driven by Catherine of Aragon's desire for gold and wealth, as well as Columbus' own desire for this treasure. I agree with Howard 100% as Columbus just happened to come upon these natives, who were prime people for slavery. JZ hits the nail right on the head when he says, "kingdoms were out for profits, competition and balance of power." This statement is the sole motive for Spain even sponsoring Columbus' journey. I also agree with JZ about the fact that the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment did lead to new helpful, technological advancements, but these movements later led to the production of the atomic bomb and the nuclear warhead. These weapons somewhat caused the war we are in now with Iraq. JZ is spot on with his argument, and I agree with him indefinitely.
justin barnes
Period1
test
check check 1,2
test
Mr. Zucker and JZ both have very good and credible points, but what I think everyone can agree on is the fact that the Native Americans were an obstacle to advancing the European Culture. As Mr. Zucker also said the European Culture set the stage for the advancements in science and the creation of democracy. Unless people want to live in a tribal society the Indians needed to be removed from the picture. That does not mean that they should have been annihilated like they were, it means that the Europeans should have found an alternate way. But b/c we can not change what has already happened we can say that what the Europeans did, although not morally right, was necessary for the advancement of modern culture and democracy.
And even though Columbus' intent was not to create a new world to benefit individual rights and social progress, he was looking for a new route to Asia so that they could establish a new trade route that could potentially increase the well being of European society. So in a sense Columbus was looking to better the European society. Because of this I agree with Mr. Zucker in saying that Columbus should be considered a hero, b/c he discovered the New World in the hopes of bettering European Society and creating the basis for Modern Culture today. It is a shame that people at this time unjustly used the Indians for their profit but it was necessary to stop the Indian culture so that we could exist today, it is too bad that it had to happen the way it did.
I have to agree with JZ. He brings up many valid points including his view of the Europeans expansion into the New World. This is where i totally agree with Howard. Christopher Columbus came into the America's with his mindset on two things, a new trade route to India and money. His analysis of the Arawak tribe shows this. "He described them as peaceful peoples without any knowledge of violence or individual power seeking. He then concluded what great slaves they would make." But this was the European mindset at the time. They would take anything and use it towards their advantage. The Indians would become slaves, work on plantations, and the goods they farmed would help a European country support itself economically in the Balance of Power. So if we take a step back, the Balance of Power in Europe was one of the main reasons for exploration.
Lorenzo Alvarez
Period 3
I agree with Mr. Zucker yet disagree with him at the same time. I do believe that Mr. Zucker is correct when saying that America has become what it is today because of the Protestant Reformation, the Scientific Revolution, and the development of nation states. However, on the point that Christopher Columbus should be known as a hero, I disagree with Mr. Zucker and agree with David. Sure, Columbus brought over culture from Europe to the "New World," but he didn't mean to. As David said, he was looking to find a new route to India to avoid going through the middlemen and thus avoid losing money. For not wanting to lose as much wealth, Columbus accidentally stumbled upon America. This accident is even shown by the name Columbus gives the natives. For thinking that he came across India, Columbus called them Indians. All in all, I agree with Mr. Zucker that America has become what it is today because of the European culture that was brought over by Columbus but I disagree with him that Columbus should be known as a hero.
Sorry, the comment above this one was mine. I forgot to put my name/period on it. :/
John Ora
Period 3
I agree with both jz and Mr. zucker in that they both have valid points. Christopher columbus' bringing of western culture into the new world did eventually lead to many positive benefits for western culture but at the cost of an entire pre-existing civilization. The native americans had european ideals forced upon them even though they had their own ways. The europeans didn't understand the natives and therefore tried to eradicate it. They based their reasoning behind this enslavement and eradication of the natives on a religious basis but it is no ones right to decide whose religion is right or wrong. The new technologies that came from the ideas created did make the world a more habitable place and did advance the european powers. Through this power struggle the european powers were able to gain a global influence. Mr. Zucker is right that the new world did allow the seeds of individual freedom to flourish in European culture but the natives already had a communal society that had individual rights and did not have autocratic rulers in the first place. I agree with JZ that Columbus' initial intentions were not to create what came afterward so just because it happened doesn't mean he should get credit for it. He just took advantage of the natives and set up the new world so it could be taken advantage of by the europeans that followed him. He saw the natives as inferior and enslaved them as did the people that followed him and it was through their labor that the new world became a place suitable for the europeans to make these advances. I dont think that the destruction of 70 million people is a reasonable thing for a few advances. If the europeans had Befriended the natives they may have learned a lot and its quite possible that the european culture would flourish there too alongside the native ones.
ward forthmann
period 1
I agree with JZ. Rivaling countries such as France, Spain, and England did not know that the Americas existed. They were just trying to locate faster ways to enhance their trading experience. By using exploration as a hat for their trade endeavors, these countries utilized their mercantilistic ideals and exploited the natives without second thoughts or concerns. For example, this is seen through the French manipulation of natives to receive the upper hand with furs and pelts, the encomienda system from the Spanish, and English trading methods.
I have to also agree with Justin Barnes. The Enlightenment and Scientific Revolution provided many new and useful ideas that would have never been available to us if we lived in Native American societies. It is a shame that Native Americans had to be killed and run off their lands for the "betterment" of European society.
Jason Watkins
Period 2
I agree with Justin that Columbus did not intentionally find the new world but rather he stumbled upon it by accident. His exploitation of the natives led to their destruction. I also agree with howard in that the europeans only sponsored Columbus to get rich and that it was he who initially decided to force his culture upon the natives without their say in the matter.
I agree with JZ because he points out that Columbus' intent was not to create a new world. Columbus set out in search of a faster trade rout to India and had no idea that he would find a new continent to civilize and claim for Spain. I agree with Howard and Justin Barnes. As they said, how could Columbus have wanted to civilize a land he did not know existed. He noticed the Indians were “peaceful peoples without any knowledge of violence or individual power seeking”, the complete opposite of Europeans. They could be dominated and used to work and create more profits for Europe, and even possibly lead Columbus to gold. Though I do believe that Columbus did help establish the Americas by bringing over technologies, I believe these technologies would have been brought over in time with or without him. However, I do not agree with JZ when he says that the technology we have created is harmful. I believe that it isn’t the technology that’s harmful, it’s how we use it. Lastly I agree with other scholars who say that though it is tragic that so many Indians had to die, it was, in a way, necessary for us to advance. The old customs were replaced with new, more efficient ones.
Andrew Garcia
Period 2
Andres Diaz
Period 1
9\20\07
Christopher Columbus “found” the Americas by accident, he sailed the sea to search for faster trade routes to Asia and India, thus I agree with what JZ argued. When Columbus first started his voyage, he did not imagine he would encounter Native Americans so he had no mission as to influence the Native Americans religiously. Other than wanting to find faster trade routes to Asia and India, Columbus sailed on his voyage to conquer land and expand the kingdom, just as Howard wrote. I do not believe that Columbus should been seen as a hero because he discovered the Americas for the wrong reason and is given credit for a mistake. He wound up finding the Americas not faster trade routes so he is given kudos for something he had not planned. One can say that it was not an innocent trip because he was trying to acquire land; therefore he did not care about anyone else, and was being selfish by wanting to conquer land and obtain gold.
Mr. Zucker validly points out that had the European Exploration never occurred, the entire Western Hemisphere would have been mired in primitivism, lacking advanced science and new political or religious ideologies. The free U.S. we have today may never have existed.
One must admit, however, that these benefits were results of European selfishness, and for this reason I have to side with JZ. European nation-states were only concerned with the Ottomans, mercantilism (as Jason mentioned), and the Balance of Power (as Lorenzo, Justin, and Eric mentioned). Having established plantations in the New World, the Europeans quickly enslaved the Natives. The Europeans justified these actions by teaching the Natives European culture, but this so called "White Man's Burden" was only a ploy to manipulate the indigenous peoples. For example, in New Mexico, the Spanish attempted to control the Natives by converting them before sending them to the encomiendas. Additionally, the English won King Philip's War only because they used converted Natives as guides. Ultimately, the "father-child" relationship just created feelings of racial superiority from the Europeans towards the Natives. And the eventual outcome was the near-annihilation of the Native population.
So, yes, the Europeans brought the benefits of democracy, technology, and capitalism to the Western Hemisphere, but the original inhabitants were no longer there to receive them.
Michael Mercurio
Period 2
.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I will have to agree with points made by both Mr.Zucker and JZ. I will agree with Mr.Zucker on certain parts of his argument. He should be revered as a hero, he discovered the Continent we live on today. I will also agree that advancements in the now more complex European society led to an age of discovery. I will also agree with him in his last paragraph were he states that if Columbus never came, look where the continent would be today. There would be primitive tribes still roaming around, and many of them quarreling with one another, now granted, there were some peaceful tribes, but it isn't like they were good and Europeans were evil, the Aztecs fro example, still practiced slavery and did sacrifices. However, I will disagree with both Mr.Zucker and JZ on the impact they think he caused. I still think you give him to much credit. Columbus didn't bring the ideas of democracy and individualism to the new world. And he certainly wasn't influenced by protestants because the reformation hadn't occurred yet. he simply wanted to trade with natives, set up some posts, and make profit, nothing more.He didn't believe he found America, he thought he was in the Indies, so giving him credit for all these great things he didn't do is incorrect.
Also, I think JZ is way to harsh. Jusdt like I mentioned, just like we cant give him credit for democracy, we certainly cant give him credit for genocide, he didn't kill many natives, all he wished was to take some back as servants. Now maybe he killed some in conflicts, but blaming him for what other men did is wrong. Those clearly weren't his motives and he certainly didn't know about the amount of land or natives there was.In the end, all columbus ment to do was find a route to asia, he didn't know he started a whole era of colinization. In the end, lets give credit were credit is due. Dont give him credit for democracy and enlightenment in the new world, he didn't bring such things. and certainly don't blame him for the death of the Indians or there mistreatment, all he wanted to do was find a trade route to China and India. Lets just give him credit for finding the continent, and opening up trade. He was a generally good guy and a great explorer who ventured into the unknown, not knowing what he would find.
Stephen Ceccon
per 2
9/20.07
I agree with what Howard wrote because he covered the same aspects that I did. He wrote about how Columbus went and explored the Americas for the wrong reasons. He also states that Columbus "didn’t prepare to “unload” Western European culture onto whoever he met."
Andres Diaz
Period 1
This comment has been removed by the author.
JZ has a valid point when he states that Mr. Zucker's argument supports the concept of the ends justifying the means. When Columbus discovered the New World, he was searching for ways to expand European trade routes and help his country achieve mercantilism and the Balance of Power. When Columbus discovered Natives living in the New World and he enslaved them, he was only trying to aid his original cause of mercantilism by gaining free labor to gather raw resources. He has absolutely no intentions of spreading democracy or new technologies to these Native peoples. He simply sees them as inferior and decides to enslave them and slaughter them to achieve his ends. It is not reasonable to argue that the obliteration of entire civilizations can be justified by "the transportation of the Western European culture to the Western Hemisphere"
I Agree with Jason in that America did not need Columbus to further advance its civilization. If Europe hadn't discovered America, maybe Asia would have. Although they weren't into exploration as much, they still had advanced civilizations. They could had advanced America from tribal, rural, and primitive lifestyle to a more advanced way of life, possibly without as many negative side affects.
Sean Smith
Period 1
I agree with JZ on this issue. Christopher Columbus did not come to the Americas, as JZ put it, to "create a new world to benefit individual rights and social progress." Instead,he was out to gain revenue and profit for himself and for the country sponsoring his expedition (Spain). A perfect example of these motives is evidenced in Columbus' initial encounter with the Arawak tribe. One of the first thoughts that comes to Columbus' mind about these people isn't that they are in need of individual rights, but that they would make great slaves. He is only concerned with the revenue that these people can help him bring in. In essence, I am in accordance with Justin Barnes, who writes that "his[columbus] motives were driven by Catherine of Aragon's desire for gold and wealth, as well as Columbus' own desire for this treasure."
Andrew Santana
Period 3
I agree with Andres on some of his points. Columbus was in it for trade and profit, but I wouldn't necesarily call this bad. He didn't do any significant to the people, sure he wanted to take some people as slaves, but it isn't like he is responsible for the mass enslavement of the people, he did very little, all he cared about was profit and getting outposts. and I will agree with Andres again and disagree with Mr.Zucker, he found America by accident, it isn't like he knew there was a whole plot of land here and he wanted to take it. he didn't bring any ideas,and didn't civilize the people there. However, I would still call him a hero, because whether an accident or not, he did discover the continent.
Stephen Ceccon per 2
The way that the conquering of America happened was to be expected and unavoidable if you look at human nature. People will always look out for themselves and follow their beliefs. The system of mercantilism dictated the accumulation of funds to build military power, and Catholisism dictates that you must convert everyone you can to your religion. Take these two and the idea that Europeans thought they were the center of the world and it is obvious that Europeans would act the way that they did.
If the Europeans had acted any other way, then they would not only have gone against their beliefs, but also that the natural law that the weak will eventually become food for the strong. If the Europeans had always acted in order to have peace and freedom for everyone, they would not have advanced as quickly technologically. Each civilization was trying to defeat the others somehow and that led to new technologies and advancements.
In conclusion, the Europeans were correct in what they did and would not have acted any other way unless they had radically different belief and economic systems.
Mark Gieseker Period 3
This comment has been removed by the author.
I agree with JZ that Mr. Zucker is biased toward the Europeans. Although they were obviously more advanced that the Native Americans that they encountered, they did not come to help anyone else out. The entire purpose of Columbus' voyage was to find a trade route to Asia. Ferdinand and Isabella were not interested in exploration for exploration's sake when they funded Columbus, they merely wanted a quicker and more profitable route to the treasures of Asia.
Columbus was a tool of the early mercantilist ideology of Europe, the aim of which was to secure as many trade goods as possible to force your neighbors to do what you want. Later on, the European enslavement of Africans for use in the fields of America sprang from this ideology. In short, Columbus' explorations and subsequent colonizations were based on a desire for economic and military influence, not out of curiosity that came from the enlightenment.
Jean-Michel Royall Period 1
I agree with David because the advancement of North America definately wouldn't be the same if it didn't European intervention. I also agree with Mr. Zucker because it would be hard to imagine the Americas being run by a, by our standards, primitive, tribal system. On the whole, however, I seem to agree with JZ more on this topic. I do believe that the Europenas ended up helping the development of the Americas, but I do not believe that it was their primary goal in searching for a new world. I agree that the Europeans were primarilly going on these voyages in making their lives easier and creating a rise in their profits. The Europeans were in search of new trade routes that got them away from the Muslim middle men when they stumbled upon the new world. In my opinion, the Europeans wouldn't have stayed at the new world for any length of time unless it offered them, or had the potential to bring them, more profits. They decimated the Indian population in the process because it did not hurt their bottom line to do so.
The world falls silent as the great one prepares his blog…
I have to say that Mr. Zucker has the stronger argument. Christopher Columbus sent into motion all that we know today in the western hemisphere. It does not matter what Columbus’s intentions were, the results are what counts. Christopher Columbus connected the world with new technologies as he brought them into the western hemisphere. Many of us can look at Columbus’s actions in retrospect and criticize his selfishness, but what else is truly going to motivate a man to travel through uncharted waters thousands of miles away? Ceccon states that Columbus was not truly responsible for the enslavement of the natives. I disagree, Columbus was the first one to mention slavery and without saying that the Awark would make good slaves, slavery might have never occurred and 70 million might have been spared. But nonetheless, the ends do justify the means as Christopher Columbus is a hero for discovering the Americas and bringing western culture and ideas to a hemisphere that would not have been the same without him.
Warren Williamson P. 1
I completely agree qith Lorenzo when he says that the need to maintain a balance of power in Europe was a main reason behind European colonization. The main labor force for all agriculture in the Americas for the first several hundred yearsof European presence was either Native Americans or Africans, proving that Europeans were primarily interested in the region for economic and trade reasons.
Jean-Michel Royall
Period 1
Mr. Zucker and JZ both bring up some very interesting points. Without European expansion and the whole balance of power factors, Columbus would have never set sail to find a westerly route to Asia. However, this was bound to happen at some later point in time by other explorers. Columbus should not be viewed as a hero because his goals were not unique and the founding of the Americas did not require him. Also, Christopher Columbus exploited the vulnerability of the native peoples and made them slaves. Going back to his motives, Columbus wanted gold, riches, and fame for Spain and himself. He did not intend to enslave people. Columbus simply took advantage of his situation and that of the natives. Nevertheless, he ruthlessly brought a civilization to its feet with the mindset that the ends justify the means. I disagree with Stephen about American slavery. Although he may not have intentionally done so, he was in essence responsible for the mass enslavement of this people. Other Spaniards and nations saw how efficient and easy it was to use this form of free labor. Even though he is not the ideal hero most people picture him to be, Christopher Columbus should still be given a great deal of credit for accidentally discovering the Americas.
Matt Lee
Period 1
utah 44 ucla 6 testing
Albert DiRocco
Period 2
I have to agree with Mr. Zucker because without European expansion, America would not be what it is today and may not even exist. Lets think about what brought a lot of the first colonists here in the first place, religous purification. What if the protestant reformation never happened and puritans never even existed let alone were in search for releigous purification, who would have laid the foundations for the first colonies. Another good example of how European development helped shape America is European agricultural technology. It is obvious that the America's are rich and abundant with natural resources, over 80% of the first colonists were farmers, and that most of the America's wealth came from farming such products as tobacco and sugar. Would our country be what it is today without all of the revenue farmers and plantation owners were able to gain through advanced European agricultral technigues? Another big helper in the America's that came from Europe was the printing press. Most of the knowledge and information that the colonists received were from pamphelts and newspapers, such as common sense, and without the use of a printing press it would have taken years to pass on these revolutinary ideas that helped shape the United States of America. In response to the fact that some bring up that Colombus's intention was to find a quick route to Asia, I say that that is irrelevent. What Columbus intended to do is far from the point of what he did do, which was make the most important discovery in the history of the human race, wether it be on accident or not, and helped spread a more advanced civilations attributes to less developed cultures.
Both arguments have aspects that I agree with. First, I agree with Mr. Zucker's view that the Americas would not be developed or have any modern culture if not for Columbus' discovery and the European nations' colonization. However, JZ's point on how the new colonization and expansion had such a harsh impact on the natives, killing about 98%, was a valid point why Columbus' discovery which brought the European nations over was bad. Another part of Mr. Zucker's argument that I agreed with is that the Europeans brought a plethora of technology which improved farming methods, created rapid economic growth, and set the foundation for all of the American nations today. JZ's argues that the Europeans were just coming over for money and resources, this is true and if I were to be a king of a European nation at the time I too would have come over just for money and resources. This is not a bad thing and also why would a country invest money for exploration. If there was a pile of money just lying around, wouldn't you try to take some of it. In conclusion, I feel that the exploration and colonization was overall positive for society and civilization, but the means by which it was taken out could have had less cost for the natives.
-Andrew Bonanno
Period 2
Mr. Zucker's points about the positive outcomes of the European "discovery" of North America are indeed valid, as JZ notes. Rapid technological advances in Europe, particularly those used in navigation (e.g., the astrolabe and higher-accuracy maps) in turn fueled the growth of colonies and even more technological and scientific development. However, with Mr. Zucker's argument, the cliché "the ends don't justify the means" comes to mind, an emphasis JZ makes. While many developments did occur, the results were not without a great cost--some may argue too great a cost--to the indigenous peoples of North America.
I disagree with Mr. Zucker's perspective that Columbus should be revered as a hero because, after all, his discovery of "the Indies"--present-day North America was completely unintended. Furthermore, Columbus had several serious blemishes in his character. For example, when he first arrived at Hispaniola (possibly, now present-day Dominican Republic and Haïti), Columbus noted that the local "Indians" would be easy to enslave. He took boatloads--instead of small samples--of precious metals and spices with him back to Spain.
I can sympathize with JZ's position that the Europeans sought dominance over American natives. The prevalence of the Spanish encomienda system, basically government-sanctioned slavery (or at least some semblance of it) attests to Europeans' less-than-altruistic goals for the New World. One of the reasons European nations wanted to establish colonies was that intra-European alliances seemed as fickle as ever, and many citizens throughout Europe had begun to challenge then-conventional monarchial governments. Establishing colonies (with control over indigenous groups to match) would make European countries much stronger politically.
James ("Father") Calix presents the sensible point that the European meddling in traditional Native American ways was unfortunate but necessary for the shaping of present-day American society. In essence, those with authority--the Europeans--misused their power.
Brendan Folan
Period 1
I'm agreeing with JZ on this one. The main motivation for Christopher Columbus in coming to the Americas was simply to find items for trade i.e gold, silver, spices and to setup an establishment. The overall notion in coming to the Americas was competition with other countries and having an impact on the balance of power. Columbus had no idea before coming to the Americas that he would encounter the Natives. Once realizing that the Natives lived extremely simple with almost no technology, Columbus naturally thought that his men were far more superior. Therfore, he took advantage of the Native. Columbus, sent by his country on a historic quest, wasn't going to be denied. Columbus did everything in his power to get what he wanted. Columbus was mainly interested in trade and profit. On regards to science and technology, there will always be a positive and negative affect with technology. Most societies and Europe strived to better their technology, just as many countries around the world today are. Competition between countries forced each other to build new products and climb to bigger hights. If Columbus didn't settle the Americas, North and South America would not be the same today. The Native American culture just did not involve advancing in technology or clothing. The Natives lived a simple life and got the most out of their surroundings. Bottom Line: "kingdoms were out for profits, competition and balance of power- JZ
I believe that Jay Z has the better argument because Christopher Columbus did not want to spread Christianity or ideals. He wanted to find a trade route to India and become wealthy. His diary entry can sum the feeling up that the natives were new and interesting, but they were inferior to the Europeans and were to be used instead of to work with. Although the Americas have grown into a vast, important part of the world, this is not what the people of the time were aiming at. They were trying to gain as much profit for as cheap as possible, which is why the natives were treated unfairly, and the slave trade became so pervasive and inhumane.
One could argue that the ends justify the means, but in reality, They do not because of the intent of the Europeans in the colonial times. Each country was trying to make money and were not thinking of the long term advancement because of the idea of the "balance of power". This thinking lead to lots of suffering and injustice that continues today in some cases because they became selfish and only thought of monetary gains.
by: Alex period 2
i mean period 3
i didn't make this clear- i agree with Mr. Zucker on the fact that America wouldn't be America today if it wasn't for Christopher Columbus and the invasion of European society into the Americas
ndonlan is a tool....testing
brendan fullon really shouldnt have put his name
everyones do whta he said
First off, JZ is correct in that Europeans spread out due to the desire for expanding their empire and obtaining more capital for the mother country. Also, yes, it is tragic that the Native American population and culture were utterly destroyed as a result of this expansion. However Mr. Zucker had the better point that European expansion was inevitable and overall beneficial for life in the Americas/the world as we know it. The advancements in sciences and government developed by Europeans would have never been possible under the Native American mindset of "cyclical time" which fostered no need for scientific/sociological progress. The Europeans planted a "seed of progress" in America that spread advanced medicine, government, transportation, communication, and economics which make life more productive and easy for the modern population. With the help of modern western communication, this knowledge has spread and benefited societies around the world.
Daniel Russell
Period 1
This comment has been removed by the author.
I'm going to have to agree with both Mr. Zucker and the talented JZ on some of their individual points. I think Mr. Zucker brings up a great point when he says that Christopher Columbus fueled the beginnings and foundations for Enlightenment, democracy, and science. Even though Christopher Columbus did not originally intend on doing that, he still laid out the blueprints so it would be possible later on, and if it weren't for him it wouldn't be possible. However, I think JZ brings up a good point by enforcing the fact that Columbus did not intend to create new sciences and beliefs in the New World. The powers that were funding him were strictly interested in it for profits, competition, and the balance of power--Enlightenment was really not at the top of the list (sorry Mr. Zucker).
Catherine of Aragon had motivated Columbus to go because she was interested in finding gold and other resources. Also, Columbus himself was just trying to find a quicker route to Asia. So, the powers during this time had their hearts content with finding resources and the like, not developing sciences and religious ideas. An example of this is shown when they actually got to the New World. As mentioned in class, the Indians were called Indians beacuse the explorers had thought they landed in India. This shows that the explorers reached their land more "accidentally" than methodically and they were just interested in finding new lands and resources. I would finally like to add that I agree with Jason Jeffrey's point. He says that Columbus didn't originally go to the Americas to expand, colonize, and acquire slaves. This is true, and even though he eventually did, in our mindset it is inevitable that it was going to happen anyways.
Sean Fitz-Gerald aka Amadeus
Period 2
JZ is correct by saying that Columbus’s accidental landing in the Americas should not earn Columbus a title as a hero. Although because of his emergence there have been technological advancements in America, these were by no means Columbus’s intentions. Columbus had set forth from Spain in order to find new trade roots to India, which would increase the power of Spain and fuel the mercantilist system. Also JZ presents a good question for Mr. Zucker: does might make right? Although now we see benefits of the emergence of western culture in the Americas, the introduction of European culture into America came at the toll of around 70 million Native American deaths. Lastly the idea that western culture was for the better can be questioned. Before Columbus, most Native American societies were sustaining themselves well, fought only very small scale wars, and were using their resources in a wise manner. However with the introduction of European culture by Columbus, Native American culture became corrupted and the Native American society began its downfall.
I agree with Jason Jeffery that helping the Native American society was Columbus's motive. His main purpose for which he was funded was to find trade roots and help Spain gain the upper edge on their rivals in Europe. Also I believe that your point about the Spanish taking advantage of the Natives and using them as slaves ties directly to the mercantilist beliefs.
Sho Tsubakiyama
Period 2
This comment has been removed by the author.
In response to Alex's argument, yes, the Europeans' goals were selfish and resulted in injustices like slavery and the destruction of Native Americans. However, this expansion was inevitable. The struggle for power in Europe bred the need for expansion in order to gain economic and military advantage over other empires. Thus the "virgin land" of America was an ideal place for them to conquer and take advantage of for trade. If not the Europeans, then some other country in the eastern hemisphere would have eventually come into contact with the Americas or visa versa. It was better that the Europeans came to the "New World" so that they could spread science, technology, and advanced government in which the whole world, including the Americas, could benefit from.
Daniel Russell
Period 1
Though Mr. Zucker and many others may argue that Christopher Columbus contributed greatly to individual rights and social progress, the discovery of the "New World" mainly provided the fuel for wealth, competition, and the balance of power. I agree with JZ's argument that just because the Europeans had military and technological advantages over the natives, one could argue that this is not necessarily positive progress. How can anyone say that these technological advancements are actually part of progress. Because, like JZ said, some of European technologies have wrought severely negative disasters, they could be considered steps in the wrong directions.
Wil Heintz P1
Although JZ has some valid points, I agree with Mr. Zucker. Yes there were Indians here before Europeans and the Americas were their home. However, despite all their pelntiful knowledge and complex societies, the Indians did not posses the necessary skills or resources to construct today's modern civilization. JZ points out that the European's were selfish and the Indians were peaceful nature loving people. Although this may have been the case with the Indians Columbus encountered it was by no means the norm. For example , the Iroquois nearly wiped out the Huron to gain a trade monopoly with the Europeans. Europeans also brought over less glorified but still incredibly valuable items to America such as domestic animals, certain crops, and the honeybee, which has greatly contributed to modern agriculture.
Although I agree with Mr. Zucker would also like to discus JZ's point of view. I agree that the natives were treated badly by Europeans and that they practically wiped them out. I also agree that the ideas of the Enlightenment did not bring a utopia. However, disagree that science and knowledge are inferior to native beliefs. Indian would see a the sun rise and say it was from the Great Spirit. Europeans would say it was from the rotation of the earth on its axis. In short, although the Native Americans had many complex societal traits, Europeans were far superior in nation structure.
testing
I agree with Daniel R. in that it was inevitable that the Europeans would have expanded into the Americas because of economic and military incentives. There is no question that the Europeans would have inevitably conquered the Americas and spread their culture because they had the "might." But, does this validate the idea that this expansion and conquering was a step in the right direction of progress. Who is to say that the European technology, weaponry, and forms of government did in fact make life better. The Natives before the arrival of the Europeans lived relatively peacefully with few small-scale wars and good health. This idea of progress in one direction and the absolute positivity of the benefits of European arrival can be easily argued against if the idea of progress itself is questioned.
Wil Heintz P1
testing
I agree with JZ that Christopher Columbus traveled across the Atlantic to find a fast route to India and just happen to stumble across a new continent. I also agree in that the European powers did not see this as an opportunity to enlighten the natives and spread their ideals, but rather as a chance to get more territory, make more goods, and gain more power. It is true that a side effect of this was enlightenment of natives and spread of ideas. But the negative side effects were much greater. For example, the natives were turned into slaves and many of them died either from diesese or from the Europeans killing them. I also agree with Howard in that Columbus was traveling to find riches rather than to enlighten the native people.
Daniel Angeles
Period 3
I most definitely agree with JZ rather than Mr. Zucker because although Zucker’s points are in some regard valid, he only includes the cause and effect—not why or how the effect occurred. His opinions are totally biased. Christopher Columbus shouldn’t be considered a hero because in no way, shape, or form was his predetermined goal to “bring Western Culture to the Western Hemisphere,” or the lay the foundations of capitalism—let alone a foundation for democracy. As JZ states, the “intent was not to create a new world to benefit individual rights and social progress,” but inevitably was the effect of competition in Europe for a balance of power and the lack of profits for the nation-states. It is also evident that Columbus accidentally “discovered” the New World; thus in a sense Columbus FAILED his country in finding what he was looking for—a trade route to India.
In addition to the fact that Columbus exploited native peoples and congregated them onto slave plantations to “extract wealth” in the name of his country’s expansion, his methods led to the total destruction of nearly 70 MILLION people. How can this person be called a Hero of all names? The answer is, there’s no way Christopher Columbus can be revered as a hero.
I side with Brendan on the matter of Mr. Zucker’s misperception of Christopher Columbus as a hero. Not only was his trip, as Brendan wrote, “completely unintended,” Columbus’ means of establishment were definitely cruel and justified only by the fact that he felt these people had no knowledge of violence or power seeking and would make great slaves.
Jaleel Reed
Period 1, 9/21/07
I agree with JZ rather than Mr. Zucker because Christopher Columbus' main reason for sailing was to find a quicker way to India so that he and the country he is sailing for, Spain, could become wealthy. JZ sums it up perfectly, "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." It was not because of these advancements that they explored but rather from greed.
I agree with both Brenden Folan and Jaleel Reed on the idea that Christopher Columbus should not be regarded as a hero. Yes, he "discovered" America, but the cruelty he showed to the Indians is horrible. To meet the Indians and think that they would be become good slaves is a sickening viewpoint.
Sean Grimditch
Period 2
I have to side with my boy JZ on this one. While I agree that Christopher Columbus discovered the so-called “New World,” I have a problem with Mr. Zucker’s justification for the destruction of native cultures. He says, “While the Native beliefs should be respected, they were based on mythic story telling, not the objectivity of science.” Regardless of whether or not Western beliefs can be proven, devaluing the traditions and customs of a group because of one group’s belief that they are superior is the very logic that has been used to justify atrocities throughout history, from Apartheid to the Holocaust to the European slave trade. For this reason, I find the majority of Mr. Zucker’s analysis troubling.
I agree with Jaleel’s argument that Columbus, despite being revered for discovering this continent, actually failed his patrons by not finding a new trade route. Columbus may have spread Western culture, but in the process he helped establish a process of exploitation that took advantage of natives as free labor in the name of sustaining his own culture’s way of life. While he may be a “hero” to those looking at the situation from a Eurocentric perspective, it’s morally reprehensible to call a man whose actions led to the extermination of close to seventy million people a hero. Furthermore, his intentions prevent him from being considered a hero because not only did he fail in finding a new route, but he also corrupted the native societies, which were doing just fine without the ideas of the Enlightenment and the Reformation. While the West introduced the idea of progress to a society that had previously viewed time as cyclical, it is difficult to say whether or not the results were beneficial. However, this is not the discussion at hand – the question is whether or not Columbus is a hero. I say no because of the results of his “discovery” were more harmful to Native Americans than positive.
Nick Donlan
Period 1
skate or die bro
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Both Mr. Zucker and JZ had great arguments, but I agree more with JZ. While it is true that Columbus's exploration did pave the way for European powers to come into the Americas and settle it, the countires were interested only in exploiting the native peoples and recourses of the area in order to build up their military and take over the other countries. The competition between European powers also affected the indigenous people, like how the Iroquois at first went from the French to the English in order to get more trade, but in the end the Iroquois were in trouble when the English defeated the French, and the Iroquois' land was taken away from them. All in all, the Europeans did more killing either indirectly or directly than progressing the people into a new age.
I also agree with Howard limburg, period 3. I think that Columbus' attempt at discovering a trans-atlantic trade route to Asia was his real motivation, and that the people there turned out to be what he though of as easily captured and 'civilized' peoples.
Grant Ukropina
Period 1
I thoroughly agree with JZ on this argument because he accurately describes what Columbus' true intentions were with the native peoples of the Americas, as well as the negative effects Columbus had when he came in contact with those natives. JZ also presents the correct view that the Europeans had about the New World and its people: a view that included the exploitation and slavery of the natives, and the rape of the land to increase the wealth of the mother country. JZ presents this idea best when he says, "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 Europeans thus did not actually care for the Native Americans, nor did they respect the diverse cultures. Their main motivation was that they were out to exploit the more primitive technologies and outlook of life of the natives in order to make greater profits on the items sent (for manufacturing purposes) back to their mother countries. I would even go as far as to say that the entire European expansion was selfish, and utterly detrimental to American societies, past and present.
Now, you might say that the present society is great because of freedom we have and the social institutions brought by the Protestant Reformation, which stressed individual thought. As great as these social advances were for Europe, the means in which they instilled these values into American society were entirely reprehensible. As Nick says, "Columbus may have spread Western culture, but in the process he helped establish a process of exploitation that took advantage of natives as free labor in the name of sustaining his own culture’s way of life." I also agree with his argument that the deaths of millions of people and their slavery outweighs the ideas and advances in politics and science that the Europeans brought (ideas of individualism, enlightenment, and progress, which would have completely shocked the Natives who believed that progress was unimportant in the context of their view of time as a wheel). Lastly, I'd like to say that although the Europeans made great urban centers and made much progress in the New World, they destroyed and unique and old way of life that had a different view of social centers, that of the family and tribe, which were much more personal and relative to its individuals.
James Sherman
Period 2
I agree with JZ in that Mr. Zucker’s analysis of the voyage is basically an argument of the ends justifying the means. Mr. Zucker claims that taking and reforming the Natives was a necessity because they are part of the “Old world.” However, as JZ says, the pretences and actions to reform the natives was not done in the mindset of “we need to save these peoples” but done in a manner to extend each country’s power and dominance. Furthermore, while Europe was able to bring technology to the Americas, the technology, as JZ says, has been used to create this idea of power and dominance as witnessed in many wars. The natives avoided these massive conflicts. Additionally, Columbus himself said that the natives would make “great slaves.” This comment from his diary calls into question the motives behind the voyage, one of individual freedoms or one of power hunger and need for profit. The second idea seems more probable out of the two. Overall, I find JZ’s more compelling. Even though Columbus’s voyage offered the opportunities for democracy and capitalism, one needs to question the original motives which have resulted in Eurocentric action of creating Native American Reservations. Those reservations serve as a representation of the taking of truly Native American land.
I disagree with Howard and Eric who claim that Columbus wasn’t set out on converting the natives. However, this idea is false. One main reason Columbus was able to go on this exploration was he promised to bring spices, money, a faster passage to Asia, and conversion of peoples into Christianity, a point that would have convinced Isabella and Ferdinand of Spain to fund. I also disagree with Calix’s view of the natives as “obstacles.” This word has the stigma of something not needed or of being a hindrance. This idea supports JZ’s argument in that the Europeans were just in this New World for self gain and not for the spread of individualism and democracy.
Stephen Obal
Period 3
I agree with JZ on this one. Even if Christopher Columbus's discovery led to the Scientific Revolution, and Enlightenment he shouldn't revered as a hero. The Reformation probably would have happened with, or without the "New World" because it had nothing to do with the stuff happening in America and it happened because the Church in EUROPE was faulty. Now like Mr. Zucker said Columbus's discovery of the new world may have led to these ages, but it was indirect, he did not go to the new world with these intentions in mind. He went for bilious reasons such as economic profit. He wanted Americas natives as slaves and its goods for money. He went for greed. Why should we revere someone as a hero whose intentions for coming to a place were all greed based.
In respect to MR. Zucker's point on our world would be way different if the Native Americans were left untouched. Number one, would that be that bad? To have a more agricultural society rather then and industrial one that creates wastes. Technology could be worse. The natives would treat the land with respect, and would let it sustain them forever, but on the route we're on now the more technology we make the more wastes are created.
In response to Mr. Zucker's point on the fact that the killing 70,000 million was in the long run better, I disagree. How is the killing of seventy million people to create a environment killing industrial society which if unabated will eventually kill us all off better then a sustainable one where no one dies? And again we should revere Columbus as a hero because he did all this? I don't think so.
In response to Eric who says the technology is overall good, and the negative effects are just side effects I disagree. I believe that our environment is more important. And when it is Technology vs. environment the environment wins. In reality the real side effect should be technology. The real thing that should be pushed to the side is technology, not the environment. Once our Earth is destroyed technology can't be God and make us a new one.
o yeah
Period 2
Drey Liautaud
Although JZ has some valid points, I agree with Mr. Zucker. Yes there were Indians here before Europeans and the Americas were their home. However, despite all their pelntiful knowledge and complex societies, the Indians did not posses the necessary skills or resources to construct today's modern civilization. JZ points out that the European's were selfish and the Indians were peaceful nature loving people. Although this may have been the case with the Indians Columbus encountered it was by no means the norm. For example , the Iroquois nearly wiped out the Huron to gain a trade monopoly with the Europeans. Europeans also brought over less glorified but still incredibly valuable items to America such as domestic animals, certain crops, and the honeybee, which has greatly contributed to modern agriculture.
Although I agree with Mr. Zucker would also like to discus JZ's point of view. I agree that the natives were treated badly by Europeans and that they practically wiped them out. I also agree that the ideas of the Enlightenment did not bring a utopia. However, disagree that science and knowledge are inferior to native beliefs. Indian would see a the sun rise and say it was from the Great Spirit. Europeans would say it was from the rotation of the earth on its axis. In short, although the Native Americans had many complex societal traits, Europeans were far superior in nation structure.
Nolan Welsh
Period 2
Both Mr. Zucker and JZ have valid arguments. However, I believe that Zucker's is more correct. His point about the West being stuck in the age of agriculture is spot on. If it weren't for Columbus accidentally bumping into America and the eventual founding of the North American colonies, we would be the Russia of the West: always behind the big boys (UK, France) and slow to catch on.
JZ points out that the reason for Columbus's voyage in the first place was to make Spain richer, not to be an ambassador of democracy, which was true. However, even if the intent wasn't there, it happened anyway. Because of it, Columbus is now the hero in the minds of third graders across the US, reciting "in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue."
JD Blank, period 3
I agree with both JZ and Mr. Zucker. They both have argued valid facts. Mr. Zucker brings up the point that Christopher Columbus brought the technological and cultural advances to the New World. These new ideas and tools helped to teach the Native Americans about centralization of the state. Centralization would allow them to create trade routes that would almost force them to rely on each other economically and not ignite wars. However, JZ brings up the point that although these ended up being the result of Christopher Columbus’ voyages, Columbus did not intend to do this. He merely wanted a way to bring gold, find glory, and to tip the balance of power. Columbus represented Spain on his voyages to America. Here he found a vast amount of land and resources that could be used in Spain’s favor. As a result, natives suffered at the hands of the Europeans and became enslaved in the encomienda system. Thus, Europeans were not people that were out to bring their technological advances and religion to these people. They were looking for ways to advance their nation and enrich their economy.
Joseph Kim
Period 3
I am torn between the two arguments brought about by Mr.Zucker and JZ. All in all however, I would have to agree more with Mr.Zucker. Although it is true what JZ said about Colombus' motives for the natives, his motives for Spain were just. Columbus' goal was to find a trade route to India so that Spain may easily get the valuable goods that were kept there. However, Columbus accidentally ran into a new continent. His goal as he set out from Spain was NOT to exploit natives, but it turned out that that course of action was the most profitable for Spain. It is true that initially the Americas were only used to benefit Europe with raw materials, but these raw materials led Europe to thrive and progress. The colonization of the Americas led to the eventual formation of a new democratic government that benefitted the society it ruled over. Overall the gains Columbus brought to Western Society outweigh the loss of the old ways of tribalism that the Native Americans practiced.
Alexander Clark
Period 3
I disagree with JD Blank's statement about how the West was stuck in an age of agriculture and how if Columbus didn't bump into the Americas that we'd be the Russia of the west. I beleive the discovery of America had little to do with such things as the Englightenment, the Sciencetific Revolution, and the Idustrial Revolution. Pretty much from the the Renaissance Europe was on a track of progress. It is true that the raw materials of America could ahve helped increase the speed of progress in Europe but generally I think that Europe would have progressed eventually either way and the balance of power between the East and West would have remained the same.
The ancient Native Americans were a great people and will forever be apart of America’s history. Unfortunately, they were an old civilization that had no intention to modernize rapidly. Therefore, I agree with Mr. Zucker’s argument that the European kingdoms were creating great strides in civilization that would provide the foundations for democracies and capitalism today. Accordingly, if the Europeans hadn’t taken over America, the great country that it is today would be nothing more than another third-world country struggling to stay afloat in the economic world because we wouldn’t have the right resources and tools to modernize. Yes, it is true that Christopher Columbus and many other Europeans did see Native Americans as slaves, but making the Native Americans slaves allowed the Europeans to have free labor. Accordingly, this allowed Europeans to more rapidly advance the economy of America because they didn’t have to waster money on the pay checks of their laborers. Also, making the Native Americans slaves was part of the way that Europeans provided the foundation for a capitalist society. Accordingly, the Europeans felt that the Indians were inferior to them. Therefore, the Europeans felt they had to conquer the Native Americans and become the leaders in advancing America’s economy. Just the same, people that don’t have college degrees are sometimes inferior to those with college degrees. Therefore, the people with degrees must become the leaders in advancing and stabilizing America’s economy; while the people without a degree, the inferior ones, take the back seat and follow. Thus, it was absolutely necessary for Europeans to wipe out the Native Americans, so that the “New World” could start anew and advance the economy.
Also, I would like to comment on Michael Mercurio’s response. Consequently, I disagree with Michael. Towards the end of his response, Michael says, “So, yes, the Europeans brought the benefits of democracy, technology, and capitalism to the Western Hemisphere; but the original inhabitants [Native Americans] were no longer there to receive them.” Yes, it is true that because most of the Native American population was wiped out, they didn’t reap the benefits of what the Europeans provided for America. Unfortunately, this is the way it had to be. The explorers of the “New World” felt they had to start from scratch in order to advance and modernize the American economy. This meant getting rid of the old. Accordingly, when the Europeans brought in the colonists to colonize the conquered land, the European leaders had to make sure that the colonies’ ideals coincided with the mother country’s. Therefore, the European leaders had to make sure that there was no other culture that could greater influence the colonists than the culture of the mother countries themselves. Thus, the leaders felt it necessary to wipe out the Native American leaders, so that there would be no chance for revival. All in all, I also believe it was necessary to wipe out the race because if it wasn’t wiped out, the American culture as we know it today might be a bit confused instead of sure of itself. God bless America.
Mario Mottley II
Period 2
I feel that both Mr. Zucker and JZ present reasonable arguments regarding Columbus' hero status in Western Civilization. On one had, I agree with Mr. Zucker's statement that said Columbus should be praised for his role in establishing European influence in the Americas. If Columbus had not "accidentally" stumbled upon America during his search for a non-existent short cut to Asia, modern American culture and society may not have developed into what it is today. However, I also see the validity in JZ's argument regarding the destruction of countless Native American societies due to European conquests. While in search of wealth from the rich natural resources of the Americas, Europeans exploited, repressed, and killed (via disease or otherwise) the people that had inhabited the "New World" for countless centuries before European arrival. While both of these ideas seemed important to me, I would like to close by bringing up one last point. Even though JZ and Mr. Zucker both said that Native American civilization was wiped out with the arrival of European settlers, I beg to differ. I feel that the European and Native American cultures intertwined/intermingled upon the arrival of European colonists in the Americas. As such, both societies exchanged and developed many principles that eventually evolved (and keep on evolving) into the unique American society that is still alive and well today.
-Cody Busia, Period 3
I concur with JZ's argument that America's founding was not influenced on the spread of Christianity. The founding of America by Christopher Columbus was based on the aspects of merchantlism and the balance of power over Europe. Columbus's desire was to find a new mysterious route to Asia, especially for spices. It was Catherine of Aragon's jealousy of the Spanish affluence that she paid for Columbus's voyage to find a new route for profit. I agree with JZ that the founding of America was entirely based on the competition of power and profit. This strife over profit eventually lead to France, Spain, and England fighting for lands. Among the most powerful countries, France, England, and Spain fought over the balance of power, leading to the enslavement and eventual devastation of Native - Americans. However, I agree with Ward that America would not be what it is today without the decimation of a pre-existing people. The US would be almost entirely different as one of the strongest nations in the world.
I have to agree with JZ on this one because his argument is the one that makes the most sense with me. JZ argues that Columbus shouldn’t be the one that is responsible for opening the New World to the ideas from the European nations because I think that Columbus didn’t have these ideas when he discovered this land. He wasn’t planning on making these regions colonies or settlements; he wanted the riches for Spain and for himself. By just wanting the riches though, he is in effect leading the global economy to use capitalistic ideals by trying to gain as much territory as they want and then start trade networks with other nations. So even though he wasn’t initially trying to make a connection to something like capitalism and mercantilism, he did it by his actions. This is why I agree with Howard because my thinking is that even though he didn’t do it purposely, Columbus did impact the economy, and with that, religious ideals that in the future would affect the way Puritans thought and made come over to America.
Bladimir Gonzalez, Period 1
I would have to say my opinions lie in the middle ground between Mr. Zucker's and JZ's arguments...
I found that Darwin's theory of Survival of the Fittest can be applied to both of these arguments in order to clarify the relationships between European nations of the time, as well as the conflicts these nations had with the native peoples of America.
Land on the European continent was sparse, so countries had no other choice but to go out and try to find new territories. All of the wealthy and well-developed nations of the time -- Portugal, Spain, France, England, and the Netherlands to name a few -- were vying for global power. These countries wanted to better their nations in order dominate their neighbors. The native peoples of America had been doing the same thing for centuries. One tribe would lose power, and another would come and take control. The Europeans were just another "tribe" that the natives had to deal with in the struggle for control over the American continent. Unfortunately for the natives, Europeans proved to be more fit for survival in America than they were.
It isn't fair that countless natives had to die in the process of European takeover, but no one ever said life was fair. We can't say that Natives and Europeans couldn't have lived together in harmony in the end because most of the native inhabitants died before they had the chance. It isn't like the Europeans wished disease on the Natives. In the end, the means were out of everyone's control, and we are fortunate that the end product was America.
As for the whole Columbus controversy, I think it is a great legend to tell the kids. In a way, honoring Columbus is sort of like celebrating Thanksgiving or Independence Day. People can't live on history alone. Myths and folk lore are needed to make the past more appealing to everyone so history can stay alive -- even if the truth is stretched a little.
Sorry, I forgot my name and period. It's my first time blogging ever.
Clay Busia Period 3
I agree with JZ here. He is correct in saying that when Spain sent out Christopher columbus, thier main intentions were to recieve more land, and find a quicker, easier way to India. On the voyage, they just happened to come across a new continent. they claimed this inorder to have more land. This newly aquired land was used for the better; colonies, farmland, and oppertunities were established. I also agree with JZ that a major side effect of this discovery and colonization, became the spread of technology and disease. This spread of technology brought about the spread of guns which lead to a greater number of indian deahts. Diseases like small pox also lead to more deaths. All of these problems helped contribute to thier future,; slavery.All of these things factored into the enslavement of the Natve People. Howard explains a valid point in saying that Columbus came here for trade and goods, not for the enlightenment and conversion of the "indians".
Tyler Ricci P-3
I agree more with JZ than i do with Mr. Zucker because Christopher Columbus was searching for glory and riches. The balance of power was the key to the exploration of the new world. All the countries were competing to find the most land and the most gold. The Indians I believe were just an added bonus to the exploration of the New World. Because they could enslave them and take their land.
Umberto Marsella
Period 2
I’m somewhere between JZ and Mr. Zucker. I don’t think Christopher Columbus is any sort of “hero” per say, but he still deserves more credit than just happening to stumble upon a completely new continent for Europeans. This is where I didn’t agree with Mr. Zucker. He just so happened to find a completely new continent that most people in there world had no idea even existed. Sciences and technology that were brought from Europe completely changed the Americas and the planet would not be the same without the Europeans colonizing it. I think the world is much more advanced than it would’ve been had Columbus not discovered the New World, even if there is more waste and degradation to the planet. This is where I disagreed with JZ, I don’t think we would be better if the Americas was still inhabited by Native American Indian. Both Mr. Zucker’s and JZ’s arguments and reasonable and logical, but I feel it is a matter of opinion to chose which one to believe in, or like me, you can agree and disagree with them both. If I must chose to agree with one (and it likes I do, reading the Blog Instructions & Grading), I agree more with Mr. Zucker than JZ.
Umberto Marsella Period 2
I'm going to have to agree with Mr. JD Blank of Period 3 on this one. We shared similar views on the fact that Europe was in a bit of a slump, and they brought their "Western Ideas" (new technologies and science) to the Americas and they flourished.
I also agreed with him because even if Columbus wasn't intending to discover a new continent, let alone the "New World", it happened anyway. He still deserves some respect in my book.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I agree with Eric that JZ that "the European Kingdoms were out for profits, competition, and the balance of power." I agree with JZ's statement over Mr. Zucker's statement that America's founding was not influenced on the spread of Christianity. The founding of America abd Columbus was for merchantilism. I agree that "the New World represented a new territory in their battle for European dominance." They were in it for balance of power and dominance over everyone else. I agree with davidwasher because America would be way different without European expansion
Garrett Cooper
PEriod 1
I have to agree with JZ on this arguement. I agree with JZ because he brings up the point that European expanision was caused by "competition, power, and balance of power." Every major European country during the time was focused on keeping the balance of power within the world. This caused the countries to compete to gain outside territories to use as colonies. The idea of mercantilism arose because the mother countries used raw resources and materials they gained from their colonies to manufacture goods to sell back out to the world. This put a burden on other countries and colonies because they would be reliant on the cash crops and resources grown to stabilize their own economies. Mr. Zucker does bring up the point of spreading Christianity as a reason for exploration, but that is not a valid reason. Yes, some religious groups sought religious purity like the Puritans, but soon after their arrival, they also began splitting into fragments because the locals realized the only way for wealth was trade with the "unpure Europeans" whom they were trying to break away from. They were also not coming over to help the Indians with their advanced technologies because they had no idea these Natives lived in the land before they had even come. It's an absurd idea to suggest that.
Erik Stahlheber
Period 1
sorry didn't put my name or period. Username:eric
Eric Moyer
Period 2
I agree with both Mr. Zucker and JZ. It is true that Christopher Columbus and other European explorers "discovered" America and we may be totally different than it was today. It is also true that new discoveries in science, religion, and politics enabled these sweeping changes to occur. Also, in order for America to be what it is today, it is simply invevitable that the Native Americans could not have inhabited The US as they previously did. However, I believe that European countries and explorers were there for the wrong reasons. They were interested in profits, competition, and the balance of power. This is a purely selfish motive. In conclusion, though, I believe that in order for society to function as we know it today, the Native Americans simply would have had to be eliminated. So, yes, the ends to justify the means.
Brandon Alessini, Period 3
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Well, well, Mr. Zucker and JZ, what an excellent topic to begin a whole new year with, is it not? anyhow you just happen to pic a subject that I have submerged myself with for some time now. Ultimately, I'll have to side with JZ on this one, although Mr. Zucker has several good points. However, both of you are WRONG on several key things. Firstly, neither one of you admits that Columbus was a failure in what he set out to do, FIND INDIA! It was never in his mind set to go out and conquer some so called 'new world,' for what he really wanted were the riches of Asia. JZ seems to forget that it as not a 'continent' that Columbus spread European influence to, but two whole continents. Columbus was not even the first western man to reach North America. Leif Erikson holds the title to this day. However, ultimately, yes, the landing of Columbus in the Caribbean did begin an onslaught of European influence throughout the two continent.
Millions of native americans were wiped out by disease had replaced by so called 'advanced' societies. The ends cannot simply justify the means on this one. Humans of European descent would continue to push into Amerind territory for nearly two centuries until most were gone in what is now the USA. However, yes the US has become a great super power, but even most Native Americans in out country and fairing very well economically, socially, or financially. Both of you, Mr. Zucker, and JZ, keep talking about this progress of society and what costs it came it. Then truth of the matter is, success must always come at the defeat and suffering of others. This is the way history and human nature roll, and nothing will change that. Mr. Zucker, this so called 'individualism' that came with the Protestant Reformation also forced people to abide by rules of different religious sect who often resorted to violence. Going to the extremes of the Calvinists, the protestants seemed down right self-hateful when it came to their belief in pre-destination. However, Mr. Zucker, if individualism now means selfishness, than perhaps you re correct. Tell me, Mr. Zucker, have few, if any of those advancements in science helped the common man of earth? Last time I checked, most people on earth still live in poverty and standards closer to serfdom. Then only real countries with any descent level of development are the G8, most of whom, not surprisingly, are either European or founded by Europeans, and until recently, most of these advancements were almost exclusively for Europeans. Now, this topic is touchy for a lot of people, especially me. Last time I checked, about 60% of humans in the Americas have at least some Amerind descent, most of whom are mixed and generally live in poverty. Long term effects are still around through out the Caribbean and Latin America. What is America today, but a power-hungry super nation that *in all honesty* does not care about who it steps on.
Now, JZ, all you say is nice and dandy, but the world is survival of the fittest. I wouldn't be Edgar Tejada (a spanish surname), had not Europeans done what they did. I can't totally blame them for wanting gold, wealth, and power, since they are common goals of the majority of human societies. There is a very high chance I'm a mestizo to at least some degree, so this subject matter is a little more at heart with me. Terrible events like the Trail of Tears have happened, and we can feel sorry for them all we want, but are we REALLY sorry? Would we suddenly go back to everything and undo it? I wouldn't. It is the course of nature for the weaker to be dominated, and I have to remind myself of that. I can call the European conquerors greedy and heartless, but we are the same as they are. It was not necessarily, but inevitable. No matter how much I don't agree with it, even in our society, the ends justifies the means, and so that mentality would idolize pillagers like Columbus. Maybe I secretly do, to.
Ultimately, I have to just say that JZ is correct. Who ever said I wanted to live in this materialistic, self-hating, hyper consumer American culture? Why the hell couldn't I be happier on some island as a hunter gatherer? The first thing that comes to my mind when I hear freedom, democracy, and liberty is at the cost of whom does it come. There are no free lunches.
Edgar Johvany Tejada: Period 2
This comment has been removed by the author.
I agree with with my peers Umberto and eric in saying that JZ has the right idea on this subject. I agree that their are many things which would support the argument that the revolution was no valid such as the amount of taxes people payed in England compared to the amount payed in the colonies and the idea that Quartering Act was only put into effect becuase the colonists were roudy and broght the British presence on themselves. I think Eric is on to something when he comments on the fact that the local assemblies were disbanded and the possibilty that this was done because the British had little control over the colonies. That was the real problem and, in my opinion, the real cause for the revolution(s). The British were an entire ocean away and the voyage between the two nations was one of months. This meant that any type of letter or complaint that the colonits had would not reach England until the problem was irrelevant. The Americans were not represented very well back in England and they were not allowed to really govern themsleves. The British got rid of all of the politcal options that the colonists had. The overwhelming distance between these nations is what eventually justifies the revolution.
philip wagner
period 3
hi
Post a Comment
<< Home