I'll be the first to admit it; I'm a proud apologist for Columbus. My analysis of his actions as described in Todorov and his own travel journals aside, I can't help but be taken in by the romance of risking everything to explore distant lands.
Last semester, a resolution went through the Undergraduate Senate here at AU that basically sought to condemn Columbus for actions that lead to genocide. I was taken aback by the nature of this resolution, knowing as I did that Columbus would have been aghast at the idea of purposefully obliterating an entire race of people. I argued with several Student Senators, finally bringing some around with examples of Columbus' love of nature, but it was pretty shocking how uninformed the majority of people generally were concerning the facts of Columbus' voyages.
Then again, how much knowledge is enough? What is the magic point when you know enough to condemn someone? If understanding leads to love, then we choose not to understand someone when we judge them. A judgment represents a conscious decision to disregard an individual's defense of his own actions, and to hold him to a separate standard than that which he holds for himself.
Even though I wanted to tell these people that they were wrong about Columbus, I realized it was futile. Their arguments, after all, were basically irrational; they were condemning actions which had been a direct influence on their own existences. I was stunned by the absurdity of individuals wearing American flag pins castigating Columbus, as though the country they love could exist in its present shape without him. Madness.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
"Screw knowing people," he said half-honestly. "You should always assume that people are condemnable. The magic point is when they aren't anymore." He smirked ironically, adding, "Original sin updated for the modern age: we're all guilty."
This is AU, it is better to sit back and complain than to do anything about the problem.
I for one think it is wrong to apply the standards of today to the people of the past. After all, look at the political parties, what was once Republican issues are now Democrat issues and visa versa.
I believe that we must apply our standards to the past itself. However, we must treat the people of the past as products of their time. There's a subtle but important difference between the two positions.
And I think the AU position is actually, "Think that you can completely fix the problem using the dumbest, most roundabout, but nice-sounding method possible." That's the SPA line, at least.
Post a Comment