|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
oh please, that's a weak apology. People in his time and era criticized him to the extreme. It wasn't like everyone agreed with Columbus and his actions in the Carribean. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would like to submit the following four paragraphs from a history that I'm currently reading. It might be interesting to see how people respond to it. Or not. IMO, it is an example of great historical writing.
(August 2, 1642)
�The twelve canoes had reached the western end of the Lake of St. Peter, where it is filled with innumerable islands. The forest was close on their right, they kept near the shore to avoid the current, and the shallow water before them was covered with a dense growth of tall bulrushes. Suddenly the silence was frightfully broken. The war-whoop rose from among the rushes, mingled with the reports of guns and the whistling of bullets; and several Iroquois canoes, filled with warriors, pushed out from their concealment, and bore down upon Jogues and his companions. The Hurons in the rear were seized with a shameful panic. They leaped ashore; left canoes, baggage, and weapons; and fled into the woods. The French and the Christian Hurons made fight for a time; but when they saw another fleet of canoes approaching from the opposite shores or islands, they lost heart, and those escaped who could. Goupil was seized amid triumphant yells, as were also several of the Huron converts. Jogues sprang into the bulrushes, and might have escaped; but when he saw Goupil and the neophytes in the clutches of the Iroquois, he had no heart to abandon them, but came out from his hiding-place, and gave himself up to the astonished victors. A few of them had remained to guard the prisoners; the rest were chasing the fugitives. Jogues mastered his agony, and began to baptize those of the captive converts who needed baptism.
Couture had eluded pursuit; but when he thought of Jogues and of what perhaps awaited him, he resolved to share his fate, and, turning, retraced his steps. As he approached, five Iroquois ran forward to meet him; and one of them snapped his gun at his breast, but it missed fire. In his confusion and excitement, Couture fired his own piece, and laid the savage dead. The remaining four sprang upon him, stripped off all his clothing, tore away his finger-nails with their teeth, gnawed his fingers with the fury of famished dogs, and thrust a sword through one of his hands. Jogues broke from his guards, and, rushing to his friend, threw his arms about his neck. The Iroquois dragged him away, beat him with their fists and war-clubs till he was senseless, and, when he revived, lacerated his fingers with their teeth, as they had done those of Couture. Then they turned upon Goupil, and treated him with the same ferocity. The Huron prisoners were left for the present unharmed. More of them were brought in every moment, till at length the number of captives amounted in all to twenty-two, while three Hurons had been killed in the fight and pursuit. The Iroquois, about seventy in number, now embarked with their prey; but not until they had knocked on the head an old Huron, whom Jogues, with his mangled hands, had just baptized, and who refused to leave the place. Then, under a burning sun, they crossed to the spot on which the town of Sorel now stands, at the mouth of the river Richelieu, where they encamped.
Their course was southward, up the River Richelieu and Lake Champlain; thence, by way of Lake George, to the Mohawk towns. The pain and fever of their wounds, and the clouds of mosquitoes, which they could not drive off, left the prisoners no peace by day nor sleep by night. On the eighth day, they learned that a large Iroquois war-party, on their way to Canada, were near at hand; and they soon approached their camp, on a small island near the southern end of Lake Champlain. The warriors, two hundred in number, saluted their victorious countrymen with volleys from their guns; then, armed with clubs and thorny sticks, ranged themselves in two lines, between which the captives were compelled to pass up the side of a rocky hill. On the way, they were beaten with such fury, that Jogues, who was last in the line, fell powerless, drenched in blood and half dead. As the chief man among the French captives, he fared the worst. His hands were again mangled, and fire applied to his body; while the Huron chief, Eustache, was subjected to tortures even more atrocious. When, at night, the exhausted sufferers tried to rest, the young warriors came to lacerate their wounds and pull out their hair and beards.
In the morning they resumed their journey. And now the lake narrowed to the semblance of a tranquil river. Before them was a woody mountain, close on their right a rocky promontory, and between these flowed a stream, the outlet of Lake George. On those rocks, more than a hundred years after, rose the ramparts of Ticonderoga. They landed, shouldered their canoes and baggage, took their way through the woods, passed the spot where the fierce Highlanders and the dauntless regiments of England breasted in vain the storm of lead and fire, and soon reached the shore where Abercrombie landed and Lord Howe fell. First of white men, Jogues and his companions gazed on the romantic lake that bears the name, not of its gentle discoverer, but of the dull Hanoverian king. Like a fair Naiad of the wilderness, it slumbered between the guardian mountains that breathe from crag and forest the stern poetry of war. But all then was solitude; and the clang of trumpets, the roar of cannon, and the deadly crack of the rifle had never as yet awakened their angry echoes.
(from �The Jesuits in North America in the 17th Century�; Francis Parkman; (1867); The Library of America edition, p. 551-553)
Why is this good historical writing?
1. It grabs you by the throat and doesn�t let you go. The writing is dramatic, colorful and varied.
2. My favorite sentence is the last one: ��all was solitude; and the clang of trumpets, the roar of cannon, and the deadly crack of the rifle had never as yet awakened their angry echoes�. You can hear what he is writing about.
3. It�s about people. What they did. Why they did it. What happened to them. How they dealt with it.
4. As a student, I will remember what it was like to be a missionary in early colonial times. There are equally terrific episodes about nuns and Indian women, Huron heroes and Iroquois. Each group gets fair treatment, but he doesn�t call a spade a shovel in order to protect anyone�s feelings.
5. As a teacher, I could come up with days of discussion topics and/or research topics for my students who would have a kick finding out more about what happened either to these people or to the other people mentioned�the �fierce Highlanders� etc. (If you don't believe that, you have never had a discussion with a teenager about torture.) |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Hank Scorpio

Joined: 18 Jan 2003 Location: Ann Arbor, MI
|
Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bucheon bum wrote: |
oh please, that's a weak apology. People in his time and era criticized him to the extreme. It wasn't like everyone agreed with Columbus and his actions in the Carribean. |
Of course not everyone agreed with him. The Jesuits in particular had problems with the way the new world was colonized.
That doesn't change the fact that what Columbus did was by no means remarkable. Just look at how Cortes and Pizarro behaved after him. Or the Americans and the Indians. Australians and the aborigines, etc, etc. And this isn't purely a western phenomena, you can see just how Japan treated their indigenous people, how the Arabs in Sudan treat the blacks in the south, how the Laotians, Vietnamese and Cambodians treat the Montanards.
It's the nature of mankind that when a culture with a higher level of technology and societal organization encounters what amounts to a stone aged culture that that stone aged culture is largely going to be wiped out. I know of no signifigant exceptions to this rule. Cry about it all you want, but it seems to be a constant throughout history. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
deleted
Last edited by Gopher on Sat Nov 10, 2007 2:24 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
seoulunitarian

Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:23 pm Post subject: re: |
|
|
Gopher wrote: |
seoulunitarian wrote: |
Gopher wrote: |
Kuros wrote: |
Surely I can offer my own opinions in my history. |
Yes you can, but be careful your history doesn't become a diatribe or, in Diamond's case, meant to further a political agenda.
Scholarly inquiry differs from political agendas, no matter how well intentioned they are. |
I agree with you that G, G, and N is biased in muted fashion in some parts, those you mentioned for example. However, have you (or any of the other participants of this thread) ever read any book of any genre that has not been biased in some way? If a human is the author (and there's no book for which a human is not), then bias is sure to creep in. I think this especially true in history books.
Peace,
Daniel |
OK, compare Diamond with Hawking's Black Holes and Baby Universes, where he studiously refuses to answer whether he believes in God as not relevant to the discussion. |
The real philosophical assumption in Hawking's Black Holes and Baby Universes is much more interesting (and biased) than whether he refuses to answer the god question. Hawking, like Einstein before him, used the word "god" when referring to the universe. However, despite what many Christians claim, neither scientist lends support to a traditional interpretation of religion. When using the word "god", both Einstein and Hawking were/are using metaphorical language for the mechanistic (or, in Hawking's case, the mechanistic and apparently unmechanistic) processes of the universe. Anyway, you are correct that he avoids bias by refusing to answer the god question directly.
However, what philosophical assumption underlies his theory of "baby universes"? According to Hawking, balck holes spawn (I use biological language purposefully) baby universes, perhaps an infinite number of them, each with peculiar physical laws which have some similarity to our own. It would not be unfair to call this group of universes a "family." In creating such a hypothesis, Hawking seems to be yearning to make the universe a living creature, capable of reproduction and following evolutionary laws of existence (natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc.) I find his theory fascinating, and tend to want to agree with it. However, it is implicitly biased as there is really no proof and the philosophical assumption is that God's existence is unecessary. An author really does not have to be biased explicitly for his entire philosophical foundation to be biased. Bias is usually found behind actual words, not in them.
Peace,
Daniel |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hank Scorpio wrote: |
bucheon bum wrote: |
oh please, that's a weak apology. People in his time and era criticized him to the extreme. It wasn't like everyone agreed with Columbus and his actions in the Carribean. |
Of course not everyone agreed with him. The Jesuits in particular had problems with the way the new world was colonized.
That doesn't change the fact that what Columbus did was by no means remarkable. Just look at how Cortes and Pizarro behaved after him. Or the Americans and the Indians. Australians and the aborigines, etc, etc. And this isn't purely a western phenomena, you can see just how Japan treated their indigenous people, how the Arabs in Sudan treat the blacks in the south, how the Laotians, Vietnamese and Cambodians treat the Montanards.
It's the nature of mankind that when a culture with a higher level of technology and societal organization encounters what amounts to a stone aged culture that that stone aged culture is largely going to be wiped out. I know of no signifigant exceptions to this rule. Cry about it all you want, but it seems to be a constant throughout history. |
I don't want to get into a debate about columbus' achievments. I was just pointing out the fact that :
a) everyone during his time wasn't like him, which is what you seemed to be saying in your previous post
b) just because others have done it and still do it doesn't excuse his poor leadership. You seem to feel that complacency over barbaric acts is perfectly fine.
One point of history is to learn from it. Most of us would like to hope that we continue to strive to be better. It is a constant battle between being civilized and being the most brutal species on earth. Instead of passing over Columbus' faults, we should use them to inspire us to not repeat what he did.
Yes, I know some "liberal" historians go overboard and make Columbus look like the devil. On the other hand, there are plenty who white-wash his life; evens out if you ask me.
Last edited by bucheon bum on Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:09 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher wrote: |
In fact, Columbus intended to discover an alternate route to India and gain glory and become accepted into the nobility, not to rape, enslave, or exterminate Indians. Most of this destruction came about unconsciously -- see Diamond on this score. |
but wait, i thought you said he was biased. Doesn't he have a liberal agenda? why should i listen to him?  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
deleted
Last edited by Gopher on Sat Nov 10, 2007 2:26 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
1) Good luck finding people on this board who think I fit the description that you just gave of your avg. joe
2)I was teasing you, relax. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rereading that, it looks harsh, so I apologize, and I won't edit it to cover up what I said.
But dammit, Jim, if there aren't people on this board -- perhaps not you, but others -- so rigidly trapped in their ideological belief systems that talking with them is like reading a Tom Clancy novel/harrangue...so programmed, so unwilling to try a round peg in a square hole... |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005
|
Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 2:09 pm Post subject: Re: Some Notes on Problems with Liberal Ideology and Dogma.. |
|
|
Gopher wrote: |
That is, in mental ability New Guineans are probably genetically superior to Westerners, and they surely are superior in escaping the devastating developmental disadvantages under which children in industrialized societies now grow up." (Guns, Germs, and Steel, 20-21) |
I haven't read the book, so take what I say with that in mind, but I was struck by a couple comments...
Um... why is it not superior to have a society that is happy and contented? Why is it an assumption that technology is inherently superior? There's a fun book called The Forgotten Door that addresses this issue in the form of a young adults novel.
Quote: |
Secondly, he attacks Western arrogance (and the Italians do indeed still seem to believe that Columbus walked on water) by deliberately minimizing Western accomplishment. See it in context? Yes. Intentionally minimize it, even to the point of calling European Civilization "backward" (Ibid.)? Now you're talking a political agenda. |
Why? Seems it's more of a value-based observation than a political one. And I refer to my statement above.
Quote: |
The other thing that alienated me from liberal dogma -- and I am still inclined to be somewhat liberal in my thinking -- was my exposure to feminism, which, I have learned, has little or nothing to do with equality between the sexes. |
Do tell!
Quote: |
Just points I wanted to throw out here for all of the people who unthinkingly cling to liberal ideology because they believe it's right. Conservatives are narrow and extremely problematic. Liberals have their issues as well. Perhaps people should just think for themselves for a change... |
Couldn't agree more. Do not understand why we continue to toss labels at each other to the point that a words such as "liberal" or "conservative" become labels, and even more, insults. Why do we not simply deal with issues? Power and money. Human nature. We are what we are and all the technology in the world hasn't changed that one tiny bit. One could argue the opposite with some success.
EFLtrainer
www.geocities.com/killiankob
Last edited by EFLtrainer on Fri Aug 12, 2005 12:56 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005
|
Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kuros wrote: |
What, again, is your idea of the purpose of history? |
History has no "purpose", it simply is. Time exists. Past, present and future. I think the more apt question may be, "What is any given historian's purpose in writing about history?"
No?
EFLtrainer
www.geocities.com/killiankob
Last edited by EFLtrainer on Fri Aug 12, 2005 12:57 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005
|
Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher wrote: |
In fact, Columbus intended to discover an alternate route to India and gain glory and become accepted into the nobility, not to rape, enslave, or exterminate Indians. Most of this destruction came about unconsciously -- see Diamond on this score. |
It is not unconscious action to assume superiority and the right to impose your will on others. That it was common is not an excuse. There were certainly people in his time, and within the scope of his knowledge, who believed his actions immoral and unjust. Thou Shalt Not Kill, eh?
Gopher wrote: |
... If we are to judge historical actors, we need to judge them in their historical context, not ours. |
I disagree. What you state here is how we may *understand* their actions, not judge or not judge. There is no time in the last, oh, 2 to 3k years (and much further back?) that the concepts of tolerance, equality and mercy did not exist in European society. See above.
EFLtrainer
www.geocities.com/killiankob
Last edited by EFLtrainer on Fri Aug 12, 2005 12:57 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
EFLtrainer wrote: |
Gopher wrote: |
In fact, Columbus intended to discover an alternate route to India and gain glory and become accepted into the nobility, not to rape, enslave, or exterminate Indians. Most of this destruction came about unconsciously -- see Diamond on this score. |
It is not unconscious action to assume superiority and the right to impose your will on others. That it was common is not an excuse. There were certainly people in his time, and within the scope of his knowledge, who believed his actions immoral and unjust. Thou Shalt Not Kill, eh? |
You need to keep in mind that unconsiously-carried and -transmitted diseases did the most killing in the New World, by far.
Did Spanish conquistadores and religious personnel kill Native Americans in their efforts to bring them into Christianity and pay tribute to the king of Spain? Yes, they did. But you need to blame Catholicism and Spanish jurisprudence -- and I'm speaking of the requerimiento and encomienda institutions -- and not just Columbus as a person for this. Indeed, given subsequent events in the colonization of Africa, you would need to spread the blame to all of Western Civilization.
It is too simplistic to single out Columbus for something that was normal in his own time. People who do so, are unfairly using him as a symbol to push their political agendas.
In criminal law, the most common element of most crimes is "intent." If we are going to use history to indict people, then we would need to establish intent, as well. So if Columbus is to be charged with these crimes, we would need to be able to cite evidence showing that it was his intent to rape, enslave, and exterminate Indian peoples in the New World. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 5:03 pm Post subject: Re: Some Notes on Problems with Liberal Ideology and Dogma.. |
|
|
EFLtrainer wrote: |
Gopher wrote: |
That is, in mental ability New Guineans are probably genetically superior to Westerners, and they surely are superior in escaping the devastating developmental disadvantages under which children in industrialized societies now grow up." (Guns, Germs, and Steel, 20-21) |
Um... why is it not superior to have a society that is happy and contented? Why is it an assumption that technology is inherently superior? |
My point was simply that it is counterproductive to make this argument in a book that argues against racism. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|