Vincent Fiery- In Defense of Columbus
Christopher Columbus is a person who has come under a large amount of scrutiny over the years, especially recently with the Columbus day debacle. I stand by a firm belief that Christopher Columbus is not strong enough or evil enough in his intentions to be considered a villain and although he does have many positive effects on the world he most certainly can not be considered a hero. Columbus helped to connect two worlds and usher in a new age of trade, connectivity, disease, war, death, and prosperity of differing levels. Overall Columbus is just a bad guy that did some good things but in the end is really neither a hero or villain. To start of it is best to observe why Columbus may be considered a villain. Columbus killed a large amount of natives through the forcible oppression and domination of the local American peoples. Columbus would also help start a precedent that would be the first encomienda system resulting in Native American slavery and death for years to come. His expeditions would spread syphilis to the Old World and allow for the start of the Atlantic Slave Trade to America resulting in massive implications around the world. Supervising the situation over America it is made clear that Columbus expressed opinions of cultural superiority over the natives and desired for their oppression from his very first meeting between him and the natives. The Columbian Exchange started by Columbus would lead to massive levels of animal extinction and a decrease in diversities of food and life. His discoveries would also lead to many wars and more forms of cultural and economic oppression. This explanation on Christopher Columbus outlines him clearly as a villain but other views could help him to plead his case against the accusations. While Columbus did do some bads things it should be made clear that many good things came from his voyages. Columbus helped move the world forward towards a new age with many of his actions. Columbus's voyage would allow for massive population increases due to the spread of new foods and massive amounts of trade and wealth that would help nations consolidate power and become more cohesive units which would usher in many new advancements. His actions would also eventually positively affect the Americas with the transfer of Old World animals that would shape the life of many native tribes and peoples of the Americas. Columbus also facilitated the introduction of quinine to Europe which would help cure malaria. Columbus would help increase the ability of a global economy to thrive and help start the commercial revolution which saw many new forms of wealth that were not as strictly based in the old aristocracy. The discovery of the new lands would also provide hope to settlers that wanted a new life free of governmental burden. All these things could make Columbus sound like a good man but coupled with his bad deeds it shows that he is neutrally moral at best. The last most important piece of the Columbus story is the influence he had over the many things that occurred under him. It should be noted that many of the things occurring under Columbus and his voyages are not really heavily controlled by Columbus. Columbus may have wanted to spread god's word, gain glory, and acquire wealth but overall his goal was not to perpetuate mass genocide or mass amounts of slavery. Many ideas adopted by Columbus were reused and many things that happened were out of his control. Many of Columbus actions were motivated by fear and a need to sate the lust of the Spanish empire. The reason why it is easy to argue that Columbus simply isn't a villian is that he did not have bad enough intentions to be considered evil. Columbus acted out of fear, self-preservation, and basic desires. The actions taken by Columbus cannot be equated to say Hitler's actions because he simply did not have a high enough level of power or influence and did not have the strength of intention a man like Hitler had. Columbus did very little that one would say was evil when one looks at basic conquering rules and recycled ideas. Columbus is not mean spirited enough to anyone's knowledge to know if he truly wished to exterminate a population out of pure hatred or did anything past the normal standards he might have sought. God might judge him poorly but still then he did bring many natives into the lords fold and did not commit many actions himself that would be considered truly evil. Patience Moses The Age of Exploration occurred from the early fifteenth century and lasted till the early 17th century. The Muslims had monopolized trade between Europe and Asia after the fall of Constantinople in 1453, and had also increased the prices for goods. This, and the inventions of cutting-edge maritime technologies prompted Europeans to search for new trading routes to Asia. Christopher Columbus developed the idea of sailing west to get to the East, and with money from Ferdinand and Isabella, he travelled with his crew, and arrived in the Carribeans in 1492. Centuries later, between fifty and ninety percent of Native American populations had been killed, and some tribes became extinct. To replace the depopulating labor force, Europeans imported about 10 million slaves from Africa, killing many other millions on route to the Americas, and forced them to work on plantations and mines. The Age of Exploration lead to the exploitation and deaths of Africans and Native Americans, but its impacts on Europe was quite different. Europe enjoyed population growth from New World plants, and a boost to its economy through the influx of gold and raw materials, but it also suffered from New World diseases and from a later inflation. The Columbian Exchange, a consequence of the Age of Exploration, saw the transfer of New World plants to the Old World. Europe, and even the rest of the world, enjoyed crops like potatoes, maize, cassava, tomatoes, cocoa, chili peppers, avocados and blueberries. Of all these crops, potatoes had the biggest impact in Europe, especially in Ireland. Potatoes could be grown with minimum labor in cold, damp climates unsuitable for Old World staples. They provided caloric and nutritional improvements that led to a massive population increase. In the 16th century, the population increased by about 20 million. Potatoes became such an important staple food in Ireland that an average Irish worker often ate ten pounds of potatoes everyday. This crop was able to feed thousands of workers during the Industrial Revolution until the Great Famine in 1845. Tomatoes, cocoa, and chili peppers also increased vitamin intake and improved taste. One negative impact of this exchange was that the population growth led to the increase in the demand for food, which further led to the rise in prices, and contributed to the inflation. There are few examples of diseases being spread from the New World to the Old World, but the most notable exception is the venereal syphilis. Although it appeared in Europe around 1493, the first well-recorded outbreak occurred in 1495 among French troops besieging Naples, Italy. It was brought to Europe sailors who had acquired it from the natives through sexual contact, and then upon their return to Europe, worked as mercenaries for royal families. Europeans were fond of ascribing the disease to each other. The Italians called it the “French disease” and vice versa, the Russians called it the “Polish disease”, and the Turks called it the “Christian disease.” The name-calling was often used as a form of propaganda. Syphilis affected many notable individuals, including numerous family members of the Tudor and Valois families. Even though the disease was less deadly than the Old World diseases brought to the New World, it was known to have caused a lot of social disruption throughout Europe. The Age of Exploration had, arguably, the greatest impact on the economy of Europe. This is because the major motive of European countries financing expeditions around the globe was “Gold”. Europeans were looking for a new route to Asia to replace the land routes that Muslims had taken over. But they were also hoping that there were new lands that would provide gold, and other treasures. When gold was discovered on the Americas, everything changed. Spanish settlements established in the New World grew into colonies whose sole purpose was to provide gold and other raw materials, and bolster the Spanish economy. Spain, perhaps more than any other country, benefited the most from the exchange of goods and the influx of precious metals from the Americas. Unfortunately, this massive flow of gold and silver, as many historians believe, led to the inflation that caused the fall of Spain. There was an increase in the supply of money compared to goods, and this led to higher prices. Regardless, they were able to enjoy a golden age, and with the wealth, were able to build the world’s largest and most powerful fleet. Exploration and trade also led to the growth of capitalism, or investing money for profit, especially in the Netherlands and England. Merchants gained great wealth, and used their profits to fund other voyages and to start trading companies, like the British East India Company and the Dutch East India Company. People invested in these joint-stock companies and shared in their profits as well. The Age of Exploration had negative and positive impacts, not only in Europe, but in Africa and in the Americas. But overall, Europe stood to benefit from the latter, as they enjoyed greater economic benefits, at the cost of millions of native American deaths, and Africa’s future dependence on Europe.
0 Comments
Patience Moses
On October 31st, 1517, Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses Against the Sale of Indulgences. Although the Protestant Reformation did not begin with Luther, it climaxed with him. Other reformers like John Wycliffe and Jan Hus had challenged the Catholic Church before him, but has been burned at the stake. Luther never intended to break away from the Church and create a new religion, but his ideas ended up being the foundation for Lutheranism. From there, other sects of Christianity developed. There were Calvinists, Anglicans, Anabaptists and many others. But the road to the growth and acceptance of these religions saw many conflicts, ranging from revolts to wars. While most of the actions of rulers and nation-states to resolve the conflicts between Protestants and Catholics were peaceful, some were intense and violent. But they almost always involved a compromise. To resolve the conflict between Protestants and Catholics, some rulers took a more peaceful approach, using treaties and edicts. The Peace of Augsburg, created in 1555, declared that “Whoever reigns, his religion.” This meant that each German prince had the freedom to declare whether his principality would be Lutheran or Catholic, and people were allowed safe passages to other cities of their religion. Although the Peace of Augsburg met some resistance and eventually fell apart, it was still a relatively peaceful effort. The Peace of Westphalia (1648) reinstated the Peace of Augsburg at the end of the Thirty Years War, and added Calvinism to the list of legally accepted religions. Unfortunately, some actions taken to resolve the religious conflicts were violent, and only resulted in bloodshed. The German Peasants Revolt (1524-1525) was an uprising based on misinterpreted ideas of Luther about equality in the eyes of God. Luther clarified that he spoke of a spiritual and heavenly equality, and not an earthly one. He then urged the German princes to put down the revolt and restore order and stability in Europe. Over 100,000 or more peasants were dead by the time the nobility had restored order. Another example is Queen Mary I of England, who declared all the Protestant reforms established by her predecessor null and void in an effort to restore Catholicism in England. Under her regime, Protestants were persecuted mercilessly, and about 300 of them were martyred. All these actions to resolve religious conflicts involved a compromise. They never allowed complete toleration of other religions. The Elizabethan Religious Settlement, created by Queen Elizabeth I of England, is a good example of compromise. The settlement undid the Catholicism of Queen Mary and restored the Anglican Church as the official church in England. Rather than being aggressive with her policies, she allowed the Catholics to keep on practicing their faith as long as they remained unobtrusive. This was a compromise that resolved the conflict in England without much resistance. To prevent the conflict in France, a country with a Catholic majority, King Henry IV of Navarre converted from Calvinism to Catholicism. Then he established the Edict of Nantes which declared Catholicism the official religion, but gave Protestants the freedom to worship in certain cities. It also reinstated the civil rights of Protestants and ended the religious conflicts in France. Even though some of the actions taken by rulers and nation-states were more peaceful than others, most of them did not have long-lasting effects. The most effective was the Peace of Westphalia. It ended the Thirty Years War, which ended up being the last major religious war in Europe. Sydney Shumaker Protestants and Catholics have been at odds from the very beginning, starting with Luther’s nailing of the ninety-five theses on the church doors in Germany. Throughout history this has meant conflict after conflict, and battle after battle. Many different rulers chose to find several different solutions to the growing problems around these two groups, between creating edicts and peace agreement to even going as far as exiling certain religions from the country, rulers were trying to do just about anything to solve the conflicts around them. Many ruler attempted to solve the problems in a more peaceful route, with the use of peace agreements and edicts. One key example of this is the Edict of Nantes, which was signed by King Henry IV, which allowed Protestants to exist in certain areas of the country. This edict helped put a pause to the religious battles by allowing the Protestants to have a place where they were not only allowed but also could practice their religion. The Edict of Nantes was not the only example of this, the Peace of Augsburg, signed by Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor, is also a good example of this. The Peace of Augsburg allows for whoever is reigning to pick the religion, this helped the religious arguments die down as generally the ruler would go by the code of Politique, putting politics over religion, and do what was best for the majority of the nation-state. However, creating an edict or peace agreement is not the only attempt rulers would make in order to get rid of religious tension. Many rulers decided to go a slightly more intense route with the exiling or attempting to get rid of different religious groups which were causing problems. One ruler who chose to use this method was Mary I. Mary I, also known as Bloody Mary, attempted to reconvert England to Catholicism through the murder of around three hundred Protestants. Mary attempted to have Protestants convert through fear, even going as far as attempting to have Thomas Cranmer, an important Protestant, renounce Protestantism right before being burned on the stake for being a Protestant. Many were outraged by this and refused to convert. Others, such as John Knox, even went as far as writing his distrust and dislike of Queen Mary I. Queen Mary wasn’t the only ruler who attempted to get rid of a religious group, Queen Elizabeth I also attempted to get rid of religious groups. Instead of the mass murder, however, Elizabeth exiled the Jesuits after be told by the Pope she was an unfit ruler. The Jesuits, she believed, were very close to Spain during a time where the King of Spain was attempting to overthrow Elizabeth. While at first this doesn’t seem very religious the fact that King Philip II, king of Spain, was very Catholic while Elizabeth chose to be more religiously tolerant. While the more aggressive attempts seem to be much different from that of the peace agreements and the Edicts, both types have several similarities. Both of the solution types did have several things in common, one of those being the fact that they all eventually failed, or didn’t work out the way they were hoped to. More often than not, a new ruler would take over and completely change how things were run. This would change whether or not that method would still be effective, but also if the method alone would be left to stand. While one could argue that after Elizabeth I died, England stayed rather religiously tolerant, that resulted more from the simple fact that she ruled for so long, rather than the fact that any of her methods were very effective. These solutions also gave certain religions more power than others. While one might say that the peace treaties and Edicts were fair and equal, that is not exactly true. In both scenarios, while in place, different religions would have more power over others. For the Peace of Augsburg, whichever religion the ruler was to pick would then have superiority and be able to be worshiped. For the Edict of Nantes, it wasnt full scale acceptance, and also wasn’t for everywhere. No matter what solutions the ruler would try and place, more often than not it would end in a similar way as the others. Considering the large time frame of the religious issues, many different solutions were thought of and eventually created as a hopes to stop what was going on around them. Sadly, however, many of these solutions ended up not being as different as they seemed leading to several of the same outcomes over and over again. |
AuthorSamples from Excellent blogs for study purposes! Archives
December 2018
Categories |