Columbus Day: In Praise of Exploitation

[Ed Hudgins]

An oldie but goodie (but new to Objectivist Living). Happy Columbus Day!

------

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--1594...ploitation.aspx

Columbus Day: In Praise of Exploitation

by Edward Hudgins

October 10, 2005 -- Many critics argue that Christopher Columbus gave us a devil's bargain. In October 1492 that Italian explorer, working for Spain, opened America to his fellow Europeans. The result: we got a prosperous New World by impoverishing, enslaving and murdering the natives who were already here.

But this view fails to distinguish between two types of exploitation—one over other humans and the other over nature: the former which should be expunged from our moral codes and civilized society, the latter which is the essence of morality and civilization.

The former form of exploitation was suffered especially by the tens of millions of individuals who inhabited the pre-Columbian lands from Mexico through South America. Cortes the Conquistador, for example, defeated the Aztec rulers of Mexico. Many of the tribes that were subject to the Aztecs sided with Cortes; they hated the Aztecs for, among other things, their practice of cutting the living hearts out of members of tribes that they subjugated, as sacrifices to their gods. Cortes imposed his rule on the Aztecs and their subjects alike, replacing one tyranny with another. The natives were treated harshly and many forced to work as de facto or actual slaves for their new masters.

On the other hand, many settlers, especially in North America which had far fewer natives, took a different path. They came to the New World to build their own lives. They did not prosper by conquering other men but, rather, by conquering nature. They had to clear the land, plant and sow crops. They had to practice the trades of carpenters, masons, loggers, miners, blacksmiths and tailors to build their towns and to create the necessities for life and prosperity. In the centuries that followed, their descendents—including Americans today—built the richest, most prosperous country on Earth.

Today it is chic among back-to-nature types to idealize the pre-Columbian natives and question whether what we have today constitutes real progress. This silliness was given philosophical credence by the eighteenth century thinker Jean-Jacques Rousseau's notion of the "noble savage." No doubt many individual natives were as noble as one could be in savage circumstances, but America before Columbus was no Eden.

Let's put aside the wars between tribes, the outright brutality and the like, and just look at the daily lives of the Indians before Columbus. Life was lived simply, in primitive cycles. Natives inhabited crude hovels and hunted or used subsistence farming to sustain themselves. Yes, they could enjoy family and friends, tell tales of bringing down buffalo, and imagine that the stars in the sky painted pictures of giant bears and other creatures. The ancestors of Europeans did the same.

But true human life, either for an individual or society, is not an endless, stagnant cycle. Rather, it is a growth in knowledge, in power over the environment, and in individual liberty.

Perhaps many pre-Columbian natives were content with their lot in a simple, animal-like existence. But what of young Indian children who wondered why family members sickened and died and if there were ways unknown to the shamans to relieve their pain or cure them; if there were ways to build shelters that would resist bitter winters, stifling summers and the storms that raged in both seasons; whether there were ways to guarantee that food would always be abundant and starvation no longer a drought away; why plants grow and what those lights in the sky really were; and whether they could ever actually fly like birds and observe mountains from the height of eagles? Where were the opportunities for these natives?

Three ideas from Enlightenment Europe provided keys to true human life. First was the idea that we as individuals have a right to our own dreams and desires, that we are not simply tied to a tribe or the wishes of others, that civilization means that individuals are free to live their own lives, as long as they acknowledge the similar freedom of others.

Second was the understanding that through the rational exercise of our minds we can truly discover the nature of the world around us, replacing myths—no matter how beautiful or poetic—with real knowledge.

And third was the appreciation that such knowledge allows us to bend nature to our wills. Through our thoughts and actions we gain the pride of achieving the best within us.

The clash between the cultures of pre-Columbian natives and European immigrants certainly produced injustices for natives. But it would have been unjust for those natives to expect the immigrants to hold themselves to the level of primitive cultures and beliefs. The true long-term tragedy is that so many of the descendants of the pre-Columbian peoples in North America ended up on reservations rather than integrated into a society that offers opportunities for each individual to excel.

Columbus opened a whole new land for those who would tame nature and build a new, free and prosperous nation. We should celebrate the opportunity for America that he gave us—not apologize for it.

[AndrewED]

So much for the rights of man

Here, unfortunately, we encounter yet another public intellectual's proud denial and not-so-subtle apology for the cold-blooded genocide of at least of ten million ("far fewer") non-civilized and non-industrialized peoples of the present-day USA. He justifies the American Holocaust of the 19th and 20th centuries because these people lived a "simple, animal-like existence". They did not live "true lives".

This is precisely the kind of dehumanizing prose Goebbels would approve, Mr Hudgins. I am sorry to read here the product of your unexamined ignorance and bigotry. Anyone who has given even a small degree of sincere attention to the lives and teachings of American Indian elders knows your statement is false--laughably and embarrassingly so. What has prevented you from doing even cursory research in the wealth of widely available books available on every aspect of this subject from hundreds of native and non-native historians alike? My good man, you are behind the times, and you have no excuse for being so.

Those who have ears to hear will well mark the words of the Navajo, who say: "We are endurers. We are watchers. We were here before you came. We have watched you since then. And we will be here to tell your story once you have gone."

Edited October 13, 2006 by Andrew Durham

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Andrew,

I think you misread Ed's article. He was not applauding the genocide of the Indians. He was celebrating the rational principles that the Europeans settlers brought over. I agree with the following quote:

The true long-term tragedy is that so many of the descendants of the pre-Columbian peoples in North America ended up on reservations rather than integrated into a society that offers opportunities for each individual to excel.

I agree that the sustained genocide by war, and later by starvation, and the constant making of treaties and breaking of them that was practiced by the US Government of yesteryear was not anything to be proud of. I have not read all that many books on this, but I have read Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee Brown for an overview of historical documentation and Hanta Yo! by Ruth Beebe Hill (who was a neighbor and friend of Ayn Rand for years) for a breathtaking and enchanting look inside the mind and life of the Lakotas, and a few other books. So my own view is fairly balanced.

Ed's criticism of the pre-Columbian Indians was focused on their tribal nature in relation to individual rights. The fact that many of the European settlers and descendants were just as tribal in waging war on them does not annul the grandiosity of the achievement of our ancestors. Let's recapitulate Ed's three principles from the Enlightenment that helped make this country great:

1. We as individuals have a right to our own dreams and desires—we are not simply tied to a tribe or the wishes of others.

2. Through the rational exercise of our minds we can truly discover the nature of the world around us, replacing myths—no matter how beautiful or poetic—with real knowledge.

3. The appreciation that such knowledge allows us to bend nature to our wills.

Reason-based production with individual rights is what was missing in tribal Indian societies. They relied on tradition-based production and tribal standing instead. Complete disinterest in teaching the new ideas to the Indians, preferring genocide instead, was the shame of the US government's policy back then (including a good portion of society).

As a matter of fact, what was taught to the Indians was a repressive form of Christianity instead of the Enlightenment ideas. No wonder they rejected such teaching.

I suggest you reread Ed's article looking at what he did say (Enlightenment principles) and not what he did not say (genocide). The nature of an article is that you cannot cram everything into it. Talking about genocide within the confines of the theme of his article would have been poor writing. One day if he ever writes about the ghastly wars that were waged on the American frontier between Indians and white men (and they were ghastly on both sides), I am sure he will be objective.

Ed - That was a good reminder of some of our core values. Thank you.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

So much for the rights of man

Here, unfortunately, we encounter yet another public intellectual's proud denial and not-so-subtle apology for the cold-blooded genocide of at least of ten million ("far fewer") non-civilized and non-industrialized peoples of the present-day USA. He justifies the American Holocaust of the 19th and 20th centuries because these people lived a "simple, animal-like existence". They did not live "true lives".

This is precisely the kind of dehumanizing prose Goebbels would approve, Mr Hudgins. I am sorry to read here the product of your unexamined ignorance and bigotry. Anyone who has given even a small degree of sincere attention to the lives and teachings of American Indian elders knows your statement is false--laughably and embarrassingly so. What has prevented you from doing even cursory research in the wealth of widely available books available on every aspect of this subject from hundreds of native and non-native historians alike? My good man, you are behind the times, and you have no excuse for being so.

Those who have ears to hear will well mark the words of the Navajo, who say: "We are endurers. We are watchers. We were here before you came. We have watched you since then. And we will be here to tell your story once you have gone."

European tribes essentially conquered and pushed aside native American tribes. Most Native Americans were killed by influenza and other imported diseases, not genocide. The same thing happened in the South Seas. None of this was really avoidable. European culture was vastly superior to native American culture which was quite warlike in its own respects.

--Brant

Edited October 14, 2006 by Brant Gaede

[Ed Hudgins]

Happy Columbus Day everyone!

http://www.ayn-rand.info/cth--1594-Columbus_Day_In_Praise_of_Exploitation.aspx

[BaalChatzaf]

Happy Columbus Day everyone!

http://www.ayn-rand....ploitation.aspx

The Aztec and the Maya had better astronomy, calendars and mathematics than Europe in the period 1000-1500. The Aztecs lived in cities with working viaducts and flush toilets. Such amenities disappeared from Europe with the collapse of Rome and did not reappear until the late 18th century. While the Aztecs were particularly brutal in war and did practice a limited form of human sacrifice they had a more advanced civilization and calendar than did Europe in the 14th and 15th century. The Maya were particularly advanced in arithmetic. They had base 20 arithmetic and the zero. The European were still struggling with Roman numerals and the abacus.

So the statement that the native tribes of meso America (what is now Mexico, Guatemala and Honduras) was primitive compared to Europe is simply not true. What the Europeans did have was Guns, Steel, Horses and Smallpox. Smallpox transmitted to the native inhabitants who never built an immunity to it pretty well gutted them.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Folks:

I was listening to a wonderful CSpan set of shows this weekend about Merriweather Lewis and Clarke. One presentation was on the argumentation as to whether Lewis committed suicide or was murdered when he was on his way back to Jefferson with "reports" and papers that reflected on the political and military state of affairs in Louisiana and Texas and a huge asset of a fifteen million dollar [$15,000,000.00] silver mine which was worth several times the amount of the entire Louisiana Purchase.

Another presentation was the "Indian" perspective on Lewis and Clark. One of the telling statements by an Indian Professor opined that it was the Indian's inability to adapt to the capitalist economic system that created and perpetuated their victim hood.

He concluded that it was time that the Indian culture stopped feeling sorry for themselves and making excuses for their past failures and took advantage of their intelligence, skills and inherent toughness to join the 21st Century as a capitalistic economic force. This did not mean they had to surrender their integrity or their tribal honor. It just meant that they had to shed their victim hood.

I agree.

Adam

[Mike11]

Its evolution baby.

Edited October 12, 2010 by Joel Mac Donald

[Kimmler]

Folks:

I was listening to a wonderful CSpan set of shows this weekend about Merriweather Lewis and Clarke. One presentation was on the argumentation as to whether Lewis committed suicide or was murdered when he was on his way back to Jefferson with "reports" and papers that reflected on the political and military state of affairs in Louisiana and Texas and a huge asset of a fifteen million dollar [$15,000,000.00] silver mine which was worth several times the amount of the entire Louisiana Purchase.

Another presentation was the "Indian" perspective on Lewis and Clark. One of the telling statements by an Indian Professor opined that it was the Indian's inability to adapt to the capitalist economic system that created and perpetuated their victim hood.

He concluded that it was time that the Indian culture stopped feeling sorry for themselves and making excuses for their past failures and took advantage of their intelligence, skills and inherent toughness to join the 21st Century as a capitalistic economic force. This did not mean they had to surrender their integrity or their tribal honor. It just meant that they had to shed their victim hood.

I agree.

Adam

I'd agree too, if it weren't such a load of rubbish. Indians feeling sorry for themselves? Go down to a reservation and say that to them face to face.

[Kimmler]

An oldie but goodie...

Well...EXCUSE ME!!!!!!!! But I think we'll be the judge of that pal. Don't start reviewing your own articles. We'll tell you if it's any good or not.

[Selene]

Folks:

I was listening to a wonderful CSpan set of shows this weekend about Merriweather Lewis and Clarke. One presentation was on the argumentation as to whether Lewis committed suicide or was murdered when he was on his way back to Jefferson with "reports" and papers that reflected on the political and military state of affairs in Louisiana and Texas and a huge asset of a fifteen million dollar [$15,000,000.00] silver mine which was worth several times the amount of the entire Louisiana Purchase.

Another presentation was the "Indian" perspective on Lewis and Clark. One of the telling statements by an Indian Professor opined that it was the Indian's inability to adapt to the capitalist economic system that created and perpetuated their victim hood.

He concluded that it was time that the Indian culture stopped feeling sorry for themselves and making excuses for their past failures and took advantage of their intelligence, skills and inherent toughness to join the 21st Century as a capitalistic economic force. This did not mean they had to surrender their integrity or their tribal honor. It just meant that they had to shed their victim hood.

I agree.

Adam

I'd agree too, if it weren't such a load of rubbish. Indians feeling sorry for themselves? Go down to a reservation and say that to them face to face.

I have friends in AIM[American Indian Movement] and they, like Malcom X believe that victim hood never works. It is a different type of slavery. That "pity me" was rejected by Malcom and it worked.

Adam

[Ed Hudgins]

Kimmler - Pull the burr out of your butt. You'll feel a whole lot better!

[Kimmler]

Kimmler - Pull the burr out of your butt. You'll feel a whole lot better!

Why, did it work for you?

[Kimmler]

Folks:

I was listening to a wonderful CSpan set of shows this weekend about Merriweather Lewis and Clarke. One presentation was on the argumentation as to whether Lewis committed suicide or was murdered when he was on his way back to Jefferson with "reports" and papers that reflected on the political and military state of affairs in Louisiana and Texas and a huge asset of a fifteen million dollar [$15,000,000.00] silver mine which was worth several times the amount of the entire Louisiana Purchase.

Another presentation was the "Indian" perspective on Lewis and Clark. One of the telling statements by an Indian Professor opined that it was the Indian's inability to adapt to the capitalist economic system that created and perpetuated their victim hood.

He concluded that it was time that the Indian culture stopped feeling sorry for themselves and making excuses for their past failures and took advantage of their intelligence, skills and inherent toughness to join the 21st Century as a capitalistic economic force. This did not mean they had to surrender their integrity or their tribal honor. It just meant that they had to shed their victim hood.

I agree.

Adam

I'd agree too, if it weren't such a load of rubbish. Indians feeling sorry for themselves? Go down to a reservation and say that to them face to face.

I have friends in AIM[American Indian Movement] and they, like Malcom X believe that victim hood never works. It is a different type of slavery. That "pity me" was rejected by Malcom and it worked.

Adam

You're a fan of Malcom X?

[Selene]

Folks:

I was listening to a wonderful CSpan set of shows this weekend about Merriweather Lewis and Clarke. One presentation was on the argumentation as to whether Lewis committed suicide or was murdered when he was on his way back to Jefferson with "reports" and papers that reflected on the political and military state of affairs in Louisiana and Texas and a huge asset of a fifteen million dollar [$15,000,000.00] silver mine which was worth several times the amount of the entire Louisiana Purchase.

Another presentation was the "Indian" perspective on Lewis and Clark. One of the telling statements by an Indian Professor opined that it was the Indian's inability to adapt to the capitalist economic system that created and perpetuated their victim hood.

He concluded that it was time that the Indian culture stopped feeling sorry for themselves and making excuses for their past failures and took advantage of their intelligence, skills and inherent toughness to join the 21st Century as a capitalistic economic force. This did not mean they had to surrender their integrity or their tribal honor. It just meant that they had to shed their victim hood.

I agree.

Adam

I'd agree too, if it weren't such a load of rubbish. Indians feeling sorry for themselves? Go down to a reservation and say that to them face to face.

I have friends in AIM[American Indian Movement] and they, like Malcom X believe that victim hood never works. It is a different type of slavery. That "pity me" was rejected by Malcom and it worked.

Adam

You're a fan of Malcom X?

I am a Yankee "fan". I was one of the few white people who were allowed near Malcom X in Harlem in the 60's. This was when his message was black capitalism amongst his other messages.

I respected him and thought it was a great loss when he was assassinated. My uncle did the investigation of his assassination, my uncle was, at that time, the first Latino to be appointed Inspector in NY Police Department history. This was in the Lindsay administration. Lindsay was a liberal Republican who we got elected as a fusion mayor. Good looking, but one of the dumbest and worst administrators in NY City history which is saying something!

Adam

[Kimmler]

Folks:

I was listening to a wonderful CSpan set of shows this weekend about Merriweather Lewis and Clarke. One presentation was on the argumentation as to whether Lewis committed suicide or was murdered when he was on his way back to Jefferson with "reports" and papers that reflected on the political and military state of affairs in Louisiana and Texas and a huge asset of a fifteen million dollar [$15,000,000.00] silver mine which was worth several times the amount of the entire Louisiana Purchase.

Another presentation was the "Indian" perspective on Lewis and Clark. One of the telling statements by an Indian Professor opined that it was the Indian's inability to adapt to the capitalist economic system that created and perpetuated their victim hood.

He concluded that it was time that the Indian culture stopped feeling sorry for themselves and making excuses for their past failures and took advantage of their intelligence, skills and inherent toughness to join the 21st Century as a capitalistic economic force. This did not mean they had to surrender their integrity or their tribal honor. It just meant that they had to shed their victim hood.

I agree.

Adam

I'd agree too, if it weren't such a load of rubbish. Indians feeling sorry for themselves? Go down to a reservation and say that to them face to face.

I have friends in AIM[American Indian Movement] and they, like Malcom X believe that victim hood never works. It is a different type of slavery. That "pity me" was rejected by Malcom and it worked.

Adam

You're a fan of Malcom X?

I am a Yankee "fan". I was one of the few white people who were allowed near Malcom X in Harlem in the 60's. This was when his message was black capitalism amongst his other messages.

I respected him and thought it was a great loss when he was assassinated. My uncle did the investigation of his assassination, my uncle was, at that time, the first Latino to be appointed Inspector in NY Police Department history. This was in the Lindsay administration. Lindsay was a liberal Republican who we got elected as a fusion mayor. Good looking, but one of the dumbest and worst administrators in NY City history which is saying something!

Adam

Thank you for the reply Adam...you have certainly lived through interesting times.

[Ed Hudgins]

Happy Columbus Day 2011!

[BaalChatzaf]

The Columbus that Americans hail and praise in an artifact of Washington Irving's writing skill.

Columbus, while a master sailor and navigator was a complete screw up as a colonial governor. Under his rule the locals suffered terribly from disease and slavery. The encounter with Spaniards was not happy for the locals. The Spaniards were nasty, brutish and Catholic. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Ed Hudgins]

• For a balanced evaluation of Colubus opening America to Europeans, see my article above.
  

[syrakusos]

We all get to chime in without changing anyone else's opinions with our facts, so, allow me to say ...

Who controls the maps controls the story. Contemporary colonial maps give specific places and names to European settlements - Boston, Providence, etc., but show native lands as undifferentiated open expanses "Oneida" ... "Huron" ... even though some "villages" had 10,000 inhabitants supported by a combination of farming and hunting.

The Mayans despite their calendar and arithmetic were 500 years gone when the Spanish showed up.

The Aztecs drank chocolate - used cacao beans as money - and fought like demons for three years against 300 men armed with steel weapons even as three kings died, two at the hands of the Spanish. The Incas chewed coca leaves and 17 men defeated them because they did not care one way or the other.

Based on his behavior, Columbus was a savage.

Based on his geography, he was an idiot.

We can argue the Great Man Theory of History, but if Columbus's crew had mutinied, some other captain would have found the New World, accidentally. It is also possible that the Americans might have crossed the ocean first. We will never know what might have been.

[George H. Smith]

Adam Smith -- not a fan of Columbus. Wealth of Nations, IV.vii.8-16:

But the countries which Columbus discovered, either in this or in any of his subsequent voyages, had no resemblance to those which he had gone in quest of. Instead of the wealth, cultivation, and populousness of China and Indostan, he found, in St. Domingo, and in all the other parts of the new world which he ever visited, nothing but a country quite covered with wood, uncultivated, and inhabited only by some tribes of naked and miserable savages. He was not very willing, however, to believe that they were not the same with some of the countries described by Marco Polo, the first European who had visited, or at least had left behind him, any description of China or the East Indies; and a very slight resemblance, such as that which he found between the name of Cibao, a mountain in St. Domingo, and that of Cipango mentioned by Marco Polo, was frequently sufficient to make him return to this favourite prepossession, though contrary to the clearest evidence.In his letters to Ferdinand and Isabella he called the countries which he had discovered the Indies. He entertained no doubt but that they were the extremity of those which had been described by Marco Polo, and that they were not very distant from the Ganges, or from the countries which had been conquered by Alexander. Even when at last convinced that they were different, he still flattered himself that those rich countries were at no great distance, and, in a subsequent voyage, accordingly, went in quest of them along the coast of Terra Firma, and towards the Isthmus of Darien.

In consequence of this mistake of Columbus, the name of the Indies has stuck to those unfortunate countries ever since; and when it was at last clearly discovered that the new were altogether different from the old Indies, the former were called the West, in contradistinction to the latter, which were called the East Indies.

It was of importance to Columbus, however, that the countries which he had discovered, whatever they were, should be represented to the court of Spain as of very great consequence; and, in what constitutes the real riches of every country, the animal and vegetable productions of the soil, there was at that time nothing which could well justify such a representation of them....

Finding nothing either in the animals or vegetables of the newly discovered countries which could justify a very advantageous representation of them, Columbus turned his view towards their minerals; and in the richness of the productions of this third kingdom, he flattered himself he had found a full compensation for the insignificancy of those of the other two. The little bits of gold with which the inhabitants ornamented their dress, and which, he was informed, they frequently found in the rivulets and torrents that fell from the mountains, were sufficient to satisfy him that those mountains abounded with the richest gold mines. St. Domingo, therefore, was represented as a country abounding with gold, and, upon that account, (according to the prejudices not only of the present time, but of those times) an inexhaustible source of real wealth to the crown and kingdom of Spain. When Columbus, upon his return from his first voyage, was introduced with a sort of triumphal honours to the sovereigns of Castile and Arragon, the principal productions of the countries which he had discovered were carried in solemn procession before him. The only valuable part of them consisted in some little fillets, bracelets, and other ornaments of gold, and in some bales of cotton. The rest were mere objects of vulgar wonder and curiosity; some reeds of an extraordinary size, some birds of a very beautiful plumage, and some stuffed skins of the huge alligator and manati; all of which were preceded by six or seven of the wretched natives, whose singular colour and appearance added greatly to the novelty of the show.

In consequence of the representations of Columbus, the council of Castile determined to take possession of countries of which the inhabitants were plainly incapable of defending themselves. The pious purpose of converting them to Christianity sanctified the injustice of the project. But the hope of finding treasures of gold there was the sole motive which prompted him to undertake it; and to give this motive the greater weight, it was proposed by Columbus that the half of all the gold and silver that should be found there should belong to the crown. This proposal was approved of by the council.

As long as the whole or the far greater part of the gold, which the first adventurers imported into Europe, was got by so very easy a method as the plundering of the defenceless natives, it was not perhaps very difficult to pay even this heavy tax. But when the natives were once fairly stripped of all that they had, which, in St. Domingo, and in all the other countries discovered by Columbus, was done completely in six or eight years, and when in order to find more it had become necessary to dig for it in the mines, there was no longer any possibility of paying this tax. The rigorous exaction of it, accordingly, first occasioned, it is said, the total abandoning of the mines of St. Domingo, which have never been wrought since. It was soon reduced therefore to a third; then to a fifth; afterwards to a tenth; and at last to a twentieth part of the gross produce of the gold mines.The tax upon silver continued for a long time to be a fifth of the gross produce. It was reduced to a tenth only in the course of the present century. But the first adventurers do not appear to have been much interested about silver. Nothing less precious than gold seemed worthy of their attention....

Ghs

[Dennis Hardin]

It does seem odd that Columbus is considered such a great man by so many. His legacy was certainly great in terms of what he did for Western civilization, but character-wise he was anything but admirable. Multiple witnesses testified that he was a brutal tyrant during the time he served as Governor of the Indies, committing multiple atrocities, although this was never proven in court. King Ferdinand evidently ordered his release from jail before his trial was complete. Lest anyone exonerate him for the misdeeds of the Spanish Crown in the aftermath of his voyages, he continued to demand 10% of all the profits made in the new lands.

There is evidently some controversy among historians about whether he ever acknowledged that he had not discovered a new route to Asia. One authority says he wrote about an unknown continent in his journals, but others insist the majority of his journal entries confirm his self-delusion persisted to the day he died.

He not only brought slavery but small pox to the native tribes of Hispaniola, and the pandemic reduced the native population from 250,000 to less than 500 within 50 years. I don’t suppose it would be exactly fair to pin that human tragedy directly on him, but, given everything else we know, it’s tempting.

Still, I suppose we all owe the miserable, insufferable SOB a debt of gratitude.

Thanks, you jerk.

[BaalChatzaf]

Still, I suppose we all owe the miserable, insufferable SOB a debt of gratitude.

Thanks, you jerk.

John Cabot did better exploration and less damage.

Ba'al Chatzaf