We Should Know Our History

lonsberry.com ^ | February 16, 2004 | Bob Lonsberry`

[ntnychik]

In honor of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, whose birthdays once were on our calendars.

[truthingod]

I agree with you! Most folks don't take the time to read the real history of America. Yes, we've had our issues with the past. God took imperfect people in the Old testament to build a nation and a people for His purposes. They were of many races/colors, but imperfect nonetheless.
When "out of reality" historians attack the seeds of the America by trying to destroy the people who were ultimately chosen by God to frame the nation we know now, they insult the creative purpose of God. Racism is a sick part of human history-it has no place anywhere. Yet, the idea that white privilege and the white european ideas permeate "history" now. Let's face it, God used the people who came to inhabit this land for a purpose which turned out pretty good. I know, that some of the wealth of this land came on the lives of people forced into slavery, and it is a stain on this land. But, it should not destroy the focus that God had intended for America. I just wish people would let God lead and praise Him for His goodness towards this land.

[newgeezer]

In honor of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, whose birthdays once were on our calendars.

Blame the calendar printers. Because today, as a nation, we still officially celebrate Washington's Birthday, not "Presidents' Day."

[VRWCTexan]

Extract of George Washington's farewell address 1796

Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.

The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.

Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

[BadAndy]

The earliest instance I remember of tearing down the American heritage was when schools made children debate wheather Truman was a war criminal for dropping the A-bomb on the Japs.

[Lunatic Fringe]

I hate to break this to you, but Columbus indeed was a brutal, racist man who wished to exploit the New World for his own personal gain, and when he didn't find the gold he was seeking instead enslaved the natives of this continent.

And to call the "unfortunate displacement of Native Americans" a useful event is repugnant, no matter what the benefits we have today. It was attempted genocide, pure and simple.

I love America and our history, but between the idealized canvas of history and the ugly condemnation of our founders, the truth lies somewhere- and it's something that we all should acknowledge and accept, with few regrets and no apologies.

[truthingod]

I have to tell you, no matter what--Columbus was used by God to bring about the American experience we now know. As I said before, imperfect people are still used by God to further His plans. Have you read the actual diaries of Columbus? Do you know how much he sought the Lord to even get the ships and help to look for America? He may have made mistakes once he got here, but that does not discredit his work period.

[Lunatic Fringe]

Religion aside (I am agnostic, and God and politics just don't mix well), the methods of Columbus were brutal and criminal- I don't care who he thought he was trying to please, or how pious he claimed to be.

Columbus did not seek America, nor did he try to establish a New World. Columbus was looking for a shorter trade route to India, and he was in it for the money- greed. Not that greed is a bad thing, it often drives us to make the world better even if our motives are selfish- but let's be realistic and true as to his intentions.

To teach that Columbus was some noble character of history trying to make things better for the world does our children a disservice.

[FrankR]

"I hate to break this to you, but Columbus indeed was a brutal, racist man who wished to exploit the New World for his own personal gain, and when he didn't find the gold he was seeking instead enslaved the natives of this continent. "

So....how long did you and this Columbus fellow date?

[truthingod]

Wrong. His diaries do not speak of much of what you say prior to his leaving. In fact, one of the main reasons he went on this mission was to bring faith to other nations. He may have failed in some ways personally, the ultimate purpose of giving people vision and hope was accomplished.
Let's face it-he made it.

[truthingod]

Read the book, " The Light and the Glory" much info about Columbus and the real reasons he came across the ocean.

[BadAndy]

This is Howard Zinn revisionism. First of all Columbus sailed for Spain, he was not an "American". Second, the natives in America died from smallpox and other diseases which were transmitted accidentally (the existance of microbes and the mechanisms of disease transmission were not known). It was not genocide as the term is used today. It could just as easily have been european being wiped out by diseases brought from the new world.

I think that to be fair, men have to be judged by the standards of their time. Columbus was widely acclaimed as a great man in his time. To judge him by today's standards is wrong. For instance, if eating meat becomes a heinous crime 200 years from now, would it be fair to harshly judge anyone who ate hamburgers in 2004?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Who’d have thought a day would come in America when George Washington would be nothing more than a caricature in a television commercial.

The founders expected it.

[ought-six]

Columbus had some real brass danglers for climbing aboard a small wooden ship (boat is probably more appropriate) and sailing off into the unknown "where dragons be!" (remember the warning on the old sea charts?). For that, he should be admired. However, his less than kindly treatment of the aborigines he found when he got the West Indies was deporable.

[Lunatic Fringe]

Your point about judging people according to their times is valid, and yes smallpox did kill hundreds of thousands of Natives. But the government of the United States in the 19th century systematically pushed natives off their lands, broke treaties, and killed whole tribes. Natives were often agressors as well, but there is well documented evidence that many leaders in the U.S. government felt it would be best if the Native population were completely wiped out.

[truthingod]

I think it must be pointed out that in viewing history from our point of view, how will we be remembered? Lots of folks start out with the best of intentions for all kinds of reasons-but along the way life comes and how we respond to that is what we may be most remembered for. It is how we finish that probably means more than how we start. So to try and focus the whole idea of looking at history honestly-we might use their failures as turning points to do good for the right reason-hopefully.

[FreedomCalls]

So you're OK with Aztec priests killing 20,000 people a year, cutting out their still beating hearts to appease a "god" so that the sun would rise the next day?

Cortés and his men were the only Europeans to see the human sacrifices of the Aztecs, for the practice ended shortly after the successful Spanish conquest of the Aztec empire. But since the sixteenth century, Aztec sacrifice has persisted in puzzling scholars. No human society known to history approached that of the Aztecs in the quantities of people offered as religious sacrifices: 20,000 a year is a common estimate.

This is an account written by a conquistadore named Bernal Diaz:

"The dismal drum of Huichilobos sounded again, accompanied by conches, horns, and trumpet-like instruments. It was a terrifying sound, and when we looked at the tall cue [temple-pyramid] from which it came we saw our comrades who had been captured in Cortés defeat being dragged up the steps to be sacrificed. ... Then after they had danced the papas [Aztec priests] laid them down on their backs on some narrow stones of sacrifice and, cutting open their chests, drew out their palpitating hearts which they offered to the idols before them. Then they kicked the bodies down the steps, and the Indian butchers who were waiting below and cut off their arms and legs and flayed their faces, which after they prepared like glove leather, with their beards on, and kept for their drunken festivals. Then they ate their flesh with sauce of peppers and tomatoes. They sacrificed all our men in this way, eating their legs and arms, offering their hearts and blood to their idols, as I have said, and throwing their trunks and entrails to the lions and tigers, snakes and serpents that they kept in the wild-beast houses I have described."

[Alberta's Child]

The irony of it all is that if Columbus and his crew were avowed homosexuals and had sailed across the ocean to escape persecution in Europe, they would be revered as heroes today even if they had slaughtered every human being in the New World within six months of their arrival.

[BadAndy]

I do not condone breaking treaties or the slaughter of innocents, however I have tried to understand the rationale for what happened to the Indians. These days it is hard to imagine Indians as a real threat, but in the 17 and 1800's they were a menace to settlers living on the plains or moving across country. They often mercilessly killed men, women and children, frequently in savage, grotesque ways. Thus people were not very sympathetic to them or their claims (think terrorists). Relatives, friends and other settlers would raise he|| demanding revenge, protection, and elimination of the threat. Indians also broke treaties, refused to control their hotheads and were generally uncooperative. This contributed to their defeat.

[CGVet58]

re: your response to lunatic on the fringe - regarding your

"... could as easily been europeans wiped out by microbes...".

It was; several centuries earlier... the Black Death.

Spread by rats who came from asia on ships returning from the then-increasing trade.