US: Christopher Columbus Was a Bad Guy

Just a side note... slavery was not new at this point. It's been happening all through history, most notably (in terms of widely known) being the Egyptians and the folks they had building the pyramids for them!

Yes, slavery wasn't new. Wholesale enslavement of one race or ethnicity? That actually was fairly uncommon.

Just a side note... slavery was not new at this point. It's been happening all through history, most notably (in terms of widely known) being the Egyptians and the folks they had building the pyramids for them!

Slavery was certainly not new! What I meant was that the boom in slavery that opened up after the "discovery" of the New World can be partially attributed to Columbus and his voyages.

Yes, slavery wasn't new. Wholesale enslavement of one race or ethnicity? That actually was fairly uncommon.

Well, except for those pesky Jews.

I don’t have any objections to exposing children (or adults) to different viewpoints and letting them decide for themselves but I do think there is a real danger in applying 21st century mores and ethics to events that occurred in the 15th century.

I think it should be up to the children - with guidance from their teachers - to decide whether they should be applying 20th century ethics to 15th century events.

That's what education is really about.

Well, except for those pesky Jews.

Not Jews, actually. I considered that when I wrote my answer. It's not like ALL Jews across the Roman and Babylonian empires were enslaved. Israelites were enslaved. It's a fine distinction, I grant you (what? me? splitting hairs? NEVAH!) but it is there.

Although assuming that the story of Joseph's amazing technicolor dreamcoat is not just apocrypha, the enslavement of Jews living in Egypt would certainly qualify.

That's why I used the weasel word in my previous post.

Not Jews, actually. I considered that when I wrote my answer. It's not like ALL Jews across the Roman and Babylonian empires were enslaved. Israelites were enslaved. It's a fine distinction, I grant you (what? me? splitting hairs? NEVAH!) but it is there.

Although assuming that the story of Joseph's amazing technicolor dreamcoat is not just apocrypha, the enslavement of Jews living in Egypt would certainly qualify.

That's why I used the weasel word in my previous post.

I figured as much.

You didn't understand what I was saying. I was saying we should put ALL his actions in the context of his time, not that we should teach about the duality of character.

Thanks for the clarification there.  I'm sorry I misunderstood your post, but I didn't see anything in that specific post about putting his actions in the context of time.  

This...

If he is capable of singularly great things, why can't he be equally capable of singularly evil things?

...seemed to imply that you thought the great and evil of him should be portrayed.  Which is why I asked you if you think the great and evil of Hitler should also be portayed.  Yes he was an evil man...he did however have positive contributions to society (mostly engineering projects and inventions).

I think it should be up to the children - with guidance from their teachers - to decide whether they should be applying 20th century ethics to 15th century events.

That's what education is really about.

I agree with you - but personally, I still can't find it in me to think that slavery was ever considered to be an acceptable practice by the majority of the populace in any era. I think what makes the difference is that power structures have changed, and paradigms have shifted that now allow individuals more control over their destiny.

Serfs who toiled for lord and manor were essentially slaves tied to the land and eked out lives that sound pretty miserable for hundreds of years - does that mean that they were OK with it? In the 1300's European populations were decimated by plague, and things changed, and labor was suddenly in demand. Good-bye serfdom!

I just see it as they had no choice because of the situation they were in - that doesn't mean that the majority of the population thought slavery was OK or an accepted "norm", it just meant the people holding the power did, and those who objected had limited means to change things.

Am I crazy to think this way?

I agree with you - but personally, I still can't find it in me to think that slavery was ever considered to be an acceptable practice by the majority of the populace in any era. I think what makes the difference is that power structures have changed, and paradigms have shifted that now allow individuals more control over their destiny.

Serfs who toiled for lord and manor were essentially slaves tied to the land and eked out lives that sound pretty miserable for hundreds of years - does that mean that they were OK with it? In the 1300's European populations were decimated by plague, and things changed, and labor was suddenly in demand. Good-bye serfdom!

I just see it as they had no choice because of the situation they were in - that doesn't mean that the majority of the population thought slavery was OK or an accepted "norm", it just meant the people holding the power did, and those who objected had limited means to change things.

Am I crazy to think this way?

Not crazy, no, but I do think you're being very American and 21st century.  We are used to being able to indulge our whims, push our boundaries, luxuriate in our freedoms, follow our dreams, and so on, so for us, a life of unremitting toil over which we have no control seems unthinkable.  If you dropped a 21st century American into life as a serf, then they would almost certainly revolt.  However, humans are products of their upbringings, if you are born into an environment and raised in it, and never given reason to believe that life could hold anything else for you, then it's far better for your peace of mind to accept your lot and make the best of it.  Plus, if you're working from dawn until dusk, when will you have time for philosophy?  Slavery and serfdom didn't exist for centuries because people willfully ignored it, but because they found reasons to accept it. 

I read that, actually. I thought the "Civil War was not about slavery?" chapter to be stupendous because I actually remember being taught in junior high about how tangential of an issue slavery was.

And how many condensed versions of the history portray "Honest Abe" as the great emancipator?   Read beyond the grossly distorted versions and you find that Lincoln was nothing of the sort.   When you get the full story, it becomes clear that his sole aim was to keep the Union together at any cost, and he was quite happy to trample on the Constitution and start what in all probability was an illegal war to do so.

Not crazy, no, but I do think you're being very American and 21st century.

Why very American? After all, slavery actually took deep root in America but was never as common-place in Europe itself.

Maybe you're the one being very American, not her.

I just meant that Americans have difficulty with the notion of accepting their lot in life, and may find the idea of people accepting slavery as a norm particularly difficult as a result.  I wasn't saying that slavery was more common in the US than in other countries. 

I think it should be up to the children - with guidance from their teachers - to decide whether they should be applying 20th century ethics to 15th century events.

That's what education is really about.

While the philosophical nature of should we or should we not be applying 20th century ethics to 15th century event might be a great essay questions for high school or college...I don't believe it's age appropriate for young children. 

Young children are very impressionable and pretty much take everything for what it is (when it comes to being "taught" by the teacher anyway).  If the teacher says he's a good guy, he's a good guy...if the teacher says he's a bad guy, he's a bad guy.  It's not until we're older that we are able to take in factual information and formulate our own opinions...or question what the teacher says.

I just meant that Americans have difficulty with the notion of accepting their lot in life

Woah, interesting and very broad statement. More so than people in other countries or cultures?

Be interesting to hear the basis for you saying that.

My point about you being American and not her was based on the fact that abolitionist thinking started in Europe, not in America. Somewhere along the line, Europeans stopped thinking of slavery as something acceptable.  And they did so earlier than Americans did.

 

If you don't know history you're doomed to repeat it...

There are some things in history that younger children shouldn't be exposed to (don't need a loss of innocence also).  But as a former history education major I fully believe that students should learn the truth.  No matter how dark and gloomy it is. 

Plus, it might actually make students a bit more interested in the past, if it isn't all seen through rose-colored glasses. 

Ps-Once more- Read Lies my Teacher Told Me.  It'll knock your socks off.