Mises Institute: Christopher Columbus never committed genocide?

[IcarusAngel]

1. a plague killed 90 million indigenous people of the United States,
2. which in turn led to the reforestation of North America,
3. which in turn sucked a lot of CO2 from the atmosphere,
4. which in turn started the Little Ice Age.

Yep, it was Columbus's fault.
The idea that there were about as many people living in North America at the time of the arrival of Columbus as there were at about the turn of the 19th into the 20th century is simply ridiculous.

The article actually says that there might have been at least 90 million in the Americas, which is not outside of mainstream scholarship:

According to a 1999 estimate from the United Nations, the earth's population in the begenning of the sixteenth century was about 500 million. If Dobyns was right, disease claimed the lives of 80 to 100 million Indians by the first third of the seventeenth century. All these numbers are at best rough approximations, but their implications are clear: the epidemics killed about one out of every five people on earth. According to W. George Lovell, a geographer at Queen's University in Ontario, it was "the greatest destruction of lives in human history."

--1491, New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, p. 105.


The claim that disease/war/famine did not wipe out people is what is ridiculous.



The comments from the Miseans are even more interesting, however. They show a pathology in the modern right.


"What amuses me is the notion that Professor Theis is said to be a flake because he points out that the Left has been lying about global warming. Not only is Professor Theis therefore supposedly a "Bircher"--and "third-rate" to boot--but he is supposedly spinning....gasp (are you ready for this?): "Conspiracy Theory.

...
Except for one thing: no one disputes that the green socialist utopians were caught fudging numbers to make their case, and silencing and persecuting dissenters. Hacked e-mails proved this. Heard of "Climate-Gate", Comrades?"


(Global warming is a scientific theory, not a "leftist theory.")


"Columbus was courageous, audacious, independent, and rational. I admire him.

If he was responsible for murduring or enslaving or stealing from natives, that's bad. I don't know that these charges are true, but they may be. If they were true, such behavior would deserve criticism, even though Columbus lived in an age in which such cruelty was considered to be normal and approproiate. But for Columbus to have thoughtfully and purposefully rejected such behavior would have been truly remarkable."


"I call bulls*** on those stats. There would literally be no pureblooded indigenous Americans left. They would ALL have been forced to outmarry with those kinds of numbers.

European conquerors need apologize for nothing. They stayed and prospered because they were smarter, more fit and more humane than the natives."
-- The Anti-Gnostic (A common poster there with an account.)





"1. Without the conquistadors and the Catholic Church, most of Meso and South America would be even more impoverished and brutal than it already is. And no conception of individual property rights, by the way so no, I don't get all weepy because 500 years ago the European empires sailed west instead of the Mayans and Aztecs refraining from their human sacrifices long enough to invent things like compasses and gunpowder and heading east.

Conquest is a fact of human history. Ask the Phoenicians, Greeks, Armenians, Syrians, Berbers, etc. about that Mohammedan tide that swept out of the Arabian peninsula and homogenized hundreds of distinct cultures. Or Genghis Khan, who raped so many women his DNA is estimated to be in 1 of every 300 Caucasians currently alive. We will probably re-conquer Africa, by the way, because I don't see the rest of the world just standing by while all (and I do mean ALL) the wildlife is hunted to extinction and half the human population succumbs to disease and butchery. "


(No evidence is given for any of this. Also, reconquering Africa will lead to no doubt millions of deaths.)


"and...

2. You think slavery wouldn't exist under anarcho-capitalism? Probably a third of the population has no--as in NONE, ZERO, NADA--ability to participate in an advanced economy; the welfare state is the only thing keeping them alive and breeding. When the welfare state goes slavery will be their best hope of dignified employment. There will be both demand and supply. "


Slavery would exist in anarcho-capitalism


http://mises.org/daily/5769/The-Calu...ainst-Columbus

[#FF0000]

The claim that disease/war/famine did not wipe out people is what is ridiculous.

I don't know about this. I mean, disease definitely kill a lot of people, but I don't think it was as deadly as people say -- it's kind of ridiculous for a disease to have that kind of mortality rate.

I think that's the same conclusion that they come to in 1491 btw.

[Obama 2012]

Columbus is one of my heros. If it weren't for him, our great nation wouldn't exist!

[IcarusAngel]

Yes. I think disease killed at most 80%. However, the arguments by the Libertarians had no sources, as usual.

however, Diamond does give the figure of 95% in his most famous book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=kLK...page&q&f=false

[#FF0000]

Well yeah but like I said

Disease killing that many people seems a little outrageous.

Moot point tho I guess.

[Invader Zim]

The article actually says that there might have been at least 90 million in the Americas, which is not outside of mainstream scholarship:

Yes, it is.

[Ocean Seal]

Why does the Mises institute concern themselves with defending Columbus? I thought that he was a merchantilist (a group that they profess to be against)? Could it be that they're just racist?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well yeah but like I said

Disease killing that many people seems a little outrageous.

Moot point tho I guess.

I thought that native American peoples suffered especially from European plagues because it was something completely new to their immune systems and therefore they had little to no resistance to these recently-introduced infections?

Yes, I understand that it's not a good propagation strategy for a human pathogen to kill 90%+ of its hosts, which is why the Ebola virus has had trouble spreading from its original ranges. But the diseases brought from Europe had no previous interaction with the immune systems of native Americans.

[DinodudeEpic]

Wait a second! So, one Spanish explorer who just wanted to find a new route to India should be responsible for all the deaths the Native Americans had from the Colonial governments of Europe....

Why blame Columbus for what the Spanish government did to the Native Americans? That's like blaming the man who made the MP-40 for the Holocaust, or Adam Smith for 19th century sweatshops.

Because, let's blame the explorers instead of blaming the monarchy for the genocide that Spain committed upon Native Americans. Since, monarchies are always good and never commit mass murder.

But, Columbus shouldn't be praised either. He was just a trader who just managed to discover America for Europeans. The Vikings had already discover America back in the 8th century, so it isn't really special.

And that's ignoring the fact that the Native Americans discovered the continent back in 10,000 BC.

Also, plagues are not genocide. They were going to happen whether the Europeans would befriend the Native American or not. A real case of genocide would be when the Spanish sacked the Aztec capital, and killed tons of people. Not something that Europeans don't even understand. (They thought diseases were made by the devil back then.)

Of course, Mises Institute is still idiotic for both assuming that Columbus single handedly caused everything that happened with intent and for saying that the Spanish government/Catholic Church was great for doing this.

[Invader Zim]

I thought that native American peoples suffered especially from European plagues because it was something completely new to their immune systems and therefore they had little to no resistance to these recently-introduced infections?

Yes, I understand that it's not a good propagation strategy for a human pathogen to kill 90%+ of its hosts, which is why the Ebola virus has had trouble spreading from its original ranges. But the diseases brought from Europe had no previous interaction with the immune systems of native Americans.

It also has to be emphasised that it was not just one disease, it was multiple strains of a whole host of different pathogens sustained over the course of a 150 years (and in some instances longer), preventing the recovery of the population. So we aren't talking about a single disease killing 90%+ of the population in one go. We are talking about one disease killing maybe 10%-15% of a regions population, followed by another similarly deadly out break within a few years, and then another, and so on.

[Lynx]

The Spanish and the Arawak

A couple more examples like this and we may have a trend...

[Revolution starts with U]

[FONT=Arial]

[FONT=Arial]Columbus’s arrogance and exploitation regarding slavery began on his second voyage. Ferdinand and Isabella had ordered that the natives be treated kindly. In opposition to this order, Columbus began exporting slaves in great numbers in 1494. It was because he was not making any real profit elsewhere on the island that he decided to exploit the one source of income--people--he had in abundance (Fernandez-Armesto 107). When word reached him that the crown did not want him sending more slaves, Columbus ignored it. He was desperate to make his expeditions profitable enough for Ferdinand and Isabella's continued support. Evidently he was not reprimanded because thousands of Indians were exported. By the time they reached Spain, usually a third of them were dead. Bartolome de las Casas wrote that one Spaniard had told him they did not need a compass to find their way back to Spain; they could simply follow the bodies of floating Indians who had been tossed overboard when they died (17)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]The Indians that were not exported were put into slavery on the island. There was literally no way to escape some form of enslavement. Columbus would let the settlers of his establishment choose whomever they wanted for their own[/FONT]

http://campuspages.cvcc.vccs.edu/pol...witt.amlit.htm

Tha'ts just from the first link from Googling it. To say Columbus is responsible for all the deaths in the amrerica's is kinda ludicrous.. sure. But to say he was a good guy, or anything but a murderer, theif, and slave driver is disgusting.

Me thinks they're just racists.[/FONT]

[Franz Fanonipants]

Violence, death from forced labor, etc. alongside virulent diseases (a 90% mortality rate is a little high by itself) are all far more likely.

The thing is, all of this shit is scientific in terms of everywhere that First Nations or w/e you want to call Indians have a first contact situation w/Europeans the mortality rate is pretty similar.

[CommunityBeliever]

"Great men" like Christopher Colombus don't commit genocide, class systems do.

[Os Cangaceiros]

2. You think slavery wouldn't exist under anarcho-capitalism? Probably a third of the population has no--as in NONE, ZERO, NADA--ability to participate in an advanced economy; the welfare state is the only thing keeping them alive and breeding. When the welfare state goes slavery will be their best hope of dignified employment. There will be both demand and supply. "

ahahahahahahahahahahaha

weeeeeeeeeoooooooooohahahahahahahahahaha

[Os Cangaceiros]

Personally I think that the body count from war/genocide would've been a lot higher during the initial colonization of the Americas, except for the fact that 1) the colonists had limited resources, and 2) the north and south american continents are, obviously, massive. Native populations could be moved back and back and back into the frontier, or driven into remote regions such as what happened with the native populations in the southern Mexico/Guatemala area, or the Seminoles in Florida, where it was hard to really eliminate them.

Of course, this wasn't true for all native populations. Try finding an indigenious Cuban.

[Demogorgon]

Well Mises.org is a cesspool of racism, authoritarianism and other favourites of the ultra-right ironically dressed up as "freedom". You will regularly see people there argue that whatever was done to the native population was justified because as they had no system of property rights (as the Mises crowd se it) they couldn't be seen as having any of the rights that they claim others had.

[robbo203]

"and...

2. You think slavery wouldn't exist under anarcho-capitalism? Probably a third of the population has no--as in NONE, ZERO, NADA--ability to participate in an advanced economy; the welfare state is the only thing keeping them alive and breeding. When the welfare state goes slavery will be their best hope of dignified employment. There will be both demand and supply. "


Slavery would exist in anarcho-capitalism


http://mises.org/daily/5769/The-Calu...ainst-Columbus

The Mises Instititute is a political cult of zealous adherents to the theology of the market. It is only able to make a few waves because it is financially sustained by some wealthy eccentric backers. In practical terms it is and will remain irrelevant as a free market think tank. No capitalist state anywhere will seriously entertain let alone take on board its crackpot ideas

And crackpot they are. The MI is the very embodiment of irrationalilty. Here we have a case in point - slavery. Ive come across anarcho-capitalist stuff that actually tries to present a "libertarian" defence of the institution of slavery notwithstanding that it totally contradicts the libertarian principle of so called "Self Ownership". Apparently slavery is OK if it is entered into voluntarily. The fact that the slave has no choice in the matter of what he or she does in the service of his or her master/mistress and can be bought and sold on this wonderful free market where they will rip out your vital organs if the price is right - thats no joke its happening in the Sinai desert right now - see
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/03/world/meast/pleitgen-sinai-organ-smugglers/ind\
ex.html?eref=rss_topstories - does not seem to occur to these advocates of "voluntary market exchange"

[dodger]

Well surprised nobody mentioned the 'AMERINDIANS revenge'.....or the French disease as we used to call it. Syphilis brought back by Columbus. Some talk about it being here before. I think weight of opinion is it came from Amerinds. The death knell of feudalism was sounded by the Black Death in Britain. When urban workers were in short supply and the countryside could not plug the gaps, women and children were drafted in. Followed by immigration and technical innovation. whatever was cheaper at the time. Disease was to leave a mark in Americas too. Many missionaries died within 2 yrs of arrival as must have others . The white plantation workers of Barados were replaced by negroes for that reason. In1643 there were 37,200 whites....86% of the population. Between 33-50% died before they were free. Yellow fever or malaria in the main. Unless war famine natural disaster are factored in 90% seems high on the mainland. After slavery was abolished in Britain's colonies, Indenture carried on...from India in the main...28 m from 1846-1932. They are here to this day as are the white descendants...I worked with several, 100% W. Indian in language, curry goat and cricket. The human races capacity to endure defies my understanding. When America 'liberated' Philippines from Spain many thousands were sent to Alaska to work in fishing and canneries. I'M SO INTRIGUED I HAVE STARTED RESEARCHING IT. They are still migrating 21st century style and returning, I saw a mountain of Cadavas in the freight terminal.

[La Comédie Noire]

I've heard this argument before, that because the vast majority of Indians were killed by European Diseases that somehow makes it okay, conveniently forgetting to mention why Europeans were on the continent in the first place.

I'm not surprised they would be trying to defend a European Imperialist, as we found out in the "communism is Psuedoscientific thread" cappies don't understand primitive accumulation and how that shit contradicted their very notion of property rights.