I was reading fatpandas bio a minute ago and she mentioned a class where they were taught Christopher Columbus was present in some divine meeting. I was curious about this and stumbled upon this enlightening article from the 1992 Ensign...

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/10/columbus-and-the-hand-of-god?lang=eng

Here's my favorite part:

"Some of the debunkers, however, have become overenthusiastic, even slanderous, in their attempts to demythologize Columbus. Their approach often serves to bolster a political cause rather than promote a search for truth. Such activity is counterproductive, not because it tears down the heroic myth, but because it merely sets another myth in its place—the equally false myth of Columbus as a villain.

What, then, do we know of the real Columbus? [...] Perhaps the greatest motivating feature of his life was his faith. His writings and the records kept by his contemporaries indicate that Columbus had unshakable faith that he was an instrument in God’s hands.

And, indeed, the Book of Mormon affirms that he was..."

Apparently raping and pillaging for the Lord are acceptable upgrades to lying for the Lord.

electricliahona Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Apparently raping and pillaging for the Lord are
> acceptable upgrades to lying for the Lord.

And murdering. Don't forget that.

http://www.mit.edu/~thistle/v9/9.11/1columbus.html

The author Ward Churchill is a controversial, often extreme, example of how historians revise the past to suit present needs. (He infamously called the workers killed at the 9/11 World Trade Center as "little Eichmanns," thus implicitly deserving of their fate.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill

Even calling Ward Churchill a historian is inaccurate. Historians have their biases, often somewhat unconscious, but he had a clear and extreme agenda that involved trashing Columbus' accomplishments while exaggerating his excesses. Given that Columbus died in 1506, only 14 years after his first voyage, and most of the depredations by the Spanish took place after his death (Cortez 1518, Pizarro 1528, come to mind), common sense suggests that the claims of de Las Casas laying the blame at the Admiral's feet be weighed against others. And while genocide was indeed a factor in all acts of European colonial imperialism, in the case of Native Americans, over 90% of the devastation of their populations was the result of introduced diseases such as smallpox, measels, and cholera.

This extraction from Churchill (apparently written before "Godwin's Law" and the Internet deservedly relegated such analogies to the ashcan of cyber ridicule) might be acceptable in a high school history class, but not in an authentic classroom where the goal is interpreation of actual facts.

http://www.mit.edu/~thistle/v9/9.11/1columbus.html

>"Whatever the process unleashed by his "discovery" of the "New World," it is said, the discoverer himself cannot be blamed. Whatever his defects and offenses, they are surpassed by the luster of his achievements; however "tragic" or "unfortunate" certain dimensions of his legacy may be, they are more than offset by the benefits even for the victims of the resulting blossoming of a "superior civilization" in the Americas. Essentially the same arguments might be advanced with regard to Adolf Hitler: Hitler caused the Volkswagen to be created, after all, and the autobahn. His leadership of Germany led to jet propulsion, significant advances in rocket telemetry, laid the foundation for genetic engineering."

That last is a new one to me since humans have been engaging in "genetic engineering" since they first domesticated the dog around 16,000 years ago (as well as plants a few millenia later). And never mind that the term "Eugenics" was coined in 1683 before Hitler was born.

Strictly junk history and hyperbole folks; I suppose it's the preferred fodder of the the drama llamas and drama mamas out there, but some of us prefer actual intellectual nourishment.

One more...

>He went, as his own diaries, reports, and letters make clear, fully expecting to encounter wealth {belonging to others].

I'll borrow this one from my buddy Bagely, who is an actual historian: "Nobody even went West planning to go broke."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2015 11:15AM by SL Cabbie.

Also for anyone curious, I've found the source of the Columbus info too -- apparently Wilford Woodruff met with the spirits of the dead signers of the Declaration of Independence, who wondered why nobody had been baptized for them yet. So he went and was baptized for "the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and fifty other eminent men, making one hundred in all, including John Wesley, Columbus, and others; I then baptized him for every President of the United States, except three...".

The three missing ones presumably were baptized later after "their cause is just."

Inspiring stuff.

Hahahahaha. Wow, it really is embarrassing to be LDS these days.

electricliahona Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also for anyone curious, I've found the source of
> the Columbus info too -- apparently Wilford
> Woodruff met with the spirits of the dead signers
> of the Declaration of Independence, who wondered
> why nobody had been baptized for them yet. So he
> went and was baptized for "the signers of the
> Declaration of Independence, and fifty other
> eminent men, making one hundred in all, including
> John Wesley, Columbus, and others; I then baptized
> him for every President of the United States,
> except three...".
>
> The three missing ones presumably were baptized
> later after "their cause is just."
>
> Inspiring stuff.

Remember that they had already been dead-dunked previously. Apparently once just isn't good enough for some people.

A nuther book TBMs never heard of......

A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn

Chapter 1:
"Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress" covers early Native American civilization in North America and the Bahamas, the genocide and enslavement committed by the crew of Christopher Columbus, and incidents of violent colonization by early settlers. Topics include the Arawaks, Bartolomé de las Casas, the Aztecs, Hernán Cortés, Pizarro, Powhatan, the Pequot, the Narragansett, Metacom, King Philip's War, and the Iroquois.

http://www.amazon.com/A-Peoples-History-United-States/dp/0060838655

Who else raped and pillaged? Isn't that what happens in the war over land? It's the history of how people take over another group, and how that group retaliates. Eventually, there are no innocents.

Are you supporting the idea that Columbus was an "instrument in god's hands", Susie? (that's the the thread topic) If so, then the true author of all those non-innocent crimes you mention is god itself.

SusieQ#1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who else raped and pillaged? Isn't that what
> happens in the war over land? It's the history of
> how people take over another group, and how that
> group retaliates. Eventually, there are no
> innocents.

And Columbus had a choice. He could make war upon the much weaker Native Americans, or he could trade with them in an enlightened and mutually beneficial manner. The fact that he chose to make war doesn't make his choice inevitable.

It wasn't "making war," because that was not the point. The point was making slaves out of native populations, or just outright slaughtering people who inconvenienced the Spanish in tiny ways. Like, a native person walks by with a parrot, and you want their parrot, cut the person's throat and take the parrot (remember, you've got steel, they don't, BoM notwithstanding). This should never be dignified by the word, "warfare." Read Columbus' journal. The way of thinking is so foreign it's impossible for a modern person to imagine. Comments like, the natives are so kind, friendly, and loving; perfect for slaves. Read about the problems the Spanish had keeping mining labor. When you work your slaves to death in 90 days, its hard to keep production up. You can't believe it until you read it--from the horse's mouth.

And it had nothing to do with "trade." There was no trade. It was all about bullion, mining gold and silver. The vast quanities of gold and silver in the New World, basically, invented money, and "trade," because it created a circulating item that was independent of the material a country produced. Before New World bullion, there wasn't enough gold and silver in the world to support "trade," and there were no commodities in Europe that anybody (ie China) wanted.

This is what gets me:

"Their approach often serves to bolster a political cause rather than promote a search for truth."

WTF kind of 'political cause' would you service by 'slandering' Christopher Columbus... it's not like he's running for office.

That's a stretch, even for an apologist.

The political cause referred to was likely the Native American Movement, La Raza and their fellow travelers. Ya know, Native's Rights and all that...

.... tell that to the natives.

Mm - good point.

The ones he murdered?

Why does each generation continue to produce history books on the same subjects? Why another book on Lincoln, or Columbus, ...or Joseph Smith? Hasn't it been done already?

There are many reasons why history has to be "redone," repeatedly. and 'new evidence' is probably a minor one. History is written by each generation to reflect the changing sensibilities and needs of the times. Thus it does have a "political" agenda, a particular point of view that synthesizes selected 'facts' or inferences into a 'story' to convey a desired message.(There are in addition all kinds of institutional limitations on history publishing: the slant of a university history department, the prescribed length of books and chapters, writing and publishing deadlines, the consideration of what will sell, etc.) Perhaps the era of minority rights has been responsible for the historical revisionism of the past several decades.

Makes you wonder, though, what the next shift in awareness will be, and then the one after that--because these will certainly occur. We do not have the final, definitive "history" of Columbus or anything else at the present.

Richard Foxe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why does each generation continue to produce
> history books on the same subjects? Why another
> book on Lincoln, or Columbus, ...or Joseph Smith?
> Hasn't it been done already?

Because previous generations lacked information we now have, had their own biases, and lots of other good reasons.

Should we have simply accepted TSCC's "Official History of the Church," and its "history" of Joseph Smith, without ever doing others? Especially since we now know the original "history" was fraudulent, dishonest, and incorrect? And we know that from a huge amount of evidence, including the church's own sources?

Sorry, no.

It's the same with Columbus. We *do* have a ton of new evidence. Evidence that was either not known about, ignored, or intentionally hidden by previous historians, for their own reasons. Perhaps someone in another 100 years will be able to even more accurately write a history of him, which includes even more evidence that we didn't know about or overlooked or even intentionally suppressed. That's not "revisionism," it's trying to learn as much as possible.

> Because previous generations lacked information we now have, had their own biases, and lots of other good reasons.

As one who's been occasionally been privileged to be part of "bringing some new information to light" (I've got a nice project in the works), the "hype" involving claims of something new is mostly exaggerated. It does function as a sales tactic, of course.

In the case of the LDS "revisionists," they've exploited the passage of time and the reality they were the ones doing most of the writing.

A lot was simply allowed to fall by the wayside, allowed to lay as hidden as Robert N. Baskin's unmarked grave.

Google up that story, for starts, and afterwards, there's an online account by John Hyde, an early apostate.

http://thedigitalvoice.com/enigma/hyd1857a.htm

Hyde's brilliance actually authenticates some of the LDS apologists' claims that a lot the "anti-Mormon" ideas aren't actually new.

Their subtle dishonesty is seen in their dismissals; the mere fact that something isn't novel doesn't invalidate it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2015 11:33AM by SL Cabbie.

A book came out in 1992 that was revolutionary for elementary educators: "Encounter" by Jane Yolen. It tells the story of the encounter between Columbus and the Taino from the Taino point of view. It is very useful for teaching young children that there is more than one way to see an historical event. On Columbus Day I read a typical retelling of his story, and the next day I read "Encounter."

I especially like to share with children that the Taino had many accomplishments. They made beautiful boats made out of hollowed out logs. They introduced Columbus and his men to hammocks. They played a game much like soccer on groomed fields with rubber balls. Columbus and his men *loved* the rubber balls -- they had never seen them before.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1513616,1513616#msg-1513616



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2015 08:39PM by steve benson.

OK, let's try this: why didn't god choose to tell C. Columbus that the natives were actually ancient Israelites? That would have been handy info to have, before he started murdering them and hauling them off as slaves and curiosities.

I guess he wasn't as chosen-y as Joe Smith.

Because they were cursed and deserving of god's wrath. They were destined to be driven and scattered and nearly destroyed so they would learn to love the god of Mormonism. Their ancestors had ignored the prophets and abandoned god so they were no longer entitled to have their lands. God blessed the "gentiles" (Europeans) with the lands for a new promised land. That is what is in the Book of Mormon.

Right, the BoM is a piece of trash. Not only is it not "true" in any historical, factual way; it's not "true" as any kind of scripture containing "teachings" that any sane, modern person, trying to create a happy life and a just society in the 21st Century, should ever want to learn.

My 1955 LDS Primary lesson book (History of the Church for Children) has this to say on page ten:

"When Columbus discovered America he found them here. He did not know they were Lamanites."

"Columbus did not know that the people he found were descendants of Laman, the son of Lehi, the man who took his family away from Jerusalem 600 years before Christ was born."

I don't think Old Cristobal washed ashore in meso-America, did he?

His voyages were more Caribbean vacations, so...kinda?


Edited for spelling. "Caribbean" got me!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2015 09:17PM by moose.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2015 09:23PM by donbagley.

You sure know how to turn a phrase (and I love your style)! Do you use a steering wheel cover for a better grip?

You know, if Columbus WAS an instument for god, fine, but if so, what about Captain James Cook who discovered Australia during modern times (it was discovered and originally settled by the Aboriginal peoples over 40,000 years ago)?

What about the Spanish who discovered and consequently settled South America? etc etc etc!!

All of those 'settlements' led to shocking death and slaughter amongst the original peoples, with the 'white' invadors being shockingly cruel in their approach to it all. So if they were in the 'power' of God we have a VERY racist God up there.

Nope, I am sorry, I see all the situations as part of history. Beleif in a God may have helped some of the people at a personal level, but as a 'big' picture, no, it is what it is. In most cases an invasion of an already inhabited land, with little or no concern for anyone but themselves. And yes, I can and must see my own ancestors as part of that. My parent's prescence in a beautiful land, and my birth here, was part of that process. I cannot change that.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2015 12:47AM by fluhist.

"You know, if Columbus WAS an instument for god, fine"

I see it in a different way. I can accept history and what happened. I don't feel guilt for things I had nothing to do with. But I cannot accept that any god had anything to do with it. I absolutely reject the teachings in 1 Nephi 13 about Columbus and I reject all other teachings in the Book of Mormon about America being a choice, promised land whose inhabitants must worship the correct god or they will be swept off.

Historical events aren't the problem for me, it is the ongoing teaching that god not only allowed things to happen, he was the author of those tragedies. I have a real problem with the Book of Mormon teachings that god's wrath is on the cursed American Indians until they become Mormon, just as I have a problem with the teaching that god's spirit was with Columbus and the colonizers.

When the Book of Mormon was published, those were popular ideas but it is the 21st century now. For the LDS church to continue teaching this racist crap is morally condemnable.

Like I said, Columbus and all that happened isn't the problem for me, it is the canonized scriptures in Mormonism that cannot be excused by any living prophets or apostles, or by apologists. The Book of Mormon needs to be renounced and discarded.

It's all just part of the lame story to make the United States the most fair land "above all others," which is a totally American agenda. And in this case, that particular totally American agenda is married to the whole LDS church thing, the moldering narrative that Mormonism could not have happened anywhere else, and ergo, the United States have save the world by bringing them The One True Church®. This whole America, Mormon, Joseph Smith, Columbus, Most Fair Land thing is incestuous, a constant round of copulation, one birthing the other in a witness of Mormonism.

Yeah, it's pretty much bull shit from the get-go. They used to tell me I was born in Mormon land because I was a "Choice Spirit." Personally, I think it was just bad luck.