Thursday, October 16, 1997
People must not celebrate mass genocide
COLOMBUS: People need to know how bigoted explorer, Malcolm X
really are
We tend to label ideas or views that we don’t (or don’t want to)
understand in order to conveniently marginalize and dismiss them.
Only then will our own beliefs strengthen, and we convince
ourselves that we are correct. Our understanding of the world then
becomes a game of pseudo-intellectual condemnation. What an
"uneducated" person might call "stupid," a Harvard graduate might
call "preposterous."
In reality, both types of people share the same behavior
patterns. Critical and analytical thinking begin to take a backseat
to labels of relative deviance – i.e. "politically correct,"
"radical," "heretic" or "foreign."
The current generation of American academic life has experienced
a surge of literature and courses focusing on the voices of a
one-time voiceless population. The cries of student activists
clamoring for ethnic and gender studies courses and requirements
are frequently heard on Bruin Walk.
Monolithic ideals of freedom and opportunity are questioned in
the light of a history that was largely ignored for hundreds of
years. For those who are comfortable with the status quo, it’s a
disheartening scenario. A world view fostered by Houghton Mifflin
textbooks, sitcoms and Nintendo is under attack. Naturally, its
supporters blindly rush to its defense.
"Why must you people keep calling yourselves oppressed?" they
ask.
"It’s over now. We’re all in college now, and there are enough
BMWs for everyone."
But the reality should be known. Most people don’t have a chance
to read it in the classroom. Ten years ago, the average junior high
school student would say that "Columbus discovered America 500
years ago, and – thanks to his brave pioneering efforts – look at
this wonderful world we live in now." The sad fact is that we’re
too busy chasing our own livelihoods to try and understand some
simple facts. So what if our hero is a genocidal tyrant? We don’t
have to go to work on Columbus Day.
His "discovery" occurred on his transatlantic pursuit of gold,
financed by a 15th-century Spain that, in the name of God, had
expelled its Jewish and Muslim populations. Howard Zinn poignantly
describes Columbus’ exploits in A People’s History of the United
States.
Columbus’ journal describes the Arawak natives, who greeted his
party with food, water and gifts when they reached the shores of
the Bahamas: "They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I
showed them a sword; they took it by the edge and cut themselves
out of ignorance. They would make fine servants. With 50 men we
could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want."
Impassioned by the possibilities of gold and slaves, Columbus
returned to Spain and was subsequently given 17 ships and over
1,200 men to collect their booty and bring it back to the
"civilized world."
"In 1495, they went on a great slave raid, rounded up 1,500
Arawak men, women and children, and put them in pens guarded by
Spaniards and dogs, then picked the 500 best specimens to load onto
ships. Of those, 500,200 died en route. In two years, through
murder, mutilation or suicide, half of the 250,000 Indians in Haiti
were dead. In 1650, none of the original Arawaks or their
descendants were left on the island."
Bartolome de las Casas, a priest, wrote in the History of the
Indies, "Endless testimonies prove the mild and pacifistic
temperament of the natives. But our work was to exasperate, ravage,
kill and destroy; small wonder, then, if they tried to kill one of
us now and then."
Zinn continues to describe the priest’s accounts of the everyday
horrors. He tells of how the Spaniards "grew more conceited every
day" and after a while refused to walk any distance. They "rode the
backs of Indians if they were in a hurry" or were carried on
hammocks by Indians running in relays.
"In this case they also had Indians carry large leaves to shade
them from the sun and others to fan them with goose wings. The
Spaniards ‘thought nothing of knifing Indians by tens and twenties
and of cutting slices off them to test the sharpness of their
blades.’"
Another example of this phenomenon of defensiveness was seen in
a letter in Monday’s Daily Bruin where Malcolm X was called a
"bigoted little man" whose autobiography is a "racist text."
Remembering Malcolm as a racist is just as asinine as
remembering Ronald Reagan as a movie actor. True, these were both
aspects that characterized a particular period of each person’s
life, but there are larger issues that these people represented,
resulting in their subsequent praise or demonization.
Malcolm realized the limitations of his former race-based
outlook on his pilgrimage to Mecca. After experiencing sincere
brotherhood and hospitality from someone who he would have
previously snubbed, he had this to say: "That morning was the start
of a radical alteration in my whole outlook about ‘white’ men."
The "so-called civil rights leader" also said, "to me, the
earth’s most explosive and pernicious evil is racism, the inability
of God’s creatures to live as One, especially in the Western world.
You may be shocked by these words coming from me. But on this
pilgrimage, what I have seen, and experienced, has forced me to
rearrange much of my thought-patterns previously held, and to toss
aside some of my previous conclusions. This was not too difficult
for me. Despite my firm convictions, I have always been a man who
tries to face facts and accept the reality of life as new
experience and new knowledge unfolds it. I have always kept an open
mind, which is necessary to the flexibility that must go hand in
hand with every form of intelligent search for the truth." Big
words for a bigot.