Gyroscopic Investing

MediumTex wrote:Columbus, by contrast left in his wake an enormous pile of dead bodies and another pile of people who were crippled physically and culturally as a result of crossing paths with him.

Granted that Spain's (and Great Britain's and France's et al.) exploits in North and South America were rapacious, greedy, bloodthirsty, etc.

But even if they had focused on benign interactions with the people they found the end results would have been similar.  Diseases would have still ravaged American populations, animal and plant introductions would have profoundly changed the American ecology, etc.  Native populations would have adapted imported technology, profoundly changing their way of life.

There are, of course, specific individuals or groups of individuals that are conspicuously evil in this history, but the mere fact of contact profoundly changed the American future.  And this is true of many human actions and interactions, even today.

American chestnuts, once one of the dominant trees in eastern forests are virtually extinct because of imported chestnut blight.  Invertebrate invaders of all kinds (e.g. zebra mussels) now infiltrate American waters, inadvertently imported in ballast tanks.  Striped bass, an east coast native, now inhabit the west coast and impact native salmon populations.  Ironically the striped bass was imported to enhance sport fishing.

And remember, from polio's perspective, Jonas Salk is a bad guy

WildAboutHarry wrote:

MediumTex wrote:Columbus, by contrast left in his wake an enormous pile of dead bodies and another pile of people who were crippled physically and culturally as a result of crossing paths with him.

Granted that Spain's (and Great Britain's and France's et al.) exploits in North and South America were rapacious, greedy, bloodthirsty, etc.

But even if they had focused on benign interactions with the people they found the end results would have been similar.  Diseases would have still ravaged American populations, animal and plant introductions would have profoundly changed the American ecology, etc.  Native populations would have adapted imported technology, profoundly changing their way of life.

There are, of course, specific individuals or groups of individuals that are conspicuously evil in this history, but the mere fact of contact profoundly changed the American future.  And this is true of many human actions and interactions, even today.

American chestnuts, once one of the dominant trees in eastern forests are virtually extinct because of imported chestnut blight.  Invertebrate invaders of all kinds (e.g. zebra mussels) now infiltrate American waters, inadvertently imported in ballast tanks.  Striped bass, an east coast native, now inhabit the west coast and impact native salmon populations.  Ironically the striped bass was imported to enhance sport fishing.

And remember, from polio's perspective, Jonas Salk is a bad guy

You're right.  Plenty of bad things can happen from simple cross-pollination of previously relatively closed biological systems.

Part of the theme of colonialism, however, seemed to involve treating native populations the same as you would treat a forest that needed to be cleared to create farmland, completely apart from any inadvertent plagues that may have been introduced along the way.

What I am focusing on is the type of human beings who are deserving of credit for moving humanity forward.  Part of the criteria I would use in this determination is the state of mind of the person involved.  Did he intend to kill natives to clear the way for his own developments?  Did he treat native populations in a cruel or inhumane manner apart from any diseases that may have been introduced?  Did he keep the terms of agreements he entered with the native populations?  Did he hold his people accountable for acts of violence or abuse directed at natives?  Did he show any appreciation for the culture and traditions of the natives (this sort of goes to the issue of what kind of access or protection you are going to provide as a colonialist for missionary efforts)?

If the answers to the questions above paint the picture of a heartless person, that's okay, we can still enjoy the by-products of his colonial adventures, it just may be that he doesn't get his own holiday.

One question that is interesting to ponder is whether Americans would want to celebrate Columbus Day if they knew more about Columbus than the names of his ships and the year 1492.

I wanted to comment on a point made earlier about slavery having been more or less the norm in our collective past; having existed in biblical times and in most cultures at some point. There have been many form of slavery, some more "humane" (if I can use that term) and codified (at least in the bible.) And slavery, itself, evolved to become indentured servitude which may be just slavery by another name. I do think a distinction, though, can be made between slavery and genocide. What Columbus, Cortez and many others did was genocide or murder; first, they used people up and then when they no longer had any "use" they are killed, die of exhaustion or starved to death.

MediumTex wrote:If the answers to the questions above paint the picture of a heartless person, that's okay, we can still enjoy the by-products of his colonial adventures, it just may be that he doesn't get his own holiday.

One question that is interesting to ponder is whether Americans would want to celebrate Columbus Day if they knew more about Columbus than the names of his ships and the year 1492.

I agree about the holiday thing and Columbus.  In general I think holidays that celebrate concepts, rather than people, make the most sense.  Nobody can withstand scrutiny, especially decades or hundreds of years after that person's death.  Societal norms change, what was once OK (or at least ignored) becomes taboo, etc.

Holidays are political animals, in large part, so the political logic at the time the holiday was established often appears flawed with time.

Kind of like, what is Teddy Roosevelt doing on Mt. Rushmore anyway?

I discovered lately that REAL history is actually quite interesting in contrast to the boring, politically correct stuff we were taught in school.

If Columbus actually did the things he is now accused of then he was surely a maggot but I read recently that there is now some question about the veracity of some of the negative reports about him. Some historians believe he had a nemesis who spread false stores about him. But even if half of the ones I've heard are true I think he is still a maggot.

Ferdinand Magellan is another interesting case where revisionist history is called for. I remember learning in history class about his circumnavigation of the globe and how he was killed by natives on an island in the Pacific. About 40 years after reading that I proposed marriage to one of the natives on the very same island where Magellan was killed (Mactan island in Cebu province, Philippines) and started to learn the real story. The reason the natives killed Magellan was because he burned down their village and then set out to conquer them by the sword because they refused to convert to Christianity. On the island of Mactan they have a statue to the tribal chief Lapu Lapu who led them in battle and every year they have a celebration and re-enactment of the hacking of Magellan to pieces. Can't say as I blame them.

jackh wrote: Ferdinand Magellan is another interesting case where revisionist history is called for. I remember learning in history class about his circumnavigation of the globe and how he was killed by natives on an island in the Pacific. About 40 years after reading that I proposed marriage to one of the natives on the very same island where Magellan was killed (Mactan island in Cebu province, Philippines) and started to learn the real story. The reason the natives killed Magellan was because he burned down their village and then set out to conquer them by the sword because they refused to convert to Christianity. On the island of Mactan they have a statue to the tribal chief Lapu Lapu who led them in battle and every year they have a celebration and re-enactment of the hacking of Magellan to pieces. Can't say as I blame them.

Agreed on the Battle of Mactan.  That's actually a really interesting story but it's so often presented as "And then he was killed by natives".  Almost as if some random tribesman with a bone through his nose saw Magellan and decided that he'd like to add another shrunken head to his belt.

Credit where it's due to the consquistadors -- those guys had guts.  In this case, Magellan launched a beach invasion of Mactan Island with about 50 men, charging right into a formation of well over a thousand natives.  Yes, Magellan actually stormed the beach and attacked a native army of more than a thousand guys.  (Warning: this is very hazardous to your health.)

So did Magellan burn villages before the battle?  My impression of the motivation behind Magellan's killing was simply that he started a battle he couldn't win (and one that, thanks to the beach water, was very difficult to retreat from.)

Do you know how this "hacking reenactment" celebration works?  Perhaps a papier mache Magellan pinata stuffed with candy? 

Lone Wolf wrote:

jackh wrote: Ferdinand Magellan is another interesting case where revisionist history is called for. I remember learning in history class about his circumnavigation of the globe and how he was killed by natives on an island in the Pacific. About 40 years after reading that I proposed marriage to one of the natives on the very same island where Magellan was killed (Mactan island in Cebu province, Philippines) and started to learn the real story. The reason the natives killed Magellan was because he burned down their village and then set out to conquer them by the sword because they refused to convert to Christianity. On the island of Mactan they have a statue to the tribal chief Lapu Lapu who led them in battle and every year they have a celebration and re-enactment of the hacking of Magellan to pieces. Can't say as I blame them.

Agreed on the Battle of Mactan.  That's actually a really interesting story but it's so often presented as "And then he was killed by natives".  Almost as if some random tribesman with a bone through his nose saw Magellan and decided that he'd like to add another shrunken head to his belt.

Credit where it's due to the consquistadors -- those guys had guts.  In this case, Magellan launched a beach invasion of Mactan Island with about 50 men, charging right into a formation of well over a thousand natives.  Yes, Magellan actually stormed the beach and attacked a native army of more than a thousand guys.  (Warning: this is very hazardous to your health.)

So did Magellan burn villages before the battle?  My impression of the motivation behind Magellan's killing was simply that he started a battle he couldn't win (and one that, thanks to the beach water, was very difficult to retreat from.)

Do you know how this "hacking reenactment" celebration works?  Perhaps a papier mache Magellan pinata stuffed with candy? 

That sounds sort of like Custer to me.

jackh wrote: I discovered lately that REAL history is actually quite interesting in contrast to the boring, politically correct stuff we were taught in school.

If Columbus actually did the things he is now accused of then he was surely a maggot but I read recently that there is now some question about the veracity of some of the negative reports about him. Some historians believe he had a nemesis who spread false stores about him. But even if half of the ones I've heard are true I think he is still a maggot.

Part of what I was trying to convey in my earlier posts is that I don't think the view of Columbus I am describing is really all that new or revisionist.

Columbus was arrested along with his brothers after his third voyage for the same atrocities and incompetence in dealing with the native populations and settlers I am talking about now.  If it weren't for Columbus's political connections to the throne and his backers' desire to recoup their investment in his travels Columbus's legacy might be far different.

The significance of Columbus's actions being viewed as borderline criminal during his own time should not be overlooked.

Lone Wolf wrote: Credit where it's due to the consquistadors -- those guys had guts. 

So did Magellan burn villages before the battle?  My impression of the motivation behind Magellan's killing was simply that he started a battle he couldn't win (and one that, thanks to the beach water, was very difficult to retreat from.)

Do you know how this "hacking reenactment" celebration works?  Perhaps a papier mache Magellan pinata stuffed with candy? 

Yes, they definitely had guts doing what they did, and not just on Mactan island. I think Magellan felt like an invincible god after all he had been through just getting to the Philippines.

I remember reading that they DID burn down a village and just confirmed this again by reading the Wiki on the Battle of Mactan.

I have not yet seen the celebration on Mactan island but plan on retiring to the Philippines in a few years and I'll let you know if I ever get to see it.

Also, after reading about Magellan's voyage I had to inform my wife that Magellan's cross that is venerated at a church in Cebu is a fake. The real one was actually destroyed when the Cebuanos turned on the rest of Magellan's crew and de-converted from Christianity after Lapu Lapu's victory.

If you're interested here is a humorous youtube my wife showed me about the History of the Philippines. It's interesting to see the different take they have on Magellan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCoEPnpr ... re=related

Have you guys seen Apocalypto?

Pretty crazy movie... Can't say I particularly loved it but it was intense and interresting.

MediumTex wrote: Part of what I was trying to convey in my earlier posts is that I don't think the view of Columbus I am describing is really all that new or revisionist.

Columbus was arrested along with his brothers after his third voyage for the same atrocities and incompetence in dealing with the native populations and settlers I am talking about now.  If it weren't for Columbus's political connections to the throne and his backers' desire to recoup their investment in his travels Columbus's legacy might be far different.

The significance of Columbus's actions being viewed as borderline criminal during his own time should not be overlooked.

I tried to find a link to the piece I read about some new discoveries about Columbus but failed.

I was born and raised in a city named after Mr. Columbus (Ohio) so folks there probably weren't quite as receptive to learning the truth about him.

I had heard some negative stories before but didn't realize the extent of it until I read Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" where it all gets laid out pretty well in the very first chapter.

moda0306 wrote: Have you guys seen Apocalypto?

Pretty crazy movie... Can't say I particularly loved it but it was intense and interresting.

I loved Apocalypto.

BTW, and not to distract us here, but I can't think about the Philippines without thinking about the "Thriller" prisoner dance.  If you somehow missed it a while back you should check it out (4:26):

http://youtu.be/hMnk7lh9M3o

BTW, and not to distract us here, but I can't think about the Philippines without thinking about the "Thriller" prisoner dance.  If you somehow missed it a while back you should check it out (4:26):

http://youtu.be/hMnk7lh9M3o
[/quote]

Wow. that kind of amazing! Here's another one from what looks like the same prison:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&featu ... RU-tmeixC0

Prisoners dance to "Party Rock Anthem":

http://youtu.be/YQvrlrYFXtw

Prisoners dance to "Radio Gaga":

http://youtu.be/lAVVVMcTShQ

Prisoners dance to "Greased Lightning":

http://youtu.be/kUFUibFWeE0

What would Magellan say if he saw this?

MediumTex wrote: BTW, and not to distract us here, but I can't think about the Philippines without thinking about the "Thriller" prisoner dance.  If you somehow missed it a while back you should check it out (4:26):

Have spent a lot of time among Filipinos and I can tell you that they are a fun loving people who believe in enjoying life to the fullest no matter what the circumstances. The one in the picture is the best thing that ever happened to the ugly troll beside her.

My dad spent time in the Phillipines during Vietnam and said he was amazed at how great the people were.

He remembered going to a Navy bar where Phillipino men and women that didn't speak a lick of English would cover American music and sound, with no hint of an accent, VERY much like the artist of the song they were covering.

jackh wrote:

MediumTex wrote: BTW, and not to distract us here, but I can't think about the Philippines without thinking about the "Thriller" prisoner dance.  If you somehow missed it a while back you should check it out (4:26):

Have spent a lot of time among Filipinos and I can tell you that they are a fun loving people who believe in enjoying life to the fullest no matter what the circumstances. The one in the picture is the best thing that ever happened to the ugly troll beside her.

Do you happen to know anything about the ban on singing Frank Sinatra's "My Way" in Filipino karaoke bars?

I understand it was in response to a wave of "My Way"-related killings, but I wondered what the local reaction to the ban has been.

Edit: I may have found an explanation here (1:40):

http://youtu.be/MHMA_N6T0uI

MediumTex wrote: Do you happen to know anything about the ban on singing Frank Sinatra's "My Way" in Filipino karaoke bars?

I understand it was in response to a wave of "My Way"-related killings, but I wondered what the local reaction to the ban has been.

I heard about the incident but don't know what to make of it. Karaoke is the national pastime in the Philippines. Somebody told me it is just an extension of a long-standing tradition of Filipinos getting together and singing in the evenings. Just about every house I've gone to some old man has sung "My Way" and other Frank Sinatra songs. I've even sung it myself with no repercussions. Must be a big city thing - probably in Manila.

moda0306 wrote: My dad spent time in the Phillipines during Vietnam and said he was amazed at how great the people were.

He remembered going to a Navy bar where Phillipino men and women that didn't speak a lick of English would cover American music and sound, with no hint of an accent, VERY much like the artist of the song they were covering.

Me and your Dad might have been sitting together in the same bars in Olongapo where the Subic Bay Naval base used to be. The bands were excellent (not to mention the women). Today it's a duty free port but I haven't gotten back to it in any of my travels yet. Plan on doing so when I retire.

Nearly all Filipinos do know some English though most aren't conversant. It is a second language and taught in nearly every school. When my wife went to school they were punished if they were caught speaking their native language. Her English is impeccable.

Sounds like draft-dodging into the Navy at the last minute was the right idea...

Not implying you were... I'm speaking of my dad .

He was on a "Cruiser" (??) if I'm not mistaken. 

moda0306 wrote: Sounds like draft-dodging into the Navy at the last minute was the right idea...

Not implying you were... I'm speaking of my dad .

He was on a "Cruiser" (??) if I'm not mistaken. 

Yes, I was dodging the draft and proud of it. As a very naive young man it never occurred to me that sailors could end up in Vietnam - kind of like what you would think about Iraq and Afghanistan today except I should have known better if I'd paid closer attention. Vietnam sits on the South China sea and has some very large rivers running all the way up to Cambodia and Laos and the Navy was an integral part of that war.

I didn't even know I was going there until I reached the Philippines because my first duty was aboard the U.S.S. Oxford, a so-called "Technical Research Ship" which was really an intelligence ship responsible for directing the bombing over Vietnam. I had visions of doing Jacque Cousteau kinds of things until I found myself sitting in a bunker in DaNang waiting to catch the ship. The first three months were uneventful until the intelligence ship U.S.S. Pueblo was seized by the N. Koreans and they decided to decommission all intelligence ships. Then I was transferred "in-country" and caught my next ship, the U.S.S. Brule, a light cargo ship anchored in Nha Be, just North of Saigon. I spent the rest of my year hauling cargo up and down the Mekong river with my last trip being a large haul of ammunition and supplies to near the Cambodian border in 1970 just before the so-called "Cambodian Invasion".

I am not proud of any of this. We were as bad or worse than Columbus or Magellan. My second or third day home from Vietnam I spent the night in jail protesting the war on the Ohio State University campus.

jackh wrote: I am not proud of any of this. We were as bad or worse than Columbus or Magellan. My second or third day home from Vietnam I spent the night in jail protesting the war on the Ohio State University campus.

The problem with standing armies is that the politicians will always find a reason to deploy them, and the career officers will assist in this process by always telling the politicans about various places that are in desperate need of the deployment of military forces.

If, however, you have a small standing army that can't do much more than defend the borders, then there is no temptation to remain more or less permanently engaged in warfare in foreign locations.

I'll bet people would have been amazed if you had told them in 1945 that 67 years later we would still have a very significant military presence in Japan and Germany.  Similarly, if you had told people in 1953 that 59 years later the U.S. would still have tens of thousands of troops deployed in Korea I think they would have said that was ridiculous.

I think that the plan in Iraq was to have 30,000-40,000 troops there more or less indefinitely (along the lines of the Korea model), but the Iraqis unexpectedly told us they wanted us out and perhaps even more unexpectedly we left. 

MediumTex wrote: The problem with standing armies is that the politicians will always find a reason to deploy them, and the career officers will assist in this process by always telling the politicans about various places that are in desperate need of the deployment of military forces.

I'll join you whole-heartedly in voting for a politician who is against standing armies, MT. Problem is he's down to about 7 or 8 percent in the Republican primaries right now.

Speaking of the desperate need of the deployment of military forces and the Philippines, I'll bet not many Americans know the Philippines was the very first foreign country where we went to war against "insurgents" intent on resisting our benevolent desires to bring them freedom and democracy. It was a long and bloody struggle but unlike other efforts since it was actually successful (I mean in putting down the insurgency - the freedom and democracy thing remains to be seen).  Just finished a Pulitzer prize winning book by Stanley Karnow about it. Very interesting and highly recommended.

jackh wrote:

MediumTex wrote: The problem with standing armies is that the politicians will always find a reason to deploy them, and the career officers will assist in this process by always telling the politicans about various places that are in desperate need of the deployment of military forces.

I'll join you whole-heartedly in voting for a politician who is against standing armies, MT. Problem is he's down to about 7 or 8 percent in the Republican primaries right now.

Speaking of the desperate need of the deployment of military forces and the Philippines, I'll bet not many Americans know the Philippines was the very first foreign country where we went to war against "insurgents" intent on resisting our benevolent desires to bring them freedom and democracy. It was a long and bloody struggle but unlike other efforts since it was actually successful (I mean in putting down the insurgency - the freedom and democracy thing remains to be seen).  Just finished a Pulitzer prize winning book by Stanley Karnow about it. Very interesting and highly recommended.

Karnow's book on Vietnam was really good.  (I also highly recommend "They Marched into Sunlight" by David Maraniss.)  I think I'll have to read this one about the Phillipines too.

HB Reader wrote: Karnow's book on Vietnam was really good.  (I also highly recommend "They Marched into Sunlight" by David Maraniss.)  I think I'll have to read this one about the Phillipines too.

Only in the past few years have I been able to bring myself to read books about Vietnam. This is the first I've heard of this one. Checked it out on Amazon and it is definitely in my reading queue.