Christopher Columbus was a pretty horrible person, so I have no problem ceasing to honor him with a national holiday. But he was also a uniquely important historical person whom everyone should know about, and the well attested date of his arrival, in 1492 CE, should also be something that every educated person knows.
Columbus was not the first person to make contact with the Americas after the arrival and dispersal of the predominant Founding populations of the indigenous people of South America, Mesoamerica, and most of North America around 14,000 years ago from Beringia where these populations had an extended sojourn in their migration to the Americas from Northeast Asia. They arrived with dogs, but no other domesticated animals.
There was at least one small progenitor wave of modern humans that reached at least as far as New Mexico before them about 21,000 or more years ago (as recent research has confirmed this year from earlier less definitive data), but unlike the Founding population of the Americas (itself derived from a genetically homogeneous population of less than a thousand Beringians), they left few traces and had little, if any, demographic impact on the Founding population that came after them, or had only the most minimal, if any, ecological impact on the Americas.
Columbus also arrived after the later arrival of two waves of migration from Siberia, one of which brought the ancestors of the Na-Dene people during what was the Bronze Age in Europe, and the second of which brought the ancestors of the Inuits during the European Middle Ages, both of whom were mostly limited to the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions of North America, except for a Na-Dene migration to what is now the American Southwest around 1000 CE plus or minus (in part from pressure to move caused by the ancestors of the Inuit people). The Na-Dene ultimately heavily integrated themselves into the local population descended from the Founding population of the Americas. The Inuits admixed some, but much less, with the pre-existing population of the North American Arctic and largely replaced a population of "Paleo-Eskimos" who derived from the same wave of ancestors as the Na-Dene in the North American Arctic.
A few villages of Vikings settled for a generation or two in what is now Eastern Canada ca. 1000 CE before dying out or leaving (and leaving almost no genetic trace in people who continued to live in the Americas). And, the Polynesians (and perhaps others) probably made contact with the Pacific Coast of South America and Central America several times in the time frame (generously estimated) of ca. 3000 BCE to 1500 CE, again without a huge impact on the Americas or the rest of the world and with only slight amounts of admixture.
But the contact that Christopher Columbus made with the Americas persisted and profoundly changed both the Americas and the rest of the world. He returned to Europe and then came back with more Europeans who aimed to conquer the New World (including many covert Sephardic Jews seeking a more hospitable future than they had in Iberia).
Christopher Columbus's first contact led to a chain of events that resulted in the deaths of perhaps 90% of the indigenous population of the Americas (mostly due to the spread of European diseases like small pox and E. Coli, to which the people of the Americas had no immunity, at a time prior to the germ theory of disease, and only secondarily due to more concerted hostile actions taken by the European colonists towards the indigenous populations), led to the collapse of the Aztec and Inca civilizations at the hands of Spanish Conquistadors, brought syphilis to the Old World (especially Europe), brought horses to the Americas, led to the deforestation of much of North America, and brought crops native to the Americas including potatoes, maize, tomatoes, and hot chilis to the Old World (both Europe and Asia). Indirectly, this chain of events even led fairly directly to the Irish potato famine more than three centuries later.
From the link in the body text: "Columbus returned from his first voyage to what he mistakenly called the Indies with a dozen abducted natives, as well as plans to capture and exploit many more. His first trip had been rushed, he told the monarchs, but on his next he was sure he could amass "slaves in any number they may order."
ReplyDeleteThe king and queen ordered him to do no such thing. In written instructions dated May 12, 1493, they directed Columbus to "endeavor to win over the inhabitants" to Christianity and not harm or coerce them….
During his second journey to the Caribbean, historian Edward T. Stone wrote in a 1975 essay for American Heritage, Columbus captured a large number of indigenous men, women, and children, sending them back as cargo in 12 ships to be sold in the slave market at Seville…..
[R]eports of the savagery, slaughter, and enslavement committed by Columbus could not be ignored indefinitely. In 1500, the Spanish sovereigns finally lowered the boom. They commissioned Francisco de Bobadilla to investigate and report on the admiral's conduct. After gathering information from Columbus's supporters and detractors, Bobadilla filed a no-holds-barred indictment detailing the cruelties committed by Columbus and his lieutenants.
"Punishments included cutting off people's ears and noses, parading women naked through the streets, and selling them into slavery," reported The Guardian when a copy of Bobadilla's statement was discovered in 2006….
The charges were taken seriously. Very seriously: Bobadilla had Columbus arrested and shipped back to Spain — in chains — to stand trial. It was, in Stone's words, a "harsh and humiliating" downfall. Columbus eventually received a royal pardon, but Ferdinand and Isabella refused to restore his position as governor of the Indies….
Another of Columbus's contemporaries to excoriate his deeds was Bartolomé de las Casas….
Five years ago I read Las Casas's most famous work, "A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies," which he published in 1542. It is ferocious in its wrath and graphic in its descriptions of the horrors inflicted on the native people. He raged against the sadism, greed, and treachery of the Spaniards. No one who reads his book can cling to the belief that condemnations of Columbus are nothing but 20/20 hindsight, or that they are based on moral standards by which no one in the 1500s would have judged him."
Re. the 22ka footprints at White Sands, I consider their makers direct ancestors of today's Surui of Brazil, who have traces of Melanesian/ Andaman-like DNA. I think they began deliberate coastal foraging having developed thin-walled dugout canoes from cutting trunks of metroxylon sago palms (before 24ka) for sago flour making and witchity grub hunting, these dugouts gave them paddling directional control, allowing long forays up the Asian coast propelled by northward currents, then southwards along the California current, later pushed into the Amazon by PaleoAmerIndians.
ReplyDelete@DDeden
ReplyDeleteI disagree. The distribution of Paleo-Asian ancestry in South America is not nearly homogeneous enough to be that old. And, if it had been sequestered in a relict community, the autosomal genetics of that relict community would be far more distinctive, similarly to the Kalash people.
But the Surui of Brazil are not all that genetically distinctive, and the proportion of Paleo-Asian ancestry varies greatly between communities that aren't far from each other and hasn't reached fixation within those communities at a set percentage.
This all suggests a much more recent origin for this ancestry, within the last 2000 years or less. A genetic contribution from 22,000 years ago that wasn't isolated in an endogamous relict community would have roughly the same percentage of Paleo-Asians in essentially all South Americans, similar to the fairly homogeneous percentages of Neanderthal ancestry and Denisovan ancestry in populations that have that admixture. There is just no other way to make the population genetic math work.
Do not understand why many white people with a racist bent celebrate Columbus Day or uphold Columbus as a hero, does not make any sense. The discoveries of Columbus ultimately led to the biggest racial mixing seen in the modern human species, thereby arguably creating the most racially mixed Homo sapiens societies the world has ever seen. So what benefit do those people see from their racist perspective? Do they simply take pride in the destruction of the native cultures? But that is pure sadism and does not benefit (from their racist perspective) the white race either due to the accompanying racial mixture in most of the Americas. Or do they take pride in the global rise of the United States in a part of the Americas whites created a living space of their own? A similar global rise of a mostly white society could happen in the Old World too, and there would probably be less accompanying racial mixture and thus less harm from the racist perspective of those racist whites upholding the legacy of Columbus. It makes much more sense non-racist people to uphold the legacy of Columbus. Does not mean of course that everyone who has a critical attitude towards the legacy of Columbus has a racist perspective. People like Andrew criticize it from an entirely different perspective for instance and their criticisms make sense too from an objective point of view.
ReplyDelete@DDeden
Those earliest and probably fully extinct colonizers of the Americas could well be ANE-like in their genetics given the time period. But it does not matter what they were like genetically given they are a dead end with likely no enduring genetic legacy.
I was claiming that dugouts were constructed in SEAsia before 24ka but after 42ka long before the White Sands footprints were found. The genetic claims are based on some assumptions I don't consider solid.
ReplyDeleteYesterday was Columbus Day and Indigenous Day. I think the term American Indian derived from Indigene rather than from (East) Indian.
"I think the term American Indian derived from Indigene rather than from (East) Indian."
ReplyDeletePretty sure not. But I'd be happy to see sources to the contrary.
Me too. An untested hypothesis.
ReplyDeleteIndia is derived from Sindhu @ Sanskrit: river. "inhabit of India or South Asia; pertaining to India," c. 1300 (noun and adjective), from Late Latin indianus, from India (see India). Applied to the aboriginal native inhabitants of the Americas from at least 1553 as a noun (1610s as an adjective), reflecting Spanish and Portuguese use, on the mistaken notion that America was the eastern end of Asia (it was also used occasionally 18c.-19c. of inhabitants of the Philippines and indigenous peoples of Australia and New Zealand". Always used to refer to indigenous peoples. Was Christopher Columbus an etymologist? No. But he knew indigenous people when he saw them. Indu @Ltn, endo @Grk, endu @Mbuti all mean 'interior' or under cover (forest canopy or dome roof or pregnant belly.
DeleteAn alternative view of the Indus & the exodus:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/could-moses-have-led-exodus-from-indus-valley-bharat-jhunjhunwala
DeleteThe footprints are awesome, the science is cool. But I still want some bones. There is a concreteness with bones that 2ndary evidence can't match. I hope there is ongoing searching/researching going on at White Sands looking for caves that might have some datable/analyzable fragments.
ReplyDelete@DDeden
ReplyDeletehttps://www.linkedin.com/pulse/could-moses-have-led-exodus-from-indus-valley-bharat-jhunjhunwala
Silly and crazy. The story of Moses is Sumerian and borrowed by the Jews with some slight twists from the prior Sumerian myth, however, which does play out on the Tigris-Euphrates Rivers.
Baked bricks made with straw are ubiquitous rather than being a convincing geolocator.