After his first transatlantic voyage, Christopher Columbus sent an account of his encounters in the Americas to King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain. Several copies of his manuscript were made for court officials, and a transcription was published in April 1493. This Latin translation was published the same year. In reporting on his trip to his sovereigns, Columbus wrote:
There I found very many islands, filled with innumerable people, and I have taken possession of them all for their Highnesses, done by proclamation and with the royal standard unfurled, and no opposition was offered to me.
)I’m fine with calling Columbus, after the Vikings, as the first contact f the Old World with the New. Though to excuse the things he did n light of the way a lot of Old World elite acted is stretching the most generous of moral judgments. “No opposition”? He proceed to murder and enslave the natives he encountered. If it was not genocide it was very close. What natives were left in the Caribbean islands where he governed, appointing himself ruler, were killed off by diseases (a native tribe called the Arawaks) brought by Europeans. Leave it to Randians to state that this was all how things were destined to be, Columbus’s Genocide
There are many historians who do not agree with the revisionist view of Columbus. Many people believe that Columbus should be glorified as a hero. As Michael Berliner puts it, “The critics do not want to bestow such honor, because their real goal is to denigrate the values of Western civilization and to glorify primitivism” (Ayn Rand Institute). As a critic of the way Columbus is remembered and celebrated, I do not agree with this accusation. The problem with the way we teach about Columbus is the same problem with most of our history. History is written by the conquerors, and rarely are there any accounts of the conquered. It is more important to view history from every angle possible than to use historical figures, such as Columbus, to enhance nationalism.
Other historians who may recognize the devastation that Columbus and the Spaniards caused, try to give them justification. In the history textbook, The American Promise, the author tells the reader to view Columbus through the standards of his time and to disregard the importance of his treatment of the Indians (Roark 27). Yet surely Columbus and others of his time knew that murder was wrong (Yewell 12). To understand the present is the main reason to study history. If we look at history only through the eyes of the past we are doomed to repeat its mistakes. Emphasizing the heroics of Columbus and those who came after him and to downplay their genocide, serves to justify what was done (Zinn 9)
“East oblique of missile site control building, with better view of exhaust (the taller columns) and intake shafts, – Stanley R. Mickelsen Safeguard Complex, Missile Site Control Building.” These struturs were built during the 1970s. They play a major part in Cold War history,
It is believed that the plans for deployment and initiation of construction of this facility were instrumental in obtaining Soviet agreement to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and a subsequent decline in Cold War hostilities between the Superpowers. This structure was nuclear hardened, that is, designed to withstand a nearby nuclear blast. Both the MSR with its data processing center and its power plant were nuclear hardened. The MSR was designed to be self-contained in case of attack.
I find monolithic structures like this eerie without knowing their history. There are everyday structures that look similar – power stations, water pump stations – and even those look foreboding.
Even a lot of liberal-progressive commentators dance around what is wrong with some politicians. They bend over backwards to be fair when the other side has no real concept of fairness. Certainly no broadcast commenter enjoying a six figure salary is going to jeopardize their gig by giving someone like Romney or Ryan, a more than deserved slamming. It is not about stumping to their level, it is about calling it like it is. So a big thanks to Charles P. Pierce, VP Debate 2012: The Real Paul Ryan Is Bad for America
Biden laughed at him? Of course, he did. The profound ignorance Ryan displayed was so terrifying that it calls into question Romney’s judgment for putting this unqualified greenhorn on the ticket at all.
For the second time in as many presidential elections, Joseph Biden got to debate a young, attractive Republican candidate who was demonstrably less qualified to to be president than I am to be chairman of the World Bank. Joseph Biden is a very lucky man. The Great Political Matchmaker in the Sky keeps handing him people who are trying — and failing — to fight above their weight class, and he keeps blowing through what can now legitimately be called the Bum of the Quadrennium Club.
There is a deeply held Beltway myth of Paul Ryan, Man of Big Ideas, and it dies hard. But, if there is a just god in the universe, on Thursday night, it died a bloody death, was hurled into a pit, doused with quicklime, buried without ceremony, and the ground above it salted and strewn with garlic so that it never rises again.