site banner
RococoBasilica  Actually a Quality Retribution  1yr ago (astralcodexten.substack.com)   1691 thread views

Astral Codex Ten: A Columbian Exchange

astralcodexten.substack.com

Scott wades into the Culture War again with a delightfully dorky dialogue about Columbus Day. Contains lots of references to the other other Scott.

17
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

If we're picking optimal holidays I would prefer a generic exploration based holiday over a holiday dedicated to any specific group or person. A celebration of a trait or idea in my mind is better than a celebration of an individual or an event.

In general though i think anyone who gets upset at what holidays another person celebrates is quite mean and all people should be allowed to celebrate what they want as long as they are participating in activities that actively harm someone.

Edit: I say this as a non American who has never celebrated Colombus day but now really wants an explorer themed holiday.

That's what bothers me so much about a lot of the modern left, they always want to take something and make it something else (not just holidays, but making the anthem about police violence, or removing only the names from the year numbering system without any other changes.

If you want something else go make it, go make a new holiday for some marginalized person/group, or take your day off and protest to your heart's content, and if you want to redo dates get your own base year and name them after that. Then let society sift the good ideas from the bad. I dislike renaming something and demanding everyone change with you.

Personally as the descendent of Norse, I celebrate Leif Erikson day with relish that it comes before Columbus day most years. Leif probably did more than his share of bad things (Vikings being known for their looting and pillaging and thralls) but he got to Vineland before any other Europeans.

There was French Revolutionary Calendar... Why do they reinvent the wheel?

For me, its the fact that they love to tear down long-held and 'cherished' traditions and holidays (which amounts to "any that is more than like 3 decades old") and relish in mocking the reaction to it, whilst also claiming they have no ill intent and its not really a 'loss' since its just a hokey corporate contrivance anyway and nobody should actually miss it why is there such a big fuss?

Its this simultaneous recognition that something is sacred and meaningful to [group], and yet the pretense that [group] is completely unreasonable and indeed immoral to try and combat the changes to or elimination of their traditions because things will surely be better now, and why cling to the past to your own detriment?

They want to invoke a certain amount of nihilism whilst tearing down sacred cows, but they aren't actually dispassionate about it. And yet they mock the passions of those they antagonize.

I yut renaming Columbus Day on the condition it's renamed "William Penn Day" or something. Unfortunately, it will either stay Columbus Day or we see an identarian victory and it's Indigenous Peoples day.

While I strongly endorse the observation Columbus was a terrible human being and have wanted to "cancel" him, so to speak, since before it was cool, I reject the submarine message of the identarians: that settling the Americas was our original sin as a nation. That the USA, Canada etc should be ashamed of their past. I don't agree.

I think the English, Dutch, and French settlement of the New World was conducted with a reasonable amount of virtue given the day and age, and cannot be reasonably characterized as genocide, or even "land theft" in most cases, unless you believe the natives had some sort of spirtual claim to hegemony over the Appalachias because they happened to be there circa 1600. (If you want to see a genocide, look to the Iroquois were doing to the Hurons around them.) And even the Spanish colonization, which was spearheaded by bloodthirsty sociopaths whose basic goal was to enslave the natives, eventually transitioned to more humanitarian-ish administration under Jesuits and the Habsburg crown.

The pattern of North American settlement seems to be that European settlers arrived, settled unused land, and were tolerated and traded with. Eventually the colonies grew to a point to cause border friction with the natives, putting land native used intermittently at a low level of intensity under cultivation. If the tribes were peacable, they would simply be marginalized. If the tribes were aggressive they would eventually attack, be defeated and destroyed or forced to migrate west. This kind of dog-eat-dog geopolitics was no different from the situation before the colonists arrived; the colonists simply had much better economic practices and military technology, so they won the game.

and cannot be reasonably characterized as genocide, or even "land theft" in most cases, unless you believe the natives had some sort of spirtual claim to hegemony over the Appalachias because they happened to be there circa 1600

This is one of the main things that always felt a bit hypocritical to me when people talk about land rights historically. The idea that someone's descendants get to morally own an entire continent forever just because they were there first seems ludicrous to me. If someone today landed on Mars and then claimed to now own all of Mars because they were there first, people would be rightly outraged. And if some one else then forcefully took Mars i don't think the first guy has any grounds to complain while still remaining morally consistent.

I can understand (but not prefer) an argument in favor of physical possession if a person values a survival of the fittest type world, but in that scenario taking land by force is equally as moral as first grab.

Obviously land ownership today can not be separated from history and who should own what is horribly complicated. But it bothers me that claiming land by being there first is somehow seen as good when in reality any first grab claim is still taking land away from all other current and future people on the planet.

just because they were there first

One of the main problems is that no one currently anywhere was "there first"

The proto-groups of what we call the "Native Americans" or "indigenous people" were violent genocidal colonizers who just happened to win prior to contact with recorded history. The ghosts of the Anasazi and all that.

Everyone everywhere is the descendent of violent colonizers, because that's who gets to have territory. The proto-jews got colonized by the egyptians, philistines, assyrians, babylonians, greeks, romans, persians, arabs, persians again, egyptians again, the crusaders, the kurds, egyptians again again, the turks, and the british, and now stand accused of colonizing their own long-ago historical home. Who owns the Levant?

That area got worked over a bit more than most, but this pattern holds true everywhere. The spanish control Spain, but that wasn't true six hundred years ago. Even who we call "spanish" are mostly itinerant "barbarian" tribes who stole big chunks of land off the declining Roman empire, who in turn stole it from previous owners, who almost certainly weren't the "original" inhabitants. Shall we have land acknowledgements in France to memorialize the dispossession of the Gauls by Caesar?

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats