The Christopher Columbus Controversy: Western Civilization vs. Primitivism
|
The following BULLSHIT editorial has been produced by the Ayn Rand
Institute's MediaLink department. Visit MediaLink at
http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/.
Western civilization is under attack by the politically correct who are
questioning and attacking the achievements of Christopher Columbus —
while glorifying the tribal cultures of American Indians. The reverence for
Western civilization should be replaced, they say, with multiculturalism,
which regards all cultures as morally equal. This, despite the fact that
it is Western civilization, not primitivism, that stands for the values which
make human life possible.
The Christopher Columbus Controversy: Western Civilization vs. Primitivism
Michael S. Berliner, Ph.D.
Columbus Day approaches, but to the "politically correct" this is no cause
for celebration. On the contrary, they view the arrival of Christopher Columbus
in 1492 as an occasion to be mourned. They have mourned, they have attacked,
and they have intimidated schools across the country into replacing Columbus
Day celebrations with "ethnic diversity" days.
The politically correct view is that Columbus did not discover America, because
people had lived here for thousands of years. Worse yet, it's claimed, the
main legacy of Columbus is death and destruction. Columbus is routinely vilified
as a symbol of slavery and genocide, and the celebration of his arrival likened
to a celebration of Hitler and the Holocaust. The attacks on Columbus are
ominous, because the actual target is Western civilization.
Did Columbus "discover" America? Yes — in every important respect. This
does not mean that no human eye had been cast on America before Columbus
arrived. It does mean that Columbus brought America to the attention of the
civilized world, i.e., to the growing, scientific civilizations of Western
Europe. The result, ultimately, was the United States of America. It was
Columbus' discovery for Western Europe that led to the influx of ideas and
people on which this nation was founded — and on which it still rests.
The opening of America brought the ideas and achievements of Aristotle, Galileo,
Newton, and the thousands of thinkers, writers, and inventors who followed.
Prior to 1492, what is now the United States was sparsely inhabited, unused,
and undeveloped. The inhabitants were primarily hunter-gatherers, wandering
across the land, living from hand-to-mouth and from day-to-day. There was
virtually no change, no growth for thousands of years. With rare exception,
life was nasty, brutish, and short: there was no wheel, no written language,
no division of labor, little agriculture and scant permanent settlement;
but there were endless, bloody wars. Whatever the problems it brought, the
vilified Western culture also brought enormous, undreamed-of benefits, without
which most of today's Indians would be infinitely poorer or not even alive.
Columbus should be honored, for in so doing, we honor Western civilization.
But the critics do not want to bestow such honor, because their real goal
is to denigrate the values of Western civilization and to glorify the
primitivism, mysticism, and collectivism embodied in the tribal cultures
of American Indians. They decry the glorification of the West as "Eurocentrism."
We should, they claim, replace our reverence for Western civilization with
multi-culturalism, which regards all cultures as morally equal. In fact,
they aren't. Some cultures are better than others: a free society is better
than slavery; reason is better than brute force as a way to deal with other
men; productivity is better than stagnation. In fact, Western civilization
stands for man at his best. It stands for the values that make human life
possible: reason, science, self-reliance, individualism, ambition, productive
achievement. The values of Western civilization are values for all men; they
cut across gender, ethnicity, and geography. We should honor Western civilization
not for the ethnocentric reason that some of us happen to have European ancestors
but because it is the objectively superior culture.
Underlying the political collectivism of the anti-Columbus crowd is a racist
view of human nature. They claim that one's identity is primarily ethnic:
if one thinks his ancestors were good, he will supposedly feel good about
himself; if he thinks his ancestors were bad, he will supposedly feel
self-loathing. But it doesn't work; the achievements or failures of one's
ancestors are monumentally irrelevant to one's actual worth as a person.
Only the lack of a sense of self leads one to look to others to provide what
passes for a sense of identity. Neither the deeds nor misdeeds of others
are his own; he can take neither credit nor blame for what someone else chose
to do. There are no racial achievements or racial failures, only individual
achievements and individual failures. One cannot inherit moral worth or moral
vice. "Self-esteem through others" is a self-contradiction.
Thus the sham of "preserving one's heritage" as a rational life goal. Thus
the cruel hoax of "multicultural education" as an antidote to racism: it
will continue to create more racism.
Individualism is the only alternative to the racism of political correctness.
We must recognize that everyone is a sovereign entity, with the power of
choice and independent judgment. That is the ultimate value of Western
civilization, and it should be proudly proclaimed.
Michael S. Berliner, Ph.D., is the former executive director of the Ayn Rand
Institute in Marina del Rey, California.
|
