Monday, October 13, 2008

Columbus Day And Queen Isabella




On this Columbus Day 2008, let us remember and celebrate the life of Queen Isabella. She is certainly one of the most exceptional women in history. The decisions she made during the course of her lifetime continue to effect the way we look at the world today.

Her story is particularly instructive for our times. Europe, during the time of Isabella, had become decadent and lethargic and was riding out the waning years of the Dark Ages. Spain had become a multicultural Babel, under threat from Islam, and lacking in an understanding of its own traditions and values.

Isabella set out to change all of this during her lifetime, and she was largely successful. There is an argument to be made that Queen Isabella was as responsible for the Renaissance as any other single human being. In fact, Queen Isabella funded Christopher Columbus' voyage to the New World.


Europe had long enjoyed a safe passage to China and India— sources of valued goods such as silk, spices and opiates— under the hegemony of the Mongol Empire. With the Fall of Constantinople to the Muslims in 1453, the land route to Asia became more difficult. The Ottoman conquest of Egypt similarly impeded the Red Sea route. 
Portuguese sailors took to traveling south around Africa to Asia. The Columbus brothers had a different idea. By the 1480s, they had developed a plan to travel to the Indies, then construed roughly as all of south and east Asia, by sailing directly west across the "Ocean Sea," 


However, there is also a dark side to Queen Isabella. Not only did she re-establish Europe to its orthodoxy, and beat back the Muslim invaders, eventually expelling them from Spain altogether, she also instituted one of the worst anti-Semitic purges in European history.


From About.com (Women's History):


In 1480, Isabella and Ferdinand instituted the Inquisition in Spain, as one of many changes to the role of the church instituted by the monarchs. The Inquisition was aimed mostly at Jews and Muslims who had overtly converted to Christianity but were thought to be practicing their faiths secretly -- known respectively as morranos and moriscos -- as well as at heretics who rejected Roman Catholic orthodoxy, including alumbras who practiced a kind of mysticism or spiritualism.

Ferdinand and Isabella were given the title "the Catholic" by the Pope, in recognition of their role in "purifying" the faith. Among her other religious interests, Isabella also took a special interest in the order of nuns, the Poor Clares.

Isabella and Ferdinand proceeded with their plans to unify all of Spain by continuing a long-standing but stalled effort to expel the Moors (Muslims) who held parts of Spain. In 1492, the Muslim Kingdom of Granada fell to Isabella and Ferdinand, thus completing the Reconquista. That same year, all Jews in Spain who refused to convert to Christianity were expelled by royal edict.

Also in 1492, Isabella was convinced by Christopher Columbus to sponsor his voyage of discovery. The lasting effects of this were many: by the traditions of the time, when Columbus discovered lands in the New World, they were given to Castile. Isabella took a special interest in the Native Americans of the new lands; when some were brought back to Spain as slaves she insisted they be returned and freed, and her will expressed her wish that the "Indians" be treated with justice and fairness.

Isabella was also a patron of scholars and artists, establishing educational institutions and building a large collection of art works. She learned Latin as an adult, was widely read, and educated not only her sons but her daughters.


So, was Queen Isabella a model of Europe at its best, or Europe at its worst? Or, is it that Queen Isabella is simply the ultimate model of Europe, in all its good and evil.


UPDATE - Here are some of my thoughts on the lessons we can learn from the story of Isabella's life:

There are Catholics who seem to consider Isabella to be just short of a Saint. And, there are modern multiculturalists who seem to consider her to be just short of a devil.

I kept the Isabella bio short for two reasons. 

!) I don't trust my knowledge of her, because most of what is written seems to be extremely biased, and 

2) I think it is likely that we will have to make many of the same decisions as her in the near future, and thus I'd like to hear the opinions of others, uncolored by the bias inherent in most descriptions of Isabella's life.

The Spanish Inquisition, as much as it was a Theocratic tribunal born of a Medieval mentality, was in many ways simply an attempt to battle the multiculturalism which was rotting away the foundation of Europe during the late Medieval era.

The Expulsion of the Moors was, likely, absolutely necessary, because, as we see today, while not all those who identify as Muslims are dangerous, enough of them do support the imposition of Sharia law that their population becomes a degenerative force wherever it goes.

As for Isabella's anti-Semitic purges, I think it is important to understand that Christianity's historical abuses seem to have largely come about as a reaction to pressure from Islam. Certainly, both the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades were reactions to Islam. The anti-Semitic pogroms which came along with these events seem to have been an extension of the" Xenophobia" born in European Christians as a result of their quite justifiable fear of Islamic encroachment. 

In fact, when viewed from this perspective, one has to wonder, were the anti-Semtiic purges of the Dark Ages the exact equivalent of the anti-Zionist phenomenon we see born modern Dhimmitude; to blame the helpless Jews rather than the malevolent Muslim population. It could be that the abuses leveled on the European Jews were born of the same psychological phenomenon we see today; that of a kind of reflexive will to moral equivalence disguised as a high-minded egalitarianism.

When viewed from this perspective, it is easy to imagine the Medieval equivalent of modern-day Leftists demonstrating in the streets with placards proclaiming, "The Jews tricked the Moors into this rebellion."

In fact, I would not be surprised if the anti-Semitic purges of Queen Isabella's time were born of such a confluence of forces.

However, while the evil Medieval Leftist precursors
may have been been responsible for gathering the political will for the persecution of the Marranos (the word used at the time to connote those Jews who had converted to Christianity), the truth is it was the Medieval traditionalists who actually carried out the persecution of the Jews, or at the very least, allowed for it.

So, in my opinion, in our modern fight against the encroachment of Islam, we must be very careful to have the integrity to make the distinction that our fight is against the political will of Islam (which is manifested in the advocacy of Sharia) and not against the politics of immigration and/or integration.

Any attempt to use the the political will against Islamization as a force to settle the score with immigration in general is born of a lack of either a intellectual integrity of the inability to make distinctions.

Islam is one problem. Immigration is another problem altogether. 

It is a given that this is a truth which is more easily understood in the United States where our immigration problem is with South Americans, not Muslims (as opposed to Europe, where the immigration problem is, indeed, mostly about Muslims). Most Muslims are here in the U.S. legally, while most South Americans are here illegally (or, at least, they originally entered our borders illegally). And, while the South Americans are here illegally, they do, for the most part, obey our laws, and contribute to our societies.

The Muslims of America, on the other hand, enter legally but, in many cases, immediately make themselves part of the total structure of Islamic political rebellion, by standing in silent solidarity with those who advocate Sharia law in their Mosques. Those Muslims who sit silently in Mosques which call for such rebellion are participating in a conspiracy of sedition against America. An immigrant who enters our country legally and yet turns around and immediately enters into a conspiracy of sedition against our laws ought to be thrown out of our country. 

But, let us be clear, it is Muslim immigrants who are, apparently, participating in such seditious behavior. There is no ideological structure which supports a conspiracy of sedition among any other immigrant population entering the West. 

If we were to make the same mistake as was made during the time of Queen Isabella, that mistake would begin with conflating the problem of immigration with the problem of Islamization.

23 comments:

Damien said...

Pastorius,

She was a women of her time. Maybe she was not a good person, In many ways she was tyrant, but that was not a very democratic time. The west wasn't really very tolerant back than, but at least we were better than the Islamic world. I'm not really sure that we should celebrate the life of Isabella since she did some cruel and truly unjustifiable things, but we can and should celebrate the good things that came out of that time period. I am not a cultural relativist, I regard western culture, in particular my own American Culture as superior to other cultures. It is not shocking that I think this way, most people throughout human history regarded their culture as superior to other, rightfully or wrongfully so. That said, we should be proud of the good parts of our heritage and ashamed of the bad parts. We will never be perfect and we will have to accept that. If you are French or British or Spanish and you regard your culture as better than mine, I'm not offended, that is what I expect.

Damien said...

to be fair there maybe some problems with American culture and maybe in some ways some other cultures are better. What aspects of American or any other western culture are truly bad right now are largely up for debate. But no truly civilized person could see Saudi culture as humane.

Citizen Warrior said...

Nobody but a Muslim could see Saudi culture or Iran's culture as humane, Damien, you're right about that, and probably many of the Muslims in those countries secretly feel the same way.

Pastorius, I really liked this history lesson. Thank you.

I was just listening to The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam in my car and he said we owe the Muslims for the discovery of the New World because the reason Columbus was trying to find a new route to the East was that Islam had conquered and cut off the overland route.

Happy Columbus Day.

Anonymous said...

I read the same thing in the PIG, too, CW, and I had not known that before I read it. Concerning the Spanish Inquisition, as it has become known as, the real damage done by this institution (which lasted several hundred years, by the way) was the bloody persecution of heretical Christians, meaning Huguenots and other Protestant sects. The domino effect is that the Reformation took place, and many 'heretics' fled Europe and brought with them their faiths, which developed further in the great Awakening in this country, and led to our independence. We do indeed, owe a great deal to Queen Isabella.

Pastorius said...

I wish I knew more about Queen Isabella. There are Catholics who seem to consider her to be just short of a Saint. And, there are modern multiculturalists who seem to consider her to be just short of a devil.

I kept my writing short here for two reasons.

!) I don't trust my knowledge of her, because most of what is written seems to be extremely biased, and

2) I think it is likely that we will have to make many of the same decisions as her in the near future.

And frankly, I'd love to hear the opinions of others.

That being said, here are my thoughts.

The Spanish Inquisition, as much as it was a Theocratic tribunal born of a Medieval mentality, was in many ways simply an attempt to battle the multiculturalism which was rotting away the foundation of Europe.

The Expulsion of the Moors was, likely, absolutely necessary, because while not all those who identify as Muslims are dangerous, enough of them do support the imposition of Sharia law that their population becomes a degenerative force wherever it goes.

As for Isabella's anti-Semitic purges, I think it is important to understand that Christianity's historical abuses seem to have largely come about as a reaction to pressure from Islam. Certainly, both the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades were reactions to Islam. The anti-Semitic pogroms which came along with these events seem to have been an extension of the Xenophobia born in European Christians as a result of their quite justifiable fear of Islamic encroachment.

In fact, when viewed from this perspective, one has to wonder, were the anti-Semtiic purges of the Dark Ages the exact equivalent of the anti-Zionist phenomenon we see born modern Dhimmitude; to blame the helpless Jews rather than the malevolent Muslim population. It could be that the abuses leveled on the European Jews were born of the same psychological phenomenon we see today; that of a kind of reflexive will to moral equivalence disguised as a high-minded egalitarianism.

When viewed from this perspective, it is easy to imagine the Medieval equivalent of modern-day Leftists demonstrating in the streets with placards proclaiming, "The Jews tricked the Moors into this rebellion."

In fact, I would not be surprised if the anti-Semitic purges of Queen Isabella's time were born of such a confluence of forces.

However, while the evil Medieval anti-Hayekians (yes, the humor is intended) may have been been responsible for gathering the political will for the persecution of the Marranos (the word used at the time to connote those Jews who had converted to Christianity), the truth is it was the Medieval traditionalists who actually carried out the persecution of the Jews, or at the very least, allowed for it.

So, in my opinion, in our modern fight against the encroachment of Islam, we must be very careful to have the integrity to make the distinction that our fight is against the political will of Islam (which is manifested in the advocacy of Sharia) and not against the politics of immigration and/or integration.

Any attempt to use the the political will against Islamization as a force to settle the score with immigration in general is born of a lack of either a intellectual integrity of the inability to make distinctions.

Islam is one problem. Immigration is another problem altogether.

Given, this is a truth which is more easily understood in the United States where our immigration problem is with South Americans not Muslims. Most Muslims are here legally, while most South Americans are here illegally (or, at least, they originally entered our borders illegally). And, while the South Americans are here illegally, they do, for the most part, obey our laws, and contribute to our societies.

The Muslims of America, on the other hand, enter legally but immediately make themselves part of the total structure of Islamic political rebellion, by standing in silent solidarity with those who advocate Sharia law in their Mosques. Those Muslims who sit silently in Mosques which call for such rebellion are participating in a conspiracy of sedition against America. An immigrant who enters our country legally and yet turns around and immediately enters into a conspiracy of sedition against our laws ought to be thrown out of our country.

But, let us be clear, it is Muslim immigrants who are, apparently, participating in such seditious behavior. There is no ideological structure which supports a conspiracy of sedition among any other immigrant population entering the West.

If we were to make the same mistake as was made during the time of Queen Isabella, that mistake would begin with conflating the problem of immigration with the problem of Islamization.

Damien said...

Pastorius,

You just stated a fact that PC crowd doesn't want to hear. The PC crowd wants to believe that Islam is a religion of peace, or at least no worse than Christianity. But the truth is, taken literally Islam is a very barbaric belief system.

Pastorius said...

Yep, you and I agree on that, don't we?

Islam is certainly not a race. It is an ideolgy. In fact, it is a political ideology in that it intends to impose its own system of laws on all of us.

Therefore, it is necessary that we be able to criticize it. It is necessary that the laws of free speech apply to criticism of Islam.

And, ultimately, it is necessary that it becomes law that Islam, as a political system, is banned from America.

That's my opinion, and I have a right to express my opinion under the First Amendment.

Anonymous said...

Pastorius,

You have some ideological blind spots.

Islam and immigration are not mutually exclusive problems. Insane mass immigration with PC rules that prevent common-sense discrimination enables Islam to enter and grow. It is a fact of history that American Jewish organizations are partly responsible for the current immigration mess. Their lobbying led to the opening of the immigration floodgate in 1965 and in came the sons of Allah, the Jews' old enemies.

You're wrong in your assertion that there is no other immigrant group with a seditious ideology. The Mexicans in La Raza, whose guiding ideology is hispanic supremacy, make no bones about their intention to take over the southern U.S. by flooding it with Mexicans.

Pastorius said...

Anonymous,
The Mexicans who make up La Raza are nowhere the same percentage as the Muslims who advocate Sharia.

You think I have Ideological blindspots, and I think the same of you.

By the way, what do you propose we do with these Jews who were so instrumental in opening the floodgates to immigration?

Thanks for telling me what you think, especially on this thread.

Damien said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Damien said...

Anonymous

You're correct, La Raza is a seditious organization. Here is some info on them and their sister organization MEChA. True La Raza or MEChA are not anywhere near fanatical as jihadists, but they still want to take over at least part of the US and they regard the US Government, at least on the west coast as an occupying force, with no right to the land.

As for your claim that "American Jewish organizations are partly responsible for the current immigration mess" I don't know what your talking about. What lobbying did Jewish organizations do int 1965 that led to mass Muslim immigration to America or Europe? What Jewish organizations are you talking about? Not all Jews or Jewish organizations support mass immigration. Can you site your source? Did their motives have anything to do with protecting their fellow Jews fleeing other countries for their lives.

Pastorius said...

To be clear, I agree that La Raza is a seditious organization, as is Mecha. However, as I said, the Hispanics who participate in such organizations do not make up a very large percentage of the total Hispanic population. And, so I say, the problem is not quantitatively anything like the problem we have with Islam.

Damien said...

Pastorius,

I agree, I see no evidence that we should think otherwise.

Anonymous said...

I just knew Pastorius was going to flip when I mentioned the Jewish role in the immigration law changes in 1965. What? Jews are so perfect that they don't have an ounce of selfish ethnocentrism in them? Read this transcript of the 2004 panel discussion between Mark Krikorian, Stephen Steinlight, David Frum and Joseph Puder, all with serious intellect and know what they are talking about. Read particularly Krikorian's opening remark. Later on, you'll find the names of some of the Jewish organizations involved in the immigration law changes of 1965. The sentiment expressed in the dicussion was that opening the immigration floodgate was good for Jews back in 1965, but, in view of its unintended consequence of bringing in a large number of rabid anti-Jewish Mohammedans, it is now good for Jews to have the immigration floodgate closed. It may be unpleasant, but truth is truth. I didn't make up some fictional story to blood-libel the Jews.

Damien said...

Anonymous,

we never said you made up a fictional story to blood-libel the Jews but when you make a claim that most people have probably never heard of before, you need to site your source.

Pastorius said...

What's your larger point, Anonymous? Are you simply trying to beat me at an argument, or do you have a larger point?

Your point about La Raza being as much a threat as Islam is unsupportable.

Anonymous said...

My point about Islam, immigration, and Jews:

The main problem is mass immigration and its origin is the immigration law changes of 1965. Islamization in particular and Balkanization of the country in general are just natural negative consequences of mass immigration. Who should be blamed for the mess? One, organized American Jewry who lobbied for the immigration law changes. Two, their allies in the Democratic Party who got the law changes passed. There may well be other guilty parties but I have not delved into the immigration debacle sufficiently to name them, and I'm not old enough to remember what happened back then.

Citizen Warrior said...

In a way, it doesn't matter who caused them. It might be interesting but what can we do, what will we do about Muslim immigration now?

As a country, we have a right to restrict immigration from any people we choose for any reason we choose. Would it be possible, if enough people knew about the basic teachings of Islam, to simply refuse any Muslim from immigrating to the U.S.?

Anonymous said...

CW,

You can try scaring them away. The hands of the state may be tied by political correctness, but the citizens' are not (this is where the IBA's idea of a parallel government comes in). Find a financial backer with serious moolah. Then get a PR firm to run a huge propaganda campaign to whip up "Islamophobia" to feverish pitch in the country, with the objective of achieving maximum global notoriety. The more unhinged the spokesmen sound, the better (think Ahmadinejad times ten). Pump out trenchant anti-Islamic rhetoric through every channel: newspaper ads, radio ads, TV ads, Internet ads, billboards, flyers, etc. Send belligerent letters to embassies of countries belonging to the OIC, telling their citizens not to come because people here are ready to explode. Advertise same in those countries' news media. Be so appalling that the big left-wing U.S. media are forced to take notice and write the campaign up in as bad a light as possible, using every negative epithet they can think of. Use them as your force multipliers as their stories invariably get picked up internationally.

At the end of the day, however, a moratorium on immigration still needs to be implemented.

Pastorius said...

Hi Anonymous,
The SIOE is more a true parallel government. As I understand it, there is not yet an SIOA. Really that is a cause we need to take up.

There is an anti-CAIR. We need to find leaders for an SIOA.

IBA is a blog which uses multiple shields (place of origin unknown, center of ideology unknown, is it comedy or dead-serious? unknown) to deflect attack.

The idea of IBA being the parellel government of the world is offered as humor. However, it ain't a bad idea, as long as a guy like me isn't running things.

If it were up to me, we'd simply nuke the UN building and be done with it. We might actually kill some of those damned Ethnic Nationalist leaders as well. Two birds with one nuke.

But then, that's why you don't want me in charge.

On the other hand, it ain't a bad idea to have people who will say such things, even if they are fucking goofballs like me.

Anyway, to be serious, we do need someone to take the mantle of leading SIOA. And, it's probably a good idea to keep me away from it.

And, in the meantime, I'm going to go back to making sure people don't think the Jews have ever done anything bad, ever, in all of history.

Anonymous said...

So you're an apologist for Jewish ethnocentrism?

Your attitude seems to be that it's OK for Jews to take care of their own but not OK for other ethnic nationalists to do the same.

Damien said...

Pastorius,

I got into an interesting conversation with Citizen Warrior on a related subject over at his blog.

Pastorius said...

I don't understand how it is that I'm an apologist for Jewish ethnocentrism.

First off, you might not know this, but I'm not Jewish.

I'm not aware from day to day what "Jewish issues" are.

However, I am aware of anti-Semtiism, and it has been a cultural habit in Europe, and to a lesser extent in America, to blame Jews for socieities ills. So when you blame immigration on Jews - who make up a very small percentage of the total population and did not have any significant presence inAmerican government back in the sixties - for the boom in immigration post 1965, it sounds like anti-Semitism to me.

Given, you did say Jews were "in part" responsibile.

Well, if it is in part, then how big is that part they played.

And, why are you so concerned with it.

America made a choice on immigration. It has proved to be problematic. And, when the citizens of our country have attempted to put the brakes on the runaway immigration, the various courts have shot down our attempts as "unConstitutional".

I don't think that's because of the Jews.

But, maybe you have some knowledge I do not have.

In short, I think you are playing games here. You are trying to get me to take the bait in an argument when you are not being clear about exactly what I would be arguing about.

I'm not going to do it, my friend.