A Conversation on 1492 Taino Culture

By Brian Cohen and Andrea Espinoza

[Teacher's note] Class discussion on 1492 about how we should think about the negative impact of "discovery" on Native Americans continued in this email exchange.

[1] Brian Cohen
In terms of the continuity of the 1492 culture of the Taino natives on the islands, the fact that they were indeed eradicated is simple Darwinism. They were a primitive culture in the midst of nations developing in the way of knowledge, education, technology, navigation, and more. In that case, then, if it were not 1492 that the natives' fate was sealed, it would have been 1592, 1692, 1792, 1892, or so on.

[2] Andrea Espinoza
I must disagree with you. While the Taino Indians may have been considered to be "primitive" by their Spaniard conquerors, in fact they were not such a term. As a matter of fact, the Spanish entourage would have failed had it not been for the simple techniques of the Taino . Furthermore, Darwin postulated many theories during his course as a biological researcher. Of which theory do you speak?

[3] Brian Cohen
Regarding Darwin's theory of natural selection, he describes "survival of the fittest . . . called 'natural selection,' or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life." (Herbert Spencer: Principles of Biology of 1864, vol. 1, p. 444). Now, as you claim that the Taino Indians were not "primitive," but rather acted in a way that allowed the Europeans to survive, I have two responses. If I were to consider that they DID teach the techniques to allow Europeans to survive, the theory of natural selection specifies that the "fittest culture" adapts to preserve their lives -- the Europeans simply adopted any Taino survival measures, took them as their own, and defeated the Taino in all other regards of life. So perhaps the Taino's survival methods for their environment were superior, but the Europeans method of adopting those methods as their own and still being able to outlast the Indians shows their superiority and makes the natural selection evident. Now, the other response I have is that the very fact that the Indians were killed off by the Europeans is a simple and obvious testament to European superiority/Indian inferiority. Look at the concrete facts first -- bows & arrows vs. guns. Even if you want to be subjective with this example and try to argue that bows & arrows were more appropriate for the island, in the end the guns won out over the bows & arrows in war and, moreover, the Europeans managed to feed themselves without bows & arrows, proving that they were not necessary. And going back to Darwin's theory of natural selection, guns favored the "preservation of favored races in the struggle for life." So, again, if you want to be subjective with the term "primitive," you can always look at the obvious and blatant fact -- the Taino indians were conquered, which is the essential element concerning Darwin's theory of natural selection.

[4] Andrea Espinoza
Well stated. Now, first of all, let's talk about this theory. The idea which you refer to, "survival of the fittest," is not an idea of Darwin. It is an idea of Herbert Spencer. Spencer postulated that Darwin's theories on natural selection merely echoed what he thought, but in much nicer words. “This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection.' or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life." This theory is what gave rise to the ideology of "Social Darwinism," a theory that takes into account human nature and social conventions in the times during which they are used by "advanced races" to justify superiority over a race they deemed "inferior."

Furthermore, Darwin's actual theory relates to evolution and natural selection. Natural selection, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is "a natural process that results in the survival and reproductive success of individuals or groups best adjusted to their environment and that leads to the perpetuation of genetic qualities best suited to that particular environment." A natural process. Death is a natural process. Disease is a natural process. In some cases, war can be a natural process. But what the Spaniards did was not natural. Attacking the Taino Indians on a basis of "glory, God, and gold" in the name of a government over 4,000 miles away is not a natural process. It was a process of greed and glory. Fernando and Isabel were trying to be the next Caesars.

[5] Brian Cohen
The way that you're using the term "natural process" in this case is too subjective to actually mean anything. Death is natural, and war is natural, but killing in a less organized manner (more brutally, for example, as was the case here) is not natural? In fact, killing for power and gluttony are among the most natural characteristics of mankind. This represents a phenomenon that has been occurring for hundreds and hundreds of years, in every society, including today! So to disagree, imperialism and the desire to spread one's power to the furthest reaches of one's ability is not an uncommon occurrence -- think about England's colonies in Africa, think about Nazi Germany's Third Reich spreading to the ends of Asia, think back to "the sun will never set on the Roman Empire." Examples range from the beginning of organized civilization to today. This example of the Taíno Indians may not seem natural, but the foundation for everything that the Spaniards did was natural; they killed off the weaker civilization -- this is natural selection in every sense of the phrase.

[6] Andrea Espinoza
On the outside, it would seem so easy. Small group with guns comes over in ships and kills off the "weak" larger population. But who came over and worked themselves into every crevice of the Taíno civilization under the auspices of "friendship?" But who made the Taíno weaker? Who enslaved them? Who brought over diseases that they had never seen before? The Spaniards did. Furthermore, in regard to the Taínos succumbing to diseases brought over by the Spaniards, the very same thing happened to the Spaniards when they first arrived on Guanahaní. You are right, the Spanish killed off the Taíno, but it wasn't because of natural selection. It was because of the fact that the Spaniards insulated themselves under the auspices of creating one society, and then ripped the rug out from under the Taínos just to make a profit.

[7] Brian Cohen
Regardless of the reason, the outcome poses a clear and blatant answer: the Spanish were the superior culture, whether you want to look at it from a strategic, technological, or intellectual viewpoint. Perhaps they used unjust or ignoble means to do so, but they were the decisive "winners" in the game of survival. There was absolutely no way that the native culture could have (or should have, looking at it from a "survival of the fittest" point of view) outlasted any modern culture. To reiterate, if it was not the Spanish looking for gold in 1492, it would have been some other developed culture with some type of vested interest, be it slavery, minerals, resources, or land.

[8] Andrea Espinoza
However, the culture survived for thousands of years, very well, I might add for themselves. For their part, they did not consider themselves to be primitive. They were developed for the society that they had created for themselves. The Spanish culture was advanced for the society they had created based on the idea of pillaging and war. Just because they were not in use of "modern" warfare technology (created by the Moors and Chinese) does not mean the Indians were not advanced. The point is this: It is not that they could not survive. They could have survived. There are many cultures who still survive using their same tools that their ancestors used. Examples are: the Masai of Kenya, the Maori and Aborigines of New Zealand and Australia, even the Amish of Lancaster County in the U.S. However, the Spaniards destroyed it in their quest for the 3 Gs (Glory, God, and Gold).

[9] Brian Cohen
I have two responses to the claim that "they did not consider themselves to be primitive." First of all, who are you or I to insinuate that a culture of 500+ years ago thought anything? Perhaps they did consider themselves primitive when pitted against the Spaniards, how would you know? Maybe when they saw the Spanish with their advanced weaponry, clothing, navigation tools, etc, they did consider themselves primitive by comparison. But regardless of the veracity of that statement, we can never know, so it's essentially hearsay at this point. Second, even if they did not consider themselves primitive, they were. They could not survive against the weaponry and strategy of the Europeans. Yes, they survived for hundreds of years, but there's no way to depict superiority vs. inferiority until another civilization appears. And when that other civilization did appear (i.e. the Europeans), it was pretty obvious who was superior and who was inferior. And, yes, there are other societies who are of equal ability that still survive today, but the fact is that they were not challenged by a superior society. If the U.S. military went in, they would indeed destroy those civilizations at a whim, because they are superior in a "survival of the fittest" way. So just because no one has killed off those societies doesn't mean that they aren't inferior. But because a society (the Spanish) did kill off the Taino Indians, does indeed mean that they were primitive and inferior. It doesn't matter if the Spaniards did it for the 3 G's, or even just because they were bored -- the fact is that they had the ability to do so, and they did.

[10] Andrea Espinoza
I am not disputing that the Spanish did not decimate the entire Amerindian population on Guanahaní Island. However, let me ask this question? If the Taíno civilization did not think anything, then how did they create a society? How is it that they could have a class of naborías (commoners) and nitaínos (nobles)? How could they live if they did not think? They had quite an advanced civilization. It was not based in military strength, but rather agriculture.

You ask what right do we have to insinuate that the civilizations in question had no ideology or thought process. I ask what right did the Spaniards have to make people pay for the right to live on their own land? None. What right did they have to go essentially pull off one of the biggest bank heists in history? None. Darwin/Spencer theories can give possible explanations, not a justification. At the end of the day, what the Spaniards did was wrong.

[11] Brian Cohen
First off, I am not disputing that they had the ability to think. I simply meant "who are you and I to judge what a culture 500+ years ago was thinking -- perhaps they did consider themselves primitive -- we would never know." They could obviously think and form a perfectly functional civilization. But they were doomed to die because of the very fact that they were simply agricultural -- such a simple society could not possibly stand against an actual civilized society. What benefit do they bring? Hunting? The Spaniards did that just fine -- they never went hungry. And the Spaniards were not based solely on military strength; they excelled in every area, including intellect (which, as I'm sure you are aware, is the basis for all other accomplishments), technology, navigation, government, etc.

As for the Spaniards having the "right" to take over the Taíno's land, the word "right" is a relative term. It does not mean anything -- it's a man-made concept. Who is to say we have the RIGHT to do something, but no RIGHT to do something else? Rather, the Spaniards simply staked their claim (the island and its resources) and took it, just like a lion stakes his claim (a gazelle, perhaps), and takes it. Does he have a right? This is nature, where the strongest survive, regardless of rights, and the weak either die or are made to die. And the Taíno Indians were too weak to survive. Is that wrong, or simply the way of the world?

[12] Andrea Espinoza
What right have you to say that they were not civilized? I think that a group of people who had organized religion, a social class system, and a way of sustaining themselves most certainly was an actual civilization. Just because they did not have guns and cannons does not mean that they were not capable of being an actual civilization. Furthermore, that isn't true that the Spaniards did not go hungry. They did not know how to hunt or what to eat until the Indians taught them. As for technology, the technology they had was not their own. It was the accomplishments of the Moors, another civilization that the Spaniards considered beneath them. The funny thing about that is that the intellectual and technological advancements of the Moors are what allowed the Spaniards to go off on their quest. Hell, Christopher Columbus wouldn't have found Guanahaní Island without the astrolabe, a Moorish invention. It was because of the Moors passion for intellect that we have the works of Cicero, Aeschylus, and many other classical Greek or Roman works as a philosophical treasure trove. Had it not been for "a less civilized society" many of the things we hold dear would not exist.

Furthermore, in regards to your views on the idea of the man-made concept of "right," there is a difference between taking something that is yours by right and reason, and petty theft. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, and acts like a duck, it is a duck. You can't cover a sharp spear with thin silk. The Spaniards had no right to do they did. What they did was theft. You can color it any way that you want, but it was theft, and it was wrong. Nature does say that only the strong survive. But there is a reason that human beings are different from animals. We are not bound by our animalistic instincts alone. We have brains. We are taught right from wrong. One of the earliest lessons that we learn is that we do not steal. Even the Ten Commandments states: "Thou shall not steal." In the end, the Spanish stole what was not theirs, and no Spencerian theory, no Darwinistic views, can hide that.

[13] Brian Cohen
There is a difference between being a civilization and simply being civilized. They were primitive; they had a simple, basic, hunter-gatherer society, and no social class system whatsoever. They were a civilization only in the sense that they could indeed collectively survive, but, then again, so can animals, but we would never call them civilized, would we? As for the Spaniards essentially "stealing" everything that they used to progress, perhaps they did. Then again, it is not the act of stealing those elements of technology or hunting techniques, but rather how they used those elements to advance themselves. Certainly we can see that they used them to progress as far as possible -- after all, they navigated the Atlantic Ocean with the Moors' inventions, and they fed a budding Spanish colony with the Taíno's hunting techniques. If you consider it on a macro-cosmic scale, theft is by no means uncommon. Apple didn't invent the mp3 player, but they're not discredited for inventing the iPod. That's how societies progress; how they acquire technology/information is irrelevant, but rather it is how they utilize those elements that will define them.

As for the concept of "rights," I am in complete agreement that they did not have the "right" to "steal," but the laws of nature are much different than the laws of man. Does a lion have the right to steal a wolf's catch? No, but he can, because he is bigger, stronger, and more apt to kill than the wolf is. You can call it theft, you can call it illegal, you can call it whatever you want, but you're stuck in a short-sighted mindset in the sense that you have to think beyond the realm of man-made law and man-made religion, and think in terms of raw survival. It does not matter what the Bible says . . . the Bible was written by people (who had a specific set of beliefs - we are not going to debate the Bible and religion, though. I think it will suffice to simply say that the Bible is not the end-all but instead represents a specific set of beliefs). We may not be animals, but think about it, if we were completely noble and never "stole" from others, we would be a lot more primitive than we are now as an international, world-wide community.

[14] Andrea Espinoza
Actually, in my previous argument I stated their class structure. The Taínos had the naborías (commoners) and nitaínos (nobility.) They had an organized religion. They had a system for retaining vital information. And they did not just have a simple hunter-gatherer system. If I'm not mistaken, all of those things make up a society. A well-established society. Furthermore, I will admit that global civilization has advanced because of the thievery of many. However, the thievery that the Spanish committed destroyed a civilization. It decimated them to the point that they no longer exist. Furthermore, they did not do this because los españoles back home were starving. They did this because of pure greed, not need. Greed for what was not theirs. They wanted it because it would make them look pretty.

To compare a lion stealing a wolf's catch to what the Spaniards did is wrong simply because the Taínos were not simply hum-ho people who just hunted to survive like the Inuit of the film Atanarjuat. They had an established homeland. A lion may take a wolf's catch, but he will never take the land of a wolf. Furthermore, I am not "stuck in a short-sighted mindset in the sense that [I] have to think beyond the realm of man-made law and man-made religion." I am speaking as a person who is aware that her very livelihood was changed by the course of this decision.

Furthermore, you talk about what the Bible says. First of all, if it wasn't important, then why is it that the Spaniards went burning every non-Catholic who didn't obey it? Why is it that they used it to justify what they did? Why is it that a few words declared a child baptized, a man and woman married, a King and Queen crowned? Second of all, the Bible was not written by one person. It is comprised of two books: The Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament is the Torah. The New Testament is comprised of many of the books of the 12 disciples.

So if that is what you think, then let me ask this question: Did Adolf Hitler have any right to slaughter a significant percentage of the Jewish European civilization? Did he have any right to put them in concentration camps and burn and gas them? Did he have any right to take their lands, belongings, their very sense of identity? No. But he did it, didn't he? It's considered wrong, isn't it? So why then, is this so different?

[15] Brian Cohen
I am not disagreeing about the fact that the Tainos had a society, but that doesn’t qualify being not primitive. Any civilization could have a disparity between classes, some figure that they look up to (even nature as an entire entity), and some type of communication/information-retention system. As you may recall, the Inuits had a definitive divide between their “nobles” and those below them, they believed in specific spirits, and could by all means communicate and retain vital information and histories through their communication. But we are in agreement that the Inuits were indeed primitive. So those elements do not necessitate the primitiveness or non-primitiveness of a civilization.

That being said, you say that the Tainos were not simply people who wanted to survive like the Inuits because of their established homeland. But if they were staking their claim in the history of the world, what is their legacy? That they could use spears to hunt? Sure, the Spanish did indeed utilize their hunting methods to eat while on the island, but are you going out every day with your spear at meal time, thanking the legacy of the gracious Taino people who have supplied us with the tools necessary to eat and, thus, survive? No, their methods were blatantly primitive, and the Spanish were more than capable of eating and hunting long after the Taino were decimated.

You claim that you are “speaking as a person who is aware that her very livelihood was changed by the course of this decision.” I think it is important to note, however, that if it were not for an event so significant as, say, the discovery of the New World by modern civilization that you would not be here today, buying food at a supermarket, talking on your cell phone, and having an academically-charged debate on your high-speed internet-capable computer. So, yes, your livelihood was literally changed for the better by the course of this decision, and the history of the world was changed by the natural progression of favoring a strong and superior culture to primitive ones.

As for the Bible, in dismissing it as a valid source, I am simply referring to the fact that there is a clear distinction between the theory of “survival of the fittest” and such man-made entities like the Bible. The fact is that it was written by man and simply contains ideas that a portion (but by no means all) of people believe in. That does not mean that the Bible is the end-all of humanity. For example, the Bible also prohibits adultery. But let’s say, hypothetically, that I do not believe in the Bible, and I cheat on my wife. If I don’t believe adultery is wrong, but rather a natural desire that has been satisfied, who is to say that I’m wrong? Christians? Well if I am not Christian, how can you say that they are right and I am wrong? …Certainly not because of the Bible, which may mean nothing to me in that case. Yes, the Bible can marry a man and woman, can baptize a child, can crown a king or queen, but, again, these are all man-made abstract ideas. What is “marriage,” “baptism,” or “royalty?” You must think beyond the realm of man-made ideas, such as laws/rights, concepts of right and wrong, and religion, because when dealing with the advancement of humankind, primitive vs. superior does not answer to these ideas. Rather, if a civilization is weak, it should and will be eliminated so that a stronger civilization can take its place. It doesn’t matter what the Bible says about stealing.

Now, I can certainly appreciate your concept in comparing the Holocaust with the decimation of the Taino civilization. However, you must consider the Taino’s place in history. What forms of progress or advancements did they create that warranted their continued existence? At a time when the Spanish were progressing in nearly every field, the Tainos had simple hunter-gatherer techniques as their sole means of survival. And the fact that we no longer use these techniques nor any Taino techniques in modern day society is a testament to their inevitable doom as a civilization. And so, where the elimination of the Taino Indians from the world was fueled by a lack of progress (in what is a very progressive world), the Holocaust was fueled by the racism of fascist dictator who felt that Aryans should be the only race simply because they were Aryan. The Spaniards did not kill the Tainos because of their skin color, but rather because they were an obstacle for Spanish ideals, including the acquisition of gold, spreading the word of God, and their own glory â€" it may be “wrong,” but that’s the world we live in, and the fact that the Tainos could not adapt explains their inevitable disappearance as a civilization. The Jews of 1940 were killed because of racism, not the fact that they were a primitive society (which they certainly were not â€" perhaps more advanced in certain respects) like the Tainos. The world is an aggressive society, and if the “survival of the fittest” approach was indeed replaced with your humanitarian view, we would by no means be as advanced as we are today. Primitive societies like that of the Taino Indians need to be removed to make way for advanced, modern societies that will better enable the continued survival of mankind (which includes survival against other humans).

[16] Andrea Espinoza
What you do not see is that the very term you use to classify the Taíno as "primitive" is a man-made term that is relative to the person who uses it. I am not trying to stay within a realm of man-made ideas. I am looking at this event from a different perspective. A perspective which states that just because we think one thing does not make it actually true. My point all along has been this: just because the Spaniards considered the Taíno that they conquered to be "primitive" and beneath them does not mean that they actually were. They did not consider themselves primitive. The Spaniards had a grave misconception of that term. And the acted on such a term that produced grave consequences.

The Bible is written by men. I concede to that. However, what I am saying is that the Spanish were, again, hypocrites. They preached the virtues of such a Bible to the people that they burned at the stake that didn't recite the auto da fé, and then went against those very doctrines in their regards to the New World.

[17] Brian Cohen
And here's my point all along, in direct contrast with yours: Yes, primitive is a relative term, unless it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt to hold true to its meaning. The Taino WERE primitive, with no relativity about it. They had no persevering technology, intelligence, knowledge, etc -- NOTHING about their culture was in any way more advanced than anything that currently existed. They were basic, undoubtedly, blatantly hunter-gatherer -- compare them with the Spanish, what could the Taino possibly afford the world in 1492 that was not previously presented? The answer is an astounding "nothing at all."

You say "They did not consider themselves primitive." How do you know? Did you ask them? Is there any instance in which the Taino Indians proclaimed, "Our culture is superior to Spanish civilization?" Or even "equal?" For all you or I know, the Taino Indians might have thought that they were primitive. Consider this: The Taino hunt wild animals with spears, have minimal art with some natural resources, and can communicate via spoken language. Then, the Spanish arrive with boats, ostentatious clothing, jewels, tools of navigation, writing implements, they bring some Taino back to Spain where they see cathedrals, royalty, technology, a civilized society, etc. Do the Taino, in that case, still consider themselves unprimitive?

Finally, concerning the Bible, yes the Spanish were hypocrites, but that doesn't change the bigger picture here, concerning the primitiveness of the Taino people. Their acceptance of the Bible is extraneous -- regardless of whether they had accepted its doctrines or not, they are still just a primitive civilization who would have been decimated sooner or later. Being hypocrites about the Bible still occurs today -- it's no surprise. Think about all the religious extremists who resort to violence when one of the primary doctrines of the religion is to avoid violence. Certainly the content of the Bible is no basis for an argument regarding morality because so rarely is it followed the way it should be.

[18] Andrea Espinoza
I think we've reached the summation of our argument: You argue that what happened was Darwinian/Spenceristic in nature, and I argue that it was because of greed.