This reminds me of a recent essay by Helen Andrews about the feminization of various fields, a manifestation of which is political expression in contexts where it traditionally didn't happen (e.g. female doctors wearing their Pride pins). Seems to me that the people expressing their politics via yard signs and bumper stickers are overwhelmingly leftist https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-great-feminization/
Detractors of Columbus are called "revisionist" because we are accused applying a contemporary value upon an historical figure, and not acknowledging the perceived appropriate cultural values of those times. Here is some information, available in various articles, confirming his brutality, and confirming that his actions EVEN AT THAT TIME were considered inhumane and inappropriate.
Below is from the Guardian, but there is other documentation as well. The following is why it many of us refuse to celebrate him:
"Christopher Columbus was accused by his Spanish peers of tyranny, brutality, and mis-management during his time as governor of the colony of Hispaniola. In 1500, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella sent royal administrator Francisco de Bobadilla to investigate the complaints, which resulted in Columbus being arrested and sent back to Spain in chains.
The investigation and charges against Columbus were triggered by a wide range of complaints from both Spanish settlers and the indigenous population, including:
Brutal rule: Columbus and his brothers, who were also in positions of authority, were accused of using torture and mutilation against both rebellious Spanish colonists and the native Taíno people. Specific acts included publicly whipping Spaniards for offenses like stealing food.
Failed leadership: Many of the Spanish colonists who had come to the New World were unruly treasure-seekers. Columbus's strict, militaristic style of governance and his inability to temper their lust for gold led the Crown to view him as an incompetent administrator.
Harsh treatment of indigenous people: Even by the standards of the time, Columbus was known for his extreme cruelty toward the native population. He had instituted a system of forced labor and tribute payments, resulting in many native deaths from overwork or starvation.
Illegal actions: Bobadilla also found evidence that Columbus had been illegally selling indigenous people into slavery without royal permission.
The outcome of the charges
Arrest and imprisonment: Upon arriving in Santo Domingo, Bobadilla quickly gathered witness testimony from 23 colonists that overwhelmingly condemned Columbus's actions. He immediately arrested Columbus and his brothers and had them shipped back to Spain in chains.
Royal pardon, but loss of power: After about six weeks in prison, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella ordered Columbus's release. While he was pardoned, they stripped him of his titles and his authority as governor of the colonies. Columbus would embark on one last voyage, but never regained his position of power.
Reputation tarnished: The public disgrace permanently damaged Columbus's reputation among his contemporaries. He died in 1506, largely out of favor with the Crown and the public.
Okay, well we'll try not to hold dei accountable for its cruel extremes. He's not celebrated because he's a psychopath. He's celebrated for the exact sake reason Columbia, and many countries there, celebrate him. You're ahistorical and acultural. Your arbitrary whims of morals, because they aren't real morals, do not account for humans.
I don't really know how to reply to your post. "Arbitrary whims of morals do not account for humans"? I'm not clear what you are communicating other than you are discounting anything I provided in my reply to Aaron. It's likely that it was the colonizers who accompanied Columbus back to Hispaniola to establish a community who were the most brutal to the natives, however, Columbus not being able to control their terrorizing revealed his inability to lead. He was most interested in finding treasures to return to Spain a hero.
You are clear on what I'm saying, but you want to continue your point because you think you're right. If people solely recognized people as heroes by your standards then we'd have no heroes and there probably wouldn't be a Columbia, much less the name they chose specifically for Christopher Columbus *after* the revolt from Spain. So, you're making stuff up and placing narratives for other cultures. Idk what you want to call that, but I know what you want to call conservatives.
I’m pretty sure that reason “Abrahamic faiths” didn’t stick was because people didn’t want to be associated with Islam post-9/11.
And as for posting the Ten Commandments, I see that as the reaction of people who believe (not without reason) that Christian identification has been declining, so they want to increase symbolic Christianity as a counterweight to what they see as the secularization of society.
"Abrahamic faiths" has a lot going against it. I don't think anyone in the 1990s was especially warm to the idea that there is a special concord between Christians and Muslims. Let's not forget 9/11 wasn't the first attack on the WTC. And then there was 1979.
There's a certain tension here in that there is less theological distance between Christianity and Islam than between Christianity and nearly any other religion -- arguably, even between Christianity and Judaism, or between Christianity and Liberal Christianity. But on the ground it just isn't this way, because of the way Islamic cultures behave in practice.
"In some cases, smaller minority groups can receive disproportionate levels of explicit (holiday) recognition. Modern American leftism, and especially its “woke” manifestation, has gone well beyond this."
My response to this is: Not true/nonsense
1) New Year's, Thanksgiving, Christmas and, arguably, Columbus days are ALL Christian majoritarian. Columbus day was established via 1) Columbus "discovering" the New World and bringing Christianity to the New World and later partly in response to the 1891 lynching of 11 Italian Americans in New Orleans
2) MLK celebrates ending of segregation, (Unofficial: Juneteenth end of Slavery)
3) No holiday for Chanukah, no holiday for Id al-Fitr
4) who cares and why?
To the extent "Woke" has any significant role, it's a spoon in the swimming pool, as the above list should make clear.
As for the number of blacks from "privileged foreign backgrounds": Pew Research Center: A 2022 study showed that 21%. So, do you suggest foreign blacks should become a special class and how would such legislation look like? Do you have a pragmatic solution rather than ideological?
I was in NYC for a month this past summer, myself and a fellow Christian colleague started to play a game called “find the non Catholic Church without gay stuff on it”, pride flags everywhere, even one church on the UES with a Harvey Milk quote, who I’m pretty sure is a confirmed pederast.
We eventually found one, First Chinese Baptist Church in old Chinatown. We have been surrendering symbolic space for decades and I’m pretty sure it’s bought us nothing.
In practice, the evangelical churches in NYC tend not have their own space, or not much of it. I think Redeemer Presbyterian (Tim Keller's church) has some of its own space, but I recall for a long time one of their campuses even met at a Jewish synagogue. I don't really know how much of his career he spent preaching in owned vs. borrowed space.
I think there's a big difference between faithful Christians trying to recapture real estate from the dying Mainline -- in many cases, with the support of at least elements of their elderly, majority Trump-voting congregations -- and trying to capture secular, public spaces against the wishes of a generally unreceptive public.
Does the opposition respect public “secular” spaces or do they drape in their battle flags of Pride and BLM whenever given the chance? I mean I understand the theory but they’ve pretty much declared they think we all kind of deserve to die, and they should raise our kids, so I mean I don’t feel inclined to respect any calls they make for fairness or neutrality.
I'm not expressing any sympathy for the left here. But is it prudent? Does it secure any lasting gains, or is it just an overreach that is going to invite blowback that rolls back all its gains and then some?
A lot of stuff during the GWB years invited blowback that caused a lot of Millennials to see Christians as the big bad wolf when, in political terms, we were really a paper tiger.
There's actually a lot of political capital to be gained by being perceived by low-information normies as the party of neutrality and normality, as opposed to the mirror image of the wackos on the other side. I don't think this is going to happen under Trump, but it's something his successors should think about, if they want to build a viable conservative politics for the next generation.
Maybe get out more? Or accept that what qualified as "normie" forty years ago is not the same as in 2025-- but we definitely have normie people by today's standards. I've generally found that a majority of people are seriously turned off by the Sturm und Drang of today's politics, especially the petty teapot tempests.
"Confirmed pederast" is a gross and baiting accusation. Here's a meta-response to your statement:
"No, it is not confirmed that Harvey Milk was a pederast. Accusations of this nature have been made by critics, but are disputed by historical records, including those from Milk's biographer Randy Shilts.
.
Here is a breakdown of the claims and the historical context surrounding them:
The accusation: The claims focus on Milk's relationship with Jack Galen McKinley, which began in 1964. At the time, Milk was 33 and McKinley was 17. The specific term "pederast" is sometimes used by critics and opponents of LGBTQ+ rights to describe this relationship, but historical facts contradict the implication that this was an illegal or abusive relationship involving a child.
Legal age of consent: The age of consent in New York in 1964 was 17 years old, not 16 as some sources claim. This means that Milk's relationship with McKinley was not illegal under the laws of the time.
Context of the relationship: Milk and McKinley met while working on the Barry Goldwater presidential campaign. McKinley was not a runaway at the time, as some critics allege, but was described as emotionally vulnerable and prone to depression. The significant age difference and power imbalance in the relationship, which are unethical by modern standards, are the primary basis for the accusations.
No criminal charges: Milk was never charged with, investigated for, or convicted of any crime related to his relationship with McKinley or any other minor. Accusations of pedophilia were also weaponized against LGBTQ+ activists, including Milk, during the 1970s by opponents of gay rights initiatives.
The controversy surrounding this relationship continues to be used by political opponents to attack Milk's legacy. However, historical sources, including biographies and contemporary news reports, do not support the claim that Milk was a "confirmed pederast."
I mean, we’ve had the alternative state religion forced into our public square, their holy symbols (rainbow flags), holy castes (different levels of non-white, for their purposes any conservative Christian non Caucasian gets demoted to “white”), holy days (earth day, etc.), creeds (diversity is our strength), and their favorite, punishment of non believers.
While I’m suspicious of any attempt to replace the religion of faith with mere outward observance, I’m finding it so hard to care about Hegseths Bible study, Aaron. The other side shows zero compunction about putting our faces in the dirt whenever possible, public symbols of Christianity make you blanche a little?
“ White [sic] a majority of the population still identifies as Christian”, looks like a Freudian slip. I’m sorry I respect you but I mean come on, we didn’t get this way by accident and if you think the enemies of Christians and conservatives are just itching to make peace with us so long as we don’t try to achieve public symbolic dominance? I mean is that what you’re saying?
I'd say look for substantive changes to make. Why haven't all red states started taxing remittances, for example? That would be more productive than symbolic legislation.
I’m pretty sure states can’t legally tax remittances that leave the country, for one, although I do like where your head is at. It’s also not a choice. Personally I think more evangelism and for want of a better word, catechesis (better at doctrine and double that for much neglected practical theology (temptation, prudence, etc.)) weigh more than every monument built by man, but hey I like monuments too and would like to see more.
I agree with this. I think the current zeitgeist is metamodernism, and it's important we don't play the narrative game or we'll be watered-down and swept up. We really ought to keep with the timelessness of Christianity. What we need is a full replacement of science, arts and everything. We only think outside our system through cracks in the system, and it's incumbent upon us to adhere to Christ.
No offense, but we're about two decades from new atheism being relevant. It culturally splintered and is so shallow that it devolved entirely into politics pretty quickly. That and it's a bit dull and toxic. I recommend you read any books on history and you'll have a much more well-informed viewpoint. Science in the west, along with universities, vs regular tutoring or schools, begins with scholasticism. They did interact with the greek and latin works which were coming in from the Latin translation movement, but the best analogues to universities were the philosophical academies etc of individual metaphysicians. Some of those were highly influential, but they didn't have the values which coalesced with humanism and universal brotherhood for education as the university did.
You seem to believe that atheism/rationalism is something like religious practice or belief system. I suppose I would expect that of people who believe in things that don't exist. Making rational choices based on empirical experience and the rigor of scientific method is the way we "are". Loving culture for its beauty and humanity voluntarily and without a wholly received rule book.
As for reading books... I've done so in Latin, Greek, German, Middle and Old English and some French. Oh, and modern English, of course. But as a former hard/software engineer in industry and then Wall Street, I do have a serious bias to quantitative validation and logic.
"Humanism and universal brotherhood"? You mean the sectarian wars, religious crusades, etc.?
This reminds me of a recent essay by Helen Andrews about the feminization of various fields, a manifestation of which is political expression in contexts where it traditionally didn't happen (e.g. female doctors wearing their Pride pins). Seems to me that the people expressing their politics via yard signs and bumper stickers are overwhelmingly leftist https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-great-feminization/
Detractors of Columbus are called "revisionist" because we are accused applying a contemporary value upon an historical figure, and not acknowledging the perceived appropriate cultural values of those times. Here is some information, available in various articles, confirming his brutality, and confirming that his actions EVEN AT THAT TIME were considered inhumane and inappropriate.
Below is from the Guardian, but there is other documentation as well. The following is why it many of us refuse to celebrate him:
"Christopher Columbus was accused by his Spanish peers of tyranny, brutality, and mis-management during his time as governor of the colony of Hispaniola. In 1500, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella sent royal administrator Francisco de Bobadilla to investigate the complaints, which resulted in Columbus being arrested and sent back to Spain in chains.
The investigation and charges against Columbus were triggered by a wide range of complaints from both Spanish settlers and the indigenous population, including:
Brutal rule: Columbus and his brothers, who were also in positions of authority, were accused of using torture and mutilation against both rebellious Spanish colonists and the native Taíno people. Specific acts included publicly whipping Spaniards for offenses like stealing food.
Failed leadership: Many of the Spanish colonists who had come to the New World were unruly treasure-seekers. Columbus's strict, militaristic style of governance and his inability to temper their lust for gold led the Crown to view him as an incompetent administrator.
Harsh treatment of indigenous people: Even by the standards of the time, Columbus was known for his extreme cruelty toward the native population. He had instituted a system of forced labor and tribute payments, resulting in many native deaths from overwork or starvation.
Illegal actions: Bobadilla also found evidence that Columbus had been illegally selling indigenous people into slavery without royal permission.
The outcome of the charges
Arrest and imprisonment: Upon arriving in Santo Domingo, Bobadilla quickly gathered witness testimony from 23 colonists that overwhelmingly condemned Columbus's actions. He immediately arrested Columbus and his brothers and had them shipped back to Spain in chains.
Royal pardon, but loss of power: After about six weeks in prison, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella ordered Columbus's release. While he was pardoned, they stripped him of his titles and his authority as governor of the colonies. Columbus would embark on one last voyage, but never regained his position of power.
Reputation tarnished: The public disgrace permanently damaged Columbus's reputation among his contemporaries. He died in 1506, largely out of favor with the Crown and the public.
Okay, well we'll try not to hold dei accountable for its cruel extremes. He's not celebrated because he's a psychopath. He's celebrated for the exact sake reason Columbia, and many countries there, celebrate him. You're ahistorical and acultural. Your arbitrary whims of morals, because they aren't real morals, do not account for humans.
I don't really know how to reply to your post. "Arbitrary whims of morals do not account for humans"? I'm not clear what you are communicating other than you are discounting anything I provided in my reply to Aaron. It's likely that it was the colonizers who accompanied Columbus back to Hispaniola to establish a community who were the most brutal to the natives, however, Columbus not being able to control their terrorizing revealed his inability to lead. He was most interested in finding treasures to return to Spain a hero.
You are clear on what I'm saying, but you want to continue your point because you think you're right. If people solely recognized people as heroes by your standards then we'd have no heroes and there probably wouldn't be a Columbia, much less the name they chose specifically for Christopher Columbus *after* the revolt from Spain. So, you're making stuff up and placing narratives for other cultures. Idk what you want to call that, but I know what you want to call conservatives.
I’m pretty sure that reason “Abrahamic faiths” didn’t stick was because people didn’t want to be associated with Islam post-9/11.
And as for posting the Ten Commandments, I see that as the reaction of people who believe (not without reason) that Christian identification has been declining, so they want to increase symbolic Christianity as a counterweight to what they see as the secularization of society.
"Abrahamic faiths" has a lot going against it. I don't think anyone in the 1990s was especially warm to the idea that there is a special concord between Christians and Muslims. Let's not forget 9/11 wasn't the first attack on the WTC. And then there was 1979.
There's a certain tension here in that there is less theological distance between Christianity and Islam than between Christianity and nearly any other religion -- arguably, even between Christianity and Judaism, or between Christianity and Liberal Christianity. But on the ground it just isn't this way, because of the way Islamic cultures behave in practice.
I think it is not helpful to continue to conflate ethnicity and culture. White is not the same as Christian.
There's no reason to separate them like that. You can have a culture of anything.
"In some cases, smaller minority groups can receive disproportionate levels of explicit (holiday) recognition. Modern American leftism, and especially its “woke” manifestation, has gone well beyond this."
My response to this is: Not true/nonsense
1) New Year's, Thanksgiving, Christmas and, arguably, Columbus days are ALL Christian majoritarian. Columbus day was established via 1) Columbus "discovering" the New World and bringing Christianity to the New World and later partly in response to the 1891 lynching of 11 Italian Americans in New Orleans
2) MLK celebrates ending of segregation, (Unofficial: Juneteenth end of Slavery)
3) No holiday for Chanukah, no holiday for Id al-Fitr
4) who cares and why?
To the extent "Woke" has any significant role, it's a spoon in the swimming pool, as the above list should make clear.
As for the number of blacks from "privileged foreign backgrounds": Pew Research Center: A 2022 study showed that 21%. So, do you suggest foreign blacks should become a special class and how would such legislation look like? Do you have a pragmatic solution rather than ideological?
I was in NYC for a month this past summer, myself and a fellow Christian colleague started to play a game called “find the non Catholic Church without gay stuff on it”, pride flags everywhere, even one church on the UES with a Harvey Milk quote, who I’m pretty sure is a confirmed pederast.
We eventually found one, First Chinese Baptist Church in old Chinatown. We have been surrendering symbolic space for decades and I’m pretty sure it’s bought us nothing.
You would definitely find Orthodox churches in NYC without a trace of gay decor.
Oh without question but while we saw a Byzantine church near east 14th didn’t really notice EO churches, not a big presence in a lot of Manhattan.
In practice, the evangelical churches in NYC tend not have their own space, or not much of it. I think Redeemer Presbyterian (Tim Keller's church) has some of its own space, but I recall for a long time one of their campuses even met at a Jewish synagogue. I don't really know how much of his career he spent preaching in owned vs. borrowed space.
I think there's a big difference between faithful Christians trying to recapture real estate from the dying Mainline -- in many cases, with the support of at least elements of their elderly, majority Trump-voting congregations -- and trying to capture secular, public spaces against the wishes of a generally unreceptive public.
Don’t know how unreceptive the public is really.
Does the opposition respect public “secular” spaces or do they drape in their battle flags of Pride and BLM whenever given the chance? I mean I understand the theory but they’ve pretty much declared they think we all kind of deserve to die, and they should raise our kids, so I mean I don’t feel inclined to respect any calls they make for fairness or neutrality.
I'm not expressing any sympathy for the left here. But is it prudent? Does it secure any lasting gains, or is it just an overreach that is going to invite blowback that rolls back all its gains and then some?
A lot of stuff during the GWB years invited blowback that caused a lot of Millennials to see Christians as the big bad wolf when, in political terms, we were really a paper tiger.
There's actually a lot of political capital to be gained by being perceived by low-information normies as the party of neutrality and normality, as opposed to the mirror image of the wackos on the other side. I don't think this is going to happen under Trump, but it's something his successors should think about, if they want to build a viable conservative politics for the next generation.
I guess I couldn’t really say. I kind of think there aren’t really “normies” anymore.
Maybe get out more? Or accept that what qualified as "normie" forty years ago is not the same as in 2025-- but we definitely have normie people by today's standards. I've generally found that a majority of people are seriously turned off by the Sturm und Drang of today's politics, especially the petty teapot tempests.
"Confirmed pederast" is a gross and baiting accusation. Here's a meta-response to your statement:
"No, it is not confirmed that Harvey Milk was a pederast. Accusations of this nature have been made by critics, but are disputed by historical records, including those from Milk's biographer Randy Shilts.
.
Here is a breakdown of the claims and the historical context surrounding them:
The accusation: The claims focus on Milk's relationship with Jack Galen McKinley, which began in 1964. At the time, Milk was 33 and McKinley was 17. The specific term "pederast" is sometimes used by critics and opponents of LGBTQ+ rights to describe this relationship, but historical facts contradict the implication that this was an illegal or abusive relationship involving a child.
Legal age of consent: The age of consent in New York in 1964 was 17 years old, not 16 as some sources claim. This means that Milk's relationship with McKinley was not illegal under the laws of the time.
Context of the relationship: Milk and McKinley met while working on the Barry Goldwater presidential campaign. McKinley was not a runaway at the time, as some critics allege, but was described as emotionally vulnerable and prone to depression. The significant age difference and power imbalance in the relationship, which are unethical by modern standards, are the primary basis for the accusations.
No criminal charges: Milk was never charged with, investigated for, or convicted of any crime related to his relationship with McKinley or any other minor. Accusations of pedophilia were also weaponized against LGBTQ+ activists, including Milk, during the 1970s by opponents of gay rights initiatives.
The controversy surrounding this relationship continues to be used by political opponents to attack Milk's legacy. However, historical sources, including biographies and contemporary news reports, do not support the claim that Milk was a "confirmed pederast."
I mean, we’ve had the alternative state religion forced into our public square, their holy symbols (rainbow flags), holy castes (different levels of non-white, for their purposes any conservative Christian non Caucasian gets demoted to “white”), holy days (earth day, etc.), creeds (diversity is our strength), and their favorite, punishment of non believers.
While I’m suspicious of any attempt to replace the religion of faith with mere outward observance, I’m finding it so hard to care about Hegseths Bible study, Aaron. The other side shows zero compunction about putting our faces in the dirt whenever possible, public symbols of Christianity make you blanche a little?
“ White [sic] a majority of the population still identifies as Christian”, looks like a Freudian slip. I’m sorry I respect you but I mean come on, we didn’t get this way by accident and if you think the enemies of Christians and conservatives are just itching to make peace with us so long as we don’t try to achieve public symbolic dominance? I mean is that what you’re saying?
I'd say look for substantive changes to make. Why haven't all red states started taxing remittances, for example? That would be more productive than symbolic legislation.
I’m pretty sure states can’t legally tax remittances that leave the country, for one, although I do like where your head is at. It’s also not a choice. Personally I think more evangelism and for want of a better word, catechesis (better at doctrine and double that for much neglected practical theology (temptation, prudence, etc.)) weigh more than every monument built by man, but hey I like monuments too and would like to see more.
Oklahoma taxes remittances so it can be done.
Hey you’re right! Wish it wasn’t also taxing US citizens but there you go.
I agree with this. I think the current zeitgeist is metamodernism, and it's important we don't play the narrative game or we'll be watered-down and swept up. We really ought to keep with the timelessness of Christianity. What we need is a full replacement of science, arts and everything. We only think outside our system through cracks in the system, and it's incumbent upon us to adhere to Christ.
"We really ought to keep with the timelessness of Christianity. What we need is a full replacement of science, arts and everything."
You had that for about 1,700 years and now we're only in the decline (but not disappearance) of it for maybe the last 500.
So, let's think about it. We went for about 30 years avg life expectancy to a global average of 70 and in the West to 80.
Sucks, right?
No offense, but we're about two decades from new atheism being relevant. It culturally splintered and is so shallow that it devolved entirely into politics pretty quickly. That and it's a bit dull and toxic. I recommend you read any books on history and you'll have a much more well-informed viewpoint. Science in the west, along with universities, vs regular tutoring or schools, begins with scholasticism. They did interact with the greek and latin works which were coming in from the Latin translation movement, but the best analogues to universities were the philosophical academies etc of individual metaphysicians. Some of those were highly influential, but they didn't have the values which coalesced with humanism and universal brotherhood for education as the university did.
You seem to believe that atheism/rationalism is something like religious practice or belief system. I suppose I would expect that of people who believe in things that don't exist. Making rational choices based on empirical experience and the rigor of scientific method is the way we "are". Loving culture for its beauty and humanity voluntarily and without a wholly received rule book.
As for reading books... I've done so in Latin, Greek, German, Middle and Old English and some French. Oh, and modern English, of course. But as a former hard/software engineer in industry and then Wall Street, I do have a serious bias to quantitative validation and logic.
"Humanism and universal brotherhood"? You mean the sectarian wars, religious crusades, etc.?