chlamor
10-16-2007, 09:53 PM
Scandals lead execs to 'Atlas Shrugged'
By Del Jones, USA TODAY
In these post-Enron days of corporate scandal, some of the millions of copies of Atlas Shrugged that have been sold over 45 years are being dusted off by executives under siege by prosecutors, regulators, Congress, employees, investors, a Republican president, even terrorists.
Executive headhunter Jeffrey Christian says many of his clients are re-reading the 1,075-page novel to remind themselves that self-interest is not only the right thing to do from an economic standpoint but is moral, as well.
CEOs put the book down knowing in their hearts that they are not the greedy crooks they are portrayed to be in today's business headlines but are heroes like the characters in Rand's novel. They strive to be real-life achievers who do far more to lift the world's standard of living, cure disease and end starvation than Mother Teresa and altruists who believe a full life requires self-sacrifice and serving the needs of others.
The Atlas Society, devoted to Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead and other fiction by Ayn Rand, saw Web site visits suddenly double to 23,000 a month this summer after holding steady for years at 10,000 to 12,000. Traffic started creeping up in January and February as the Enron scandal blossomed. The Objectivist Center, which focuses on the philosophy spawned by the books, saw user visits rise 159% to 78,397 in August 2002 from 30,247 in August 2001.
Book sales, while still remarkable for a novel published in 1957 and written during the early years of the Cold War, have not seen a significant spike this year, says publisher Penguin Putnam. But that does not count the used copies recycled by those like 74-year-old real estate multimillionaire Leon Trager of Potomac, Md. He says he visits used bookstores to buy copies of Atlas Shrugged to give away.
<snip>
http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies ... rand_x.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies ... rand_x.htm)
Like I said...
Pedagogy of the Oppressor - Ayn Rand
Re: Pedagogy of the Oppressor - Ayn Rand
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Pedagogy of the Oppressor - Ayn Rand
chlamor
10-16-2007, 09:59 PM
John Galt is one of the main characters in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged. An engineer by trade, Galt is the male hero of the story; his actions include withdrawing his talents, 'stopping the motor of the world', and leading the 'strikers' against the 'looters'.
The question "Who is John Galt?" is asked repeatedly throughout the story. Despite rumours and legends, the identity of the actual Galt is learned only after a prolonged search by Dagny Taggart, the female heroic character, with whom Galt has a romantic relationship. Galt is the same character as the Mystery Worker.
The son of an Ohio garage mechanic, Galt left home at age 12 and began college at Patrick Henry University at age 16. There he befriended Francisco d'Anconia and Ragnar Danneskjöld, all three of whom double-majored in physics and philosophy. They were the cherished students of the brilliant scientist Robert Stadler and the brilliant philosopher Hugh Akston.
After graduating, Galt became an engineer at the Twentieth Century Motor Works where he designed a revolutionary new motor powered by ambient static electricity with the potential to change the world. Like Ellis Wyatt, he created what many had for years said was impossible. When the company owners decided to run the factory by the collectivist maxim, 'By each according to his ability, to each according to his need', Galt organized a successful labor strike, proclaiming his promise to stop the motor of the world. He began traversing the globe, meeting the world's most successful businessmen, systematically convincing them to follow in his footsteps; one by one, they began abandoning their business empires (which, Galt convinced them, were doomed to failure anyhow, given the increased nationalization of industry by the government).
Secretly, these captains of industry, led by Galt and banker Midas Mulligan, had created their own society — a secret enclave of rational individualists living in 'Galt's Gulch', a town secluded high in a wilderness of mountains in Colorado. Dagny accidentally finds the town — and a shocked John Galt — by crash-landing a light aircraft while pursuing Quentin Daniels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Galt_ ... hrugged%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Galt_ ... hrugged%29)
10-16-2007, 09:59 PM
John Galt is one of the main characters in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged. An engineer by trade, Galt is the male hero of the story; his actions include withdrawing his talents, 'stopping the motor of the world', and leading the 'strikers' against the 'looters'.
The question "Who is John Galt?" is asked repeatedly throughout the story. Despite rumours and legends, the identity of the actual Galt is learned only after a prolonged search by Dagny Taggart, the female heroic character, with whom Galt has a romantic relationship. Galt is the same character as the Mystery Worker.
The son of an Ohio garage mechanic, Galt left home at age 12 and began college at Patrick Henry University at age 16. There he befriended Francisco d'Anconia and Ragnar Danneskjöld, all three of whom double-majored in physics and philosophy. They were the cherished students of the brilliant scientist Robert Stadler and the brilliant philosopher Hugh Akston.
After graduating, Galt became an engineer at the Twentieth Century Motor Works where he designed a revolutionary new motor powered by ambient static electricity with the potential to change the world. Like Ellis Wyatt, he created what many had for years said was impossible. When the company owners decided to run the factory by the collectivist maxim, 'By each according to his ability, to each according to his need', Galt organized a successful labor strike, proclaiming his promise to stop the motor of the world. He began traversing the globe, meeting the world's most successful businessmen, systematically convincing them to follow in his footsteps; one by one, they began abandoning their business empires (which, Galt convinced them, were doomed to failure anyhow, given the increased nationalization of industry by the government).
Secretly, these captains of industry, led by Galt and banker Midas Mulligan, had created their own society — a secret enclave of rational individualists living in 'Galt's Gulch', a town secluded high in a wilderness of mountains in Colorado. Dagny accidentally finds the town — and a shocked John Galt — by crash-landing a light aircraft while pursuing Quentin Daniels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Galt_ ... hrugged%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Galt_ ... hrugged%29)
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Pedagogy of the Oppressor - Ayn Rand
chlamor
10-16-2007, 10:13 PM
Philosophy: Who Needs It?
by Ayn Rand
American Fiction Writer
Address To The Graduating Class Of
The United States Military Academy at West Point,
New York - March 6, 1974
<snip>
In your own profession, in military science, you know the importance of keeping track of the enemy's weapons, strategy and tactics--and of being prepared to counter them. The same is true in philosophy: you have to understand the enemy's ideas and be prepared to refute them, you have to know his basic arguments and be able to blast them.
In physical warfare, you would not send your men into a booby trap: you would make every effort to discover its location. Well, Kant's system is the biggest and most intricate booby trap in the history of philosophy--but it's so full of holes that once you grasp its gimmick, you can defuse it without any trouble and walk forward over it in perfect safety. And, once it is defused, the lesser Kantians--the lower ranks of his army, the philosophical sergeants, buck privates, and mercenaries of today--will fall of their own weightlessness, by chain reaction.
There is a special reason why you, the future leaders of the United States Army, need to be philosophically armed today. You are the target of a special attack by the Kantian-Hegelian-collectivist establishment that dominates our cultural institutions at present. You are the army of the last semi-free country left on earth, yet you are accused of being a tool of imperialism--and "imperialism" is the name given to the foreign policy of this country, which has never engaged in military conquest and has never profited from the two world wars, which she did not initiate, but entered and won. (It was, incidentally, a foolishly overgenerous policy, which made this country waste her wealth on helping both her allies and her former enemies.) Something called "the military-industrial complex"--which is a myth or worse--is being blamed for all of this country's troubles. Bloody college hoodlums scream demands that R.O.T.C. units be banned from college campuses. Our defense budget is being attacked, denounced and undercut by people who claim that financial priority should be given to ecological rose gardens and to classes in esthetic self-expression for the residents of the slums.
Some of you may be bewildered by this campaign and may be wondering, in good faith, what errors you committed to bring it about. If so, it is urgently important for you to understand the nature of the enemy. You are attacked, not for any errors or flaws, but for your virtues. You are denounced, not for any weaknesses, but for your strength and your competence. You are penalized for being the protectors of the United States. On a lower level of the same issue, a similar kind of campaign is conducted against the police force. Those who seek to destroy this country, seek to disarm it--intellectually and physically. But it is not a mere political issue; politics is not the cause, but the last consequence of philosophical ideas. It is not a communist conspiracy, though some communists may be involved--as maggots cashing in on a disaster they had no power to originate. The motive of the destroyers is not love for communism, but hatred for America. Why hatred? Because America is the living refutation of a Kantian universe.
Today's mawkish concern with and compassion for the feeble, the flawed, the suffering, the guilty, is a cover for the profoundly Kantian hatred of the innocent, the strong, the able, the successful, the virtuous, the confident, the happy. A philosophy out to destroy man's mind is necessarily a philosophy of hatred for man, for man's life, and for every human value. Hatred of the good for being the good, is the hallmark of the twentieth century. This is the enemy you are facing.
A battle of this kind requires special weapons. It has to be fought with a full understanding of your cause, a full confidence in yourself, and the fullest certainty of the moral rightness of both. Only philosophy can provide you with these weapons.
The assignment I gave myself for tonight is not to sell you on my philosophy, but on philosophy as such. I have, however, been speaking implicitly of my philosophy in every sentence--since none of us and no statement can escape from philosophical premises. What is my selfish interest in the matter? I am confident enough to think that if you accept the importance of philosophy and the task of examining it critically, it is my philosophy that you will come to accept. Formally, I call it Objectivism, but informally I call it a philosophy for living on earth. You will find an explicit presentation of it in my books, particularly in Atlas Shrugged.
In conclusion, allow me to speak in personal terms. This evening means a great deal to me. I feel deeply honored by the opportunity to address you. I can say--not as a patriotic bromide, but with full knowledge of the necessary metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, political and esthetic roots--that the United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and, in its original founding principles, the only moral country in the history of the world. There is a kind of quiet radiance associated in my mind with the name West Point--because you have preserved the spirit of those original founding principles and you are their symbol. There were contradictions and omissions in those principles, and there may be in yours--but I am speaking of the essentials. There may be individuals in your history who did not live up to your highest standards--as there are in every institution--since no institutions and no social system can guarantee the automatic perfection of all its members; this depends on an individual's free will. I am speaking of your standards. You have preserved three qualities of character which were typical at the time of America's birth, but are virtually nonexistent today: earnestness--dedication--a sense of honor. Honor is self-esteem made visible in action.
<snip>
http://gos.sbc.edu/r/rand.html
10-16-2007, 10:13 PM
Philosophy: Who Needs It?
by Ayn Rand
American Fiction Writer
Address To The Graduating Class Of
The United States Military Academy at West Point,
New York - March 6, 1974
<snip>
In your own profession, in military science, you know the importance of keeping track of the enemy's weapons, strategy and tactics--and of being prepared to counter them. The same is true in philosophy: you have to understand the enemy's ideas and be prepared to refute them, you have to know his basic arguments and be able to blast them.
In physical warfare, you would not send your men into a booby trap: you would make every effort to discover its location. Well, Kant's system is the biggest and most intricate booby trap in the history of philosophy--but it's so full of holes that once you grasp its gimmick, you can defuse it without any trouble and walk forward over it in perfect safety. And, once it is defused, the lesser Kantians--the lower ranks of his army, the philosophical sergeants, buck privates, and mercenaries of today--will fall of their own weightlessness, by chain reaction.
There is a special reason why you, the future leaders of the United States Army, need to be philosophically armed today. You are the target of a special attack by the Kantian-Hegelian-collectivist establishment that dominates our cultural institutions at present. You are the army of the last semi-free country left on earth, yet you are accused of being a tool of imperialism--and "imperialism" is the name given to the foreign policy of this country, which has never engaged in military conquest and has never profited from the two world wars, which she did not initiate, but entered and won. (It was, incidentally, a foolishly overgenerous policy, which made this country waste her wealth on helping both her allies and her former enemies.) Something called "the military-industrial complex"--which is a myth or worse--is being blamed for all of this country's troubles. Bloody college hoodlums scream demands that R.O.T.C. units be banned from college campuses. Our defense budget is being attacked, denounced and undercut by people who claim that financial priority should be given to ecological rose gardens and to classes in esthetic self-expression for the residents of the slums.
Some of you may be bewildered by this campaign and may be wondering, in good faith, what errors you committed to bring it about. If so, it is urgently important for you to understand the nature of the enemy. You are attacked, not for any errors or flaws, but for your virtues. You are denounced, not for any weaknesses, but for your strength and your competence. You are penalized for being the protectors of the United States. On a lower level of the same issue, a similar kind of campaign is conducted against the police force. Those who seek to destroy this country, seek to disarm it--intellectually and physically. But it is not a mere political issue; politics is not the cause, but the last consequence of philosophical ideas. It is not a communist conspiracy, though some communists may be involved--as maggots cashing in on a disaster they had no power to originate. The motive of the destroyers is not love for communism, but hatred for America. Why hatred? Because America is the living refutation of a Kantian universe.
Today's mawkish concern with and compassion for the feeble, the flawed, the suffering, the guilty, is a cover for the profoundly Kantian hatred of the innocent, the strong, the able, the successful, the virtuous, the confident, the happy. A philosophy out to destroy man's mind is necessarily a philosophy of hatred for man, for man's life, and for every human value. Hatred of the good for being the good, is the hallmark of the twentieth century. This is the enemy you are facing.
A battle of this kind requires special weapons. It has to be fought with a full understanding of your cause, a full confidence in yourself, and the fullest certainty of the moral rightness of both. Only philosophy can provide you with these weapons.
The assignment I gave myself for tonight is not to sell you on my philosophy, but on philosophy as such. I have, however, been speaking implicitly of my philosophy in every sentence--since none of us and no statement can escape from philosophical premises. What is my selfish interest in the matter? I am confident enough to think that if you accept the importance of philosophy and the task of examining it critically, it is my philosophy that you will come to accept. Formally, I call it Objectivism, but informally I call it a philosophy for living on earth. You will find an explicit presentation of it in my books, particularly in Atlas Shrugged.
In conclusion, allow me to speak in personal terms. This evening means a great deal to me. I feel deeply honored by the opportunity to address you. I can say--not as a patriotic bromide, but with full knowledge of the necessary metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, political and esthetic roots--that the United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and, in its original founding principles, the only moral country in the history of the world. There is a kind of quiet radiance associated in my mind with the name West Point--because you have preserved the spirit of those original founding principles and you are their symbol. There were contradictions and omissions in those principles, and there may be in yours--but I am speaking of the essentials. There may be individuals in your history who did not live up to your highest standards--as there are in every institution--since no institutions and no social system can guarantee the automatic perfection of all its members; this depends on an individual's free will. I am speaking of your standards. You have preserved three qualities of character which were typical at the time of America's birth, but are virtually nonexistent today: earnestness--dedication--a sense of honor. Honor is self-esteem made visible in action.
<snip>
http://gos.sbc.edu/r/rand.html
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Pedagogy of the Oppressor - Ayn Rand
chlamor
10-16-2007, 10:17 PM
"The transfer of Western civilization to this continent was one of the great cultural gifts in recorded history, affording Indians almost effortless access to centuries of European accomplishments in philosophy, science, technology, and government. As a result, today's Indians enjoy a capacity for generating health, wealth, and happiness that their Stone Age ancestors could never have conceived."
-- Thomas A. Bowden, The Ayn Rand Institute - The Center for the Advancement of Objectivism
10-16-2007, 10:17 PM
"The transfer of Western civilization to this continent was one of the great cultural gifts in recorded history, affording Indians almost effortless access to centuries of European accomplishments in philosophy, science, technology, and government. As a result, today's Indians enjoy a capacity for generating health, wealth, and happiness that their Stone Age ancestors could never have conceived."
-- Thomas A. Bowden, The Ayn Rand Institute - The Center for the Advancement of Objectivism
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Pedagogy of the Oppressor - Ayn Rand
chlamor
10-16-2007, 10:17 PM
Here is an except of the version printed in Ayn Rand Answers (ed. Robert Mayhew, New American Library, 2005, pp 103-104):
"[The Indians] had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages. The white man did not *conquer* this country. And you're a racist if you object, because it means you believe that certain men are entitled to something because of their race. You believe that if someone is born in a magnificent country and doesn't know what to do with it, he still has a property right to it. He does not. Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights [...] they didn't have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using. It's wrong to attack a country that respects (or even tries to respect) individual rights. If you do, you're an aggressor and are morally wrong. But if a 'country' does not protect rights [...] why should you respect the 'rights' they don't have or respect? [....] But let's suppose they were all beautifully innocent savages -- which they certainly were not. What were they fighting for, in opposing the white man on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence; for their 'right' to keep part of the earth untouched -- to keep everybody out so they could live like animals or cavemen. Any European who brought with him an element of civilization had the right to take over this continent, and it's great that some of them did."
10-16-2007, 10:17 PM
Here is an except of the version printed in Ayn Rand Answers (ed. Robert Mayhew, New American Library, 2005, pp 103-104):
"[The Indians] had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages. The white man did not *conquer* this country. And you're a racist if you object, because it means you believe that certain men are entitled to something because of their race. You believe that if someone is born in a magnificent country and doesn't know what to do with it, he still has a property right to it. He does not. Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights [...] they didn't have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using. It's wrong to attack a country that respects (or even tries to respect) individual rights. If you do, you're an aggressor and are morally wrong. But if a 'country' does not protect rights [...] why should you respect the 'rights' they don't have or respect? [....] But let's suppose they were all beautifully innocent savages -- which they certainly were not. What were they fighting for, in opposing the white man on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence; for their 'right' to keep part of the earth untouched -- to keep everybody out so they could live like animals or cavemen. Any European who brought with him an element of civilization had the right to take over this continent, and it's great that some of them did."
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Pedagogy of the Oppressor - Ayn Rand
Kid of the Black Hole
10-17-2007, 01:48 AM
This is starting to sound like a comedy skit. What the hell is she talking about Kantian-Hegelian collectivism?
10-17-2007, 01:48 AM
This is starting to sound like a comedy skit. What the hell is she talking about Kantian-Hegelian collectivism?
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Pedagogy of the Oppressor - Ayn Rand
anaxarchos
10-17-2007, 02:14 AM
Rand in the final issue of The Objectivist: "Suppose you met a twisted, tormented young man and... discovered that he was brought up by a man-hating monster who worked systematically to paralyze his mind, destroy his self-confidence, obliterate his capacity for enjoyment and undercut his every attempt to escape... Western civilization is in that young man's position. The monster is Immanuel Kant."
More: "I have mentioned in many articles that Kant is the chief destroyer of the modern world... You will find that on every fundamental issue, Kant's philosophy is the exact opposite of Objectivism."
The only problem is that the "main pillar" of "Objectivism" is:
"The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others..." ["The Objectivist Ethics," 1961, The Virtue of Selfishness, Signet, 1964, p.27]
...which, if you didn't pick it up, is almost word for word stolen from Kant (as part of the exact opposite conclusion in Critique). Worse, Rand does not seem to either know it or suspect it. "Both Nathaniel and Barbara Branden note that Rand actually didn't do much reading in philosophy herself (though now Rand apologists tend to say either that this is a lie or that Rand had already done as much reading as was necessary)".
http://www.friesian.com/rand.htm#note
Amazin' ain't it? Why Kant? Who the fuck knows?
"Objectivism" is a standing joke, even among right-wing philosophers.
10-17-2007, 02:14 AM
Believe it or not:This is starting to sound like a comedy skit. What the hell is she talking about Kantian-Hegelian collectivism?
Rand in the final issue of The Objectivist: "Suppose you met a twisted, tormented young man and... discovered that he was brought up by a man-hating monster who worked systematically to paralyze his mind, destroy his self-confidence, obliterate his capacity for enjoyment and undercut his every attempt to escape... Western civilization is in that young man's position. The monster is Immanuel Kant."
More: "I have mentioned in many articles that Kant is the chief destroyer of the modern world... You will find that on every fundamental issue, Kant's philosophy is the exact opposite of Objectivism."
The only problem is that the "main pillar" of "Objectivism" is:
"The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others..." ["The Objectivist Ethics," 1961, The Virtue of Selfishness, Signet, 1964, p.27]
...which, if you didn't pick it up, is almost word for word stolen from Kant (as part of the exact opposite conclusion in Critique). Worse, Rand does not seem to either know it or suspect it. "Both Nathaniel and Barbara Branden note that Rand actually didn't do much reading in philosophy herself (though now Rand apologists tend to say either that this is a lie or that Rand had already done as much reading as was necessary)".
http://www.friesian.com/rand.htm#note
Amazin' ain't it? Why Kant? Who the fuck knows?
"Objectivism" is a standing joke, even among right-wing philosophers.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Pedagogy of the Oppressor - Ayn Rand
Kid of the Black Hole
10-17-2007, 03:06 AM
This is starting to sound like a comedy skit. What the hell is she talking about Kantian-Hegelian collectivism?
.Believe it or not:
Rand in the final issue of The Objectivist: "Suppose you met a twisted, tormented young man and... discovered that he was brought up by a man-hating monster who worked systematically to paralyze his mind, destroy his self-confidence, obliterate his capacity for enjoyment and undercut his every attempt to escape... Western civilization is in that young man's position. The monster is Immanuel Kant."
More: "I have mentioned in many articles that Kant is the chief destroyer of the modern world... You will find that on every fundamental issue, Kant's philosophy is the exact opposite of Objectivism."
The only problem is that the "main pillar" of "Objectivism" is:
"The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others..." ["The Objectivist Ethics," 1961, The Virtue of Selfishness, Signet, 1964, p.27]
...which, if you didn't pick it up, is almost word for word stolen from Kant (as part of the exact opposite conclusion in Critique). Worse, Rand does not seem to either know it or suspect it. "Both Nathaniel and Barbara Branden note that Rand actually didn't do much reading in philosophy herself (though now Rand apologists tend to say either that this is a lie or that Rand had already done as much reading as was necessary)".
http://www.friesian.com/rand.htm#note
Amazin' ain't it? Why Kant? Who the fuck knows?
"Objectivism" is a standing joke, even among right-wing philosophers.
I just about died of laughter here.
Chlamor's Indian comments are hilarious too but a little offputting considering how creepy they are. This is just out and out unbelievable.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Pedagogy of the Oppressor - Ayn Rand
blindpig
10-17-2007, 09:23 AM
Here is an except of the version printed in Ayn Rand Answers (ed. Robert Mayhew, New American Library, 2005, pp 103-104):
The benefits of European civilization for the Savages, "Doggie Style".
And this Captain having gone there, he found the people gone, and he burned the town, and he set the dogs on [aperrear] an Indian he brought as a guide. The reader must understand that to set the dogs on [an Indian] is to make the dogs eat them or kill them, tearing the Indian to pieces. The conquistadors in the Indies have always used greyhounds or fierce and valiant dogs in war; and this is why hunting Indians was mentioned above. Therefore the guide was killed in this way because he lied and guided poorly.1
Following this, this Indian fleeing from the Christians the next day, a noble greyhound from Ireland plunged after him in the multitude of Indians that were on a densely wooded hill [arcabuco]. It rushed to the clamor and entered among all the Indians; and although it had passed by many, not one did seize but the one who had fled, who was among the multitude, and it held him by the fleshy part of his arm in such a manner that the Indian was thrown down and apprehended. 2
...and all the Indians went fleeing through the woods. The governor ordered loose a hound which he had brought along, previously gutted on them, which passing by many other Indians went to seize the pretended cacique who had fled from the Christians and held him until the latter came to seize him. 3
The governor ordered him thrown to the dogs, and another one guided him to Soacatino, whither he arrived the next day. 4
When the Spaniards saw this they wondered at it, and the y loosed a greyhound to finish killing him by grasping and tearing him. So ended this treacherous and malicious Indian, as he deserved.
The Castilians had not gone fifty paces from the Indian, whom they believed to be dead and eaten by the dog, when they heard the hound giving great howls, clamoring as if they were killing him. Our men ran to see what it was and found that the Indian, with his little remaining strength, had placed his thumbs on either side of the dog's mouth and was tearing his jaws apart, the dog being unable to help himself. Seeing this, one of the Spaniards stabbed him repeatedly, finally killing him; another cut off his hands with a hunter's cutlass that he carried, and after they were severed he could not loosen them from the dog's mouth so desperately had he grasped it. 5
At the shout the Indians raised on shooting their arrows, a greyhound which one of the governor's pages was leading by the collar, jumped and knock down the page, dragging him on the ground. He gave a leap and threw himself into the water, and however much the Spaniards might call to him so skillfully that they placed more than fifty arrows in his head and shoulders, which were exposed. With all this the dog was able to come out on the bank, but on leaving the water he at once fell dead. This grieved the governor and all his people very much, because he was an extremely fine animal and much needed in the conquest, during which, in the short time that it lasted, he had made forays that caused no little wonder against the Indian enemies, both by day and by night, only one of which we shall recount, in order to show his prowess.6
The greyhound, which happened to be nearby, hearing the shout the Indians gave and seeing them run, followed them. As if he had human understanding, he passed by the first whom he overtook and also the second and the third, until reaching the fourth, who was running ahead. Seizing him by the shoulder, he threw him down and held him on the ground. Meanwhile the Indian who was nearest to the came up; as the dog saw that he was passing by he loosed the first one and caught the one who was passing, and having thrown him down, he grasped the third, who was now passing by, and having done the same with the first two, he went at the fourth, who now came up. Throwing him to the ground, he returned to the others and ran between them with such dexterity and skill, leaping at the one who was down and grasping and pulling down him who raised up, and threatening them with loud barks at the same time that he seized them, that he confused and held them until the Spaniards came up to their assistance...They [had] thought to boast of this exploit later among the Indians...of which they had be deprived of by the hound Bruto, for so the dog was named. 7
At this point Juan Coles, having recounted some of things that we have told, tells of another particular exploit of the hound Bruto...He says that the hound, which was nearby, seeing what had happened, jumped in after them, and although he overtook other Indians, he says that he did not seize any of them until he came to the one who had struck the blow, and grasping him, he tore him to pieces in the water.
For these attacks and for others that Bruto had made upon them while guarding the army at night, so that no enemy approached it whom he did not immediately destroy, the Indians avenged themselves by killing him as has been told.8
The governor, being angered by this and at seeing his army in such want through the Indian's malice, ordered that he be tied to a tree and that the mastiffs they had with them be let loose upon him. One of them shook and dragged him badly.9
On the other hand they all said together that he who had done them such harm hitherto would do worse in the future, and they ordered the dogs let loose. Being very hungry, in a short time they tore him to pieces and ate him.10
Greyhounds have performed wonderful feats in the conquests in the New World, as did Becerillo on the Island of San Juan de Puerto Rico, where the Spaniards gave to the dog from the profits that they made, or through him to his master, who was an harquebusier, the part and share of an harquebusier. To Leoncillo, as son of this hound, there fell 500 pesos in gold at distribution of the riches won by the famous Vasco Núñez de Balboa, after having discovered the South Sea. 11
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/calderon/dogs.html#soto
http://fcit.usf.edu/Florida/photos/hist ... oto122.jpg
10-17-2007, 09:23 AM
Here is an except of the version printed in Ayn Rand Answers (ed. Robert Mayhew, New American Library, 2005, pp 103-104):
"[The Indians] had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages. The white man did not *conquer* this country. And you're a racist if you object, because it means you believe that certain men are entitled to something because of their race. You believe that if someone is born in a magnificent country and doesn't know what to do with it, he still has a property right to it. He does not. Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights [...] they didn't have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using. It's wrong to attack a country that respects (or even tries to respect) individual rights. If you do, you're an aggressor and are morally wrong. But if a 'country' does not protect rights [...] why should you respect the 'rights' they don't have or respect? [....] But let's suppose they were all beautifully innocent savages -- which they certainly were not. What were they fighting for, in opposing the white man on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence; for their 'right' to keep part of the earth untouched -- to keep everybody out so they could live like animals or cavemen. Any European who brought with him an element of civilization had the right to take over this continent, and it's great that some of them did."
The benefits of European civilization for the Savages, "Doggie Style".
And this Captain having gone there, he found the people gone, and he burned the town, and he set the dogs on [aperrear] an Indian he brought as a guide. The reader must understand that to set the dogs on [an Indian] is to make the dogs eat them or kill them, tearing the Indian to pieces. The conquistadors in the Indies have always used greyhounds or fierce and valiant dogs in war; and this is why hunting Indians was mentioned above. Therefore the guide was killed in this way because he lied and guided poorly.1
Following this, this Indian fleeing from the Christians the next day, a noble greyhound from Ireland plunged after him in the multitude of Indians that were on a densely wooded hill [arcabuco]. It rushed to the clamor and entered among all the Indians; and although it had passed by many, not one did seize but the one who had fled, who was among the multitude, and it held him by the fleshy part of his arm in such a manner that the Indian was thrown down and apprehended. 2
...and all the Indians went fleeing through the woods. The governor ordered loose a hound which he had brought along, previously gutted on them, which passing by many other Indians went to seize the pretended cacique who had fled from the Christians and held him until the latter came to seize him. 3
The governor ordered him thrown to the dogs, and another one guided him to Soacatino, whither he arrived the next day. 4
When the Spaniards saw this they wondered at it, and the y loosed a greyhound to finish killing him by grasping and tearing him. So ended this treacherous and malicious Indian, as he deserved.
The Castilians had not gone fifty paces from the Indian, whom they believed to be dead and eaten by the dog, when they heard the hound giving great howls, clamoring as if they were killing him. Our men ran to see what it was and found that the Indian, with his little remaining strength, had placed his thumbs on either side of the dog's mouth and was tearing his jaws apart, the dog being unable to help himself. Seeing this, one of the Spaniards stabbed him repeatedly, finally killing him; another cut off his hands with a hunter's cutlass that he carried, and after they were severed he could not loosen them from the dog's mouth so desperately had he grasped it. 5
At the shout the Indians raised on shooting their arrows, a greyhound which one of the governor's pages was leading by the collar, jumped and knock down the page, dragging him on the ground. He gave a leap and threw himself into the water, and however much the Spaniards might call to him so skillfully that they placed more than fifty arrows in his head and shoulders, which were exposed. With all this the dog was able to come out on the bank, but on leaving the water he at once fell dead. This grieved the governor and all his people very much, because he was an extremely fine animal and much needed in the conquest, during which, in the short time that it lasted, he had made forays that caused no little wonder against the Indian enemies, both by day and by night, only one of which we shall recount, in order to show his prowess.6
The greyhound, which happened to be nearby, hearing the shout the Indians gave and seeing them run, followed them. As if he had human understanding, he passed by the first whom he overtook and also the second and the third, until reaching the fourth, who was running ahead. Seizing him by the shoulder, he threw him down and held him on the ground. Meanwhile the Indian who was nearest to the came up; as the dog saw that he was passing by he loosed the first one and caught the one who was passing, and having thrown him down, he grasped the third, who was now passing by, and having done the same with the first two, he went at the fourth, who now came up. Throwing him to the ground, he returned to the others and ran between them with such dexterity and skill, leaping at the one who was down and grasping and pulling down him who raised up, and threatening them with loud barks at the same time that he seized them, that he confused and held them until the Spaniards came up to their assistance...They [had] thought to boast of this exploit later among the Indians...of which they had be deprived of by the hound Bruto, for so the dog was named. 7
At this point Juan Coles, having recounted some of things that we have told, tells of another particular exploit of the hound Bruto...He says that the hound, which was nearby, seeing what had happened, jumped in after them, and although he overtook other Indians, he says that he did not seize any of them until he came to the one who had struck the blow, and grasping him, he tore him to pieces in the water.
For these attacks and for others that Bruto had made upon them while guarding the army at night, so that no enemy approached it whom he did not immediately destroy, the Indians avenged themselves by killing him as has been told.8
The governor, being angered by this and at seeing his army in such want through the Indian's malice, ordered that he be tied to a tree and that the mastiffs they had with them be let loose upon him. One of them shook and dragged him badly.9
On the other hand they all said together that he who had done them such harm hitherto would do worse in the future, and they ordered the dogs let loose. Being very hungry, in a short time they tore him to pieces and ate him.10
Greyhounds have performed wonderful feats in the conquests in the New World, as did Becerillo on the Island of San Juan de Puerto Rico, where the Spaniards gave to the dog from the profits that they made, or through him to his master, who was an harquebusier, the part and share of an harquebusier. To Leoncillo, as son of this hound, there fell 500 pesos in gold at distribution of the riches won by the famous Vasco Núñez de Balboa, after having discovered the South Sea. 11
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/calderon/dogs.html#soto
http://fcit.usf.edu/Florida/photos/hist ... oto122.jpg
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Pedagogy of the Oppressor - Ayn Rand
meganmonkey
10-17-2007, 09:59 AM
10-17-2007, 09:59 AM
Really unbelievable. I know everything I need to know about Rand now. Utter garbage. I mean, even if it weren't so creepy it is so inconsistent with any concept of personal liberty. It makes no sense.Chlamor's Indian comments are hilarious too but a little offputting considering how creepy they are. This is just out and out unbelievable.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."