North America Before the Colombian Exchange

The whole argument about the balance between accomplishment and destruction; between positive influence and raw exploitation which looms large over the study of European influence on the New World is one which largely depends on evaluation of nonphysical items – specifically the value of a human life. This comparison is definitely a moral question – or at least if we wish to make it historical a moral question will be at the core. It is this key question which lies at the root of balancing accomplishments against destruction. The entire balance truly depends on our morality as humans and what we consider just – since a question like this can never be answered from a historical perspective. Unless we were to set a monetary value to exploitation and destruction, a question which is in itself moral, it would be impossible to make a clear comparison which is the same amongst all humans.

The question which lies at the root of balancing European accomplishment against the destruction caused is moral in itself because it requires the valuation of a human life. Even if a historian tried to balance out the accomplishments against destruction, it would be virtually impossible to do this without knowing values of all of the factors involved. Each person has a different value which they place on a human life – although some may simply put a price tag on a human life, this is not enough. We must view this problem first from the beginnings of a moral question – as we ask ourselves if there is ever a way to put a price tag on a human life or if this is inhumane. We also ask the broader question of if a human life may be priceless and irreplaceable – which would imply that anything (regardless the accomplishment) would be unjustified and outright wrong if a single human died as a result. The question which truly lies at the core of how we balance anything against destruction of lives lies with whether a life can actually be priced.

Not only the question of the valuation of human lives which lies at the core of our balancing question is moral – but that of valuating the accomplishments of the Europeans is also a moral question which we must battle with to find out. This question, just like the question of how we would value a human life, is essential and lies at the core of finding out the balance between the destruction of human lives and European accomplishment. The question of putting a value to European accomplishments cannot be answered objectively, since each person will have a bias, making it less of a historical question and more of a moral one. Some people may view the European accomplishments as bringing civilisation to a previously barbaric world – which would result in them putting a high value on the positive impact of European accomplishments. On the other hand, others may look at European accomplishments as taking away from and extinguishing the unique cultural aspects of tribes which previously lived in that territory, leading them to give European accomplishments more of a negative value in how good they were. A question like this cannot be answered by history – since there are historical sources on both sides. While the Europeans at the time claimed that they were bringing civilisation and were on a benevolent mission, the descendants of the native people at the time claim otherwise. With both sources being extremely convincing it is difficult for history to make an objective decision – the only real way to find a value is to look from the perspective of a moral question and ask if it was right of the Europeans to “correct” a culture in the first place.

In the case that thinkers were able to use moral questions and find monetary values for each of the sides of the scale – the European accomplishments and the destruction – it would be possible to compare these and see the balance. Although this balance could be done in an objective and historical manner, the balance depends entirely on a series of moral questions. In fact, it is likely that those who think about the moral questions will not be able to come up with price tags for humans – since it really depends on the situation. Even if they were able to, all of the components of the question we would be answering would be purely made up of moral reasoning – of what we as humans feel is right and what we feel is not just.

In conclusion, the question of how we should balance the accomplishments of the Europeans with the tragic destruction of native people in the Americas is definitely a moral one. It involves evaluating nonphysical items which require a moral and philosophical mindset – including the value of a human life and the value of accomplishments which may have done harm. Unlike many historical questions, this question depends on what we think and there is much contradiction between sources. Finally, even the balance itself is best assessed not from a perspective of history but from a perspective of a moral question, since the balance is strongly dependent on many situational aspects and each side of the balance affects the other.