What Columbus Doesn’t Explain
[A Response to Craig Considine]
There is a particular move in Western academic writing that I have come to recognize on sight.
It arrives whenever a pattern of violence associated with one civilization becomes inconvenient for a certain kind of argument.
The move goes like this: locate a comparable act of violence from a different civilization, describe it with maximum rhetorical force, and present the comparison as analysis. You are not explaining anything. You are manufacturing a tie. And a tie, in this context, is not a draw. It is an acquittal.
When two defendants are declared equally guilty, the one you came to prosecute walks out the side door while everyone is still looking at the other one.
Dr. Craig Considine makes this move in a 2015 piece titled “Why Celebrating Columbus Day is Like Celebrating ISIS Day.”
The core argument is that Christopher Columbus and the Spanish Catholic Monarchy carried out a holy war against indigenous peoples that is morally equivalent to what ISIS was doing in the Levant in 2015, and that critics who point to Islamic violence as a distinctive problem have either forgotten or chosen to ignore the West’s own record of atrocity.
Considine is a sociologist at Rice University with twenty years of published work on Christian-Muslim relations, so this is not a casual social media take. It is a considered academic argument by a credentialed scholar, and it deserves a considered response.
Let me say first that the history Considine describes is not fabricated.
Join the forum discussion on this post
In the late 1990s, before the term 'AI' meant anything to anyone, I built a network of data centers.


We are in the midst of remarkable times, and our relationship to money is very different because of it.





WASHINGTON, D.C. — Democrats disputed claims that China interfered in the 2020 U.S. election, declaring that they are perfectly capable of rigging elections without China's help.
Joseph Raymond McCarthy was a United States Senator from Wisconsin who rose to national prominence in the early 1950s because he dared to confront a reality that much of the American establishment preferred to ignore.
