Should America get rid of Columbus Day?

[owlice]

I voted no. I was wise enough to pick a holiday to push out my kid so he'd have his birthday off from work as an adult, and I don't want anyone messing with that! I even had to go with a schedule change, since he came earlier than anticipated; I'd been expecting to have him on Veterans Day!

So no -- don't mess with my kid's holiday!!

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Should we also change the names of: Columbus, OH; Columbia University; the Columbia Broadcasting System; the country of Colombia; and all streets, avenues, thoroughfares, parks and bridges named after Columbus? 

[Lethevich]

Should we also change the names of: Columbus, OH; Columbia University; the Columbia Broadcasting System; the country of Colombia; and all streets, avenues, thoroughfares, parks and bridges named after Columbus? 

If they do, I can guess the word -

Freedom, OH; Freedom University; the Freedom Broadcasting System, and if Columbia doesn't cooperate, I'm sure they can be invaded...

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

If they do, I can guess the word -

Freedom, OH; Freedom University; the Freedom Broadcasting System, and if Columbia doesn't cooperate, I'm sure they can be invaded...

Your reasoning is flawed. People who want to get rid of Columbus Day are trying to show respect for indigenous peoples. Therefore, the correct answers would be: Indigenous Peopleville, OH; Indigenous People University; the Indigenous People Broadcasting System; and El Pais de los Pueblos Indígenos.

[Florestan]

Absolutely yes. But there's much more than Columbus' Day that USA should get rid of.

First, it should get rid of its name. America, besides being historically misleading, it's disrespectful to the indigenous peoples.

Then there is its Constitution, written by White Anglo-Saxon Protestant slave owners and establishing a state in which the existence of the indigenous peoples was not even acknowledged.

And what about James Fenimore Cooper's books? Portraying, as they do, whole tribes of indigenous peoples as treacherous vilains I believe a nation-wide purge of libraries and bookstores is long due.

Another crass disrespect for the indigenous people is found in the very name of the US capital city: Washington, District of Columbia.

And as mentioned before by somebody else, there are a whole lot of universities, broadcasting corporations, cities, streets, parks and bridges which should be renamed, if the abolition of Columbus' Day is to bear fruit.

And finally, what USA should get rid of as soon as possible is the folly of political correctness.

I'm not sure what atrocity the Native Americans committed

You might try this for a start.

[david johnson]

never get rid of columbus day, and make Robt. E. Lee day a nat'l holiday.

[Opus106]

You might try this for a start.

I'm sure you'd treat a burglar to a fine dinner and wine in your home.

I believe what the native people did was fight fire with fire.

[Florestan]

I believe what the native people did was fight fire with fire.

So, when Europeans kill women, old persons and children, it's an abominable atrocity; when Indians do the same, it's simply justified self defense. Does it really make any sense to you?.

[Opus106]

I don't see a problem when, with a premise of only peace and trade, the invaders start kidnapping, hold for ransom and slaughter the natives.

[Florestan]

I don't see a problem when, with a premise of only peace and trade, the invaders start kidnapping, hold for ransom and slaughter the natives.

You'd have done the same had you been there then?

[Opus106]

You'd have done the same had you been there then?

Maybe. It's extremely rare that a person is born with the ability to fight violence using non-violent means.

[Florestan]

Maybe. It's extremely rare that a person is born with the ability to fight using non-violent means.

I ask you again: what is the difference between an Englishman killing innocent Indian women and children, and an Indian killing innocent English women and children? Or do you imply there is no such beast as an innocent Englishman?

BTW, your "fight fire with fire" rhetoric is exactly that employed by terrorists anywhere.

[Opus106]

I ask you again: what is the difference between an Englishman killing innocent Indian women and children, and an Indian killing innocent English women and children? Or do you imply there is no such beast as an innocent Englishman?

Did natives provoke the newcomers first, or was it the other way 'round? Your example of the massacre of 1622 seemed to imply that the natives were indeed savages with absolutely no reason to commit such an act. The natives did not have a "court of law" to go to and plead for justice. And if indeed there was one at the time, it must have been English.

BTW, your "fight fire with fire" rhetoric is exactly that employed by terrorists anywhere.

I'm sure with their limited thinking abilities they find the phrase appropriate.

[Florestan]

Your example of the massacre of 1622 seemed to imply that the natives were indeed savages with absolutely no reason to commit such an act.

I implied no such thing. I just gave an example of an atrocity committed by native Indians against innocent Englishmen, women and children. And fully subscribing to the idea of a universal moral law which applies to all peoples and races I see it as just as horrendous and morally outrageous as the atrocities committed by Englishmen against innocent native Indians. And I believe that your Gandhi saw the things in the same light when he said something to the effect that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

OTOH, the image of the idyllic, peaceful and honorable native Indians tribes who lived in harmony with each other and with nature before the arrival of the Europeans overlooks the reality of the constant warfare between rival tribes, who fiercely fought each other for supremacy long before the European colonists set foot on North America and who continued to do the same long after the first settlements have been established.

[karlhenning]

Whether the people are English or other, to take any affront as "justification" for a massacre is, de rigueur, savage.

[Todd]

It's charming to see people cling to such antiquated, racist notions such as the "noble savage," or whatever the politically correct terminology is now.  Only Europeans were violent; only they were brutal.  Never mind that some native peoples, like the Mayans, ruled over empires and violently subjugated other peoples.  Or were the various natives the Spanish were able to ally with simply crass mercenaries?  Never mind the violence between tribes.  True, natives didn't practice European-style wars, so clearly their wars for such noble things as territory were justified.  And certainly forget the fact that there isn't exactly a whole lot of written history for pre-Columbian America.  Clearly, Native Americans of all stripes were unlike people all over the rest of the world and were peace-loving and never engaged in brutal, needless war and atrocities.  If they did, it would have been written down!  

(Needless to say, all the things various natives did all across the Americas after the arrival of the White Man were justified.)

[karlhenning]

It's charming to see people cling to such antiquated, racist notions such as the "noble savage," or whatever the politically correct terminology is now.  Only Europeans were violent; only they were brutal.

Yes, I've seen Dances with Wolves! 

[The Six]

It's charming to see people cling to such antiquated, racist notions such as the "noble savage," or whatever the politically correct terminology is now.  Only Europeans were violent; only they were brutal.  

This is a recurring hyperbole that I haven't seen anyone seriously believe. Easy way to beef up your own argument. Who said the natives were completely peaceful and innocent? Another trademark is putting a phrase in quotes despite nobody saying it - the "noble savage."

[Josquin des Prez]

The Indians killed the white man because they was afraid Europeans were stealing their jobs.

[Todd]

Easy way to beef up your own argument.

And what argument is that?  

I'm merely amused by people portraying various native peoples as somehow more wholesome or less violent or less culpable for their vile actions - and make no mistake, Native Americans committed vile acts, both before and after the arrival of Europeans.  Native Americans are pretty much like all other peoples across the world.  People decrying their fate, and the vileness of the White Man, need not use the phrase "noble savage," but implicit in the words they do use is a similar sentiment, at least in many cases.

Who said the natives were completely peaceful and innocent?

Well,

I'm not sure what atrocity the Native Americans committed, or any aboriginal people, but I'm sure you'll have some article ready for that.

Not exactly the same as saying that they are peaceful, but, for instance, how do you explain the Spanish allying with natives against the Mayans?  How would you characterize the actions of the Sioux during the Civil War, or the wars with Chief Pontiac, or Tecumseh?