Should America get rid of Columbus Day?

[Opus106]

I don't deny what the natives did was violent. (Fighting fire with fire => Savagery vs. Savagery) And just to make sure, I have not mentioned to the best of my knowledge, nor did I imply, that the Europeans were the only ones responsible for atrocious acts...

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.

...including that part.

As I said in an earlier post, I thought Florestan was linking to the article as an example of killing-for-no-reason in true savage fashion. He has now cleared that up.

[Josquin des Prez]

killing-for-no-reason in true savage fashion.

Do you think Europeans killed for no reason?

[Opus106]

Do you think Europeans killed for no reason?

No, I don't. They had plans of invasion, of course.

[MishaK]

A comparative study of violence perpetrated by one race or ethnicity vs. another is pointless. Violence is the result of a combination of power, ideology and opportunity. Decency is not passed on by blood.

It is likewise silly to claim "Europeans brought civilization". That is BS. Europeans had a head start of some 1.8 million years in developing human '"civilization" in Europe vs. the Americas which were settled first between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago. Europeans also the benefit of a multitude of highly caloric and easy to grow staple foods, as well as animal species that could be domesticated and used as livestock for both power and food, both of which the Americans lacked. (You go try and milk a bison, JDP! I'd pay to see that.) So the only circumstance under which you could claim that Europeans are "civilizationally" superior to Native Americans is if you could show that Europeans would have done better with American circumstances than the Native Americans did. Rather than belittling Native American culture, one should be in awe that a mere, perhaps, 10,000 years after the arrival of primitive humans from across the Bering Strait (or Polynesians by boat, depending on your preferred theory), such great civilizations as the Aztecs, the Incas or the Mayans could have arisen. There is no parallel to that speed of development in Europe.

The reason why Columbus Day should be abolished/renamed/replaced is because of Chamber Nut's second reason: Columbus didn't 'discover' anything. Erik was there before him, and the natives had been there for millennia before that.

[Todd]

The reason why Columbus Day should be abolished/renamed/replaced is because of Chamber Nut's second reason: Columbus didn't 'discover' anything. Erik was there before him, and the natives had been there for millennia before that.

That doesn't seem like a particularly good reason to abolish/rename/replace anything.  Columbus may not have discovered anything, but he represents the beginning of European expansion to the New World.  (It's probably safe to say that if Columbus hadn't landed here when he did, someone else would have later.)  That's pretty significant - perhaps more so than what some other holidays celebrate.  I even think it was a good thing.  There are probably a few others who think so as well.

Incidentally, some people have already taken to calling Columbus Day Discoverer's Day.  Silly, true, but it's already out there.

[MishaK]

(It's probably safe to say that if Columbus hadn't landed here when he did, someone else would have later.)  That's pretty significant

You do realize that the former sentence completely undermines the latter, right? If it would have happened anyway even if he hadn't done it, then there isn't really that much significance to his 'discovery', is there?

[DavidW]

You do realize that the former sentence completely undermines the latter, right?

Nope.  What actually follows is that the who that did it is not as important as the event itself.  But the event is so important that if someone else where to do it then the holiday would be named after him instead.  Actually Tod's post was compelling enough that I know how to vote now, when I was a fence sitter before.

[MishaK]

Nope.  What actually follows is that the who that did it is not as important as the event itself.  But the event is so important that if someone else where to do it then the holiday would be named after him instead.  Actually Tod's post was compelling enough that I know how to vote now, when I was a fence sitter before.

Not really. If an event is a foregone conclusion, then there is nothing special about it, regardless of who is the instigator. And in any case, what is so worthy of celebration about the 'beginning of European expansion to the Americas'? This whole place really wasn't that interesting at least until the founding of the US, and we already celebrate July 4th. And in any case, Columbus was far more important to Central and South America. If European expansion is the relevant item, why don't we instead have a 'Mayflower Day'?

[DavidW]

Not really. If an event is a foregone conclusion, then there is nothing special about it,

Like death?   It certainly is silly to say that something is special only if it's instigated by a unique person and only that person could have done it.  Why it sounds very much like JdP's cult of genius.  Hmm... perhaps sometimes it's better just to move on instead of stubbornly sticking to your point.  Just a thought.

[MishaK]

Like death?  

Exactly. Do we cemebrate "Death Day" perhaps?

It certainly is silly to say that something is special only if it's instigated by a unique person and only that person could have done it.  Why it sounds very much like JdP's cult of genius.  Hmm... perhaps sometimes it's better just to move on instead of stubbornly sticking to your point.  Just a thought.

No, it has nothing to do with genius. And you might have noticed that I just adopted Todd's premise for the sake of argument. I don't necessarily agree with it. I was just pointing out that the argument defeats itself. There are a lot of contingencies at work here. Columbus was not a genius, but he was obsessed and tenacious and persuaded someone to give him three ships and a crew. So? Even if he started the European colonization of the Americas, why should he be worthy of celebration? Think about it. We celebrate Independence Day (the creation of our nation) and we take a day off to celebrate the contributions and sacrifices of our workers (Labor Day) and of our men and women in uniform who gave their lives (Memorial Day). Why do we care about an envoy for the Spanish crown? He never even settled North America. We fought a war against Spain.

[Josquin des Prez]

A comparative study of violence perpetrated by one race or ethnicity vs. another is pointless. Violence is the result of a combination of power, ideology and opportunity. Decency is not passed on by blood.

It is likewise silly to claim "Europeans brought civilization". That is BS. Europeans had a head start of some 1.8 million years in developing human '"civilization" in Europe vs. the Americas which were settled first between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago. Europeans also the benefit of a multitude of highly caloric and easy to grow staple foods, as well as animal species that could be domesticated and used as livestock for both power and food, both of which the Americans lacked. (You go try and milk a bison, JDP! I'd pay to see that.) So the only circumstance under which you could claim that Europeans are "civilizationally" superior to Native Americans is if you could show that Europeans would have done better with American circumstances than the Native Americans did. Rather than belittling Native American culture, one should be in awe that a mere, perhaps, 10,000 years after the arrival of primitive humans from across the Bering Strait (or Polynesians by boat, depending on your preferred theory), such great civilizations as the Aztecs, the Incas or the Mayans could have arisen. There is no parallel to that speed of development in Europe.

Europeans had 1.8 million years to develop civilization? Where did you get such an absurd notion? Modern humans only left Africa 200.000 years ago, and it took another 100.000 thousand years before the first recognizable European was born, and they couldn't possibly have built a civilization since Europe was covered in ice up until 20.000 years ago. Furthermore, you seem to be under the assumption that the people who colonized the Americas came out of a vacuum. Where do you think those people migrated from in the first place, they didn't spontaneously pop out of the soil now, did they? Next. Your theory regarding the type of foods and animal stocks available to Europeans is based on an unproven fallacy perpetrated by the Marxist hack Jared Diamond. He has never proven any direct correlation between diet and achievement, between animal husbandry and the ability to develop civilization. The whole argument falls on its face when you consider that, for one thing, Europeans didn't develop any civilization of their own but they inherited it from somebody else to begin with, as did the Egyptians, the Indians and the Chinese. Indeed, among all those who build civilization the Europeans came last (so much for favorable environmental conditions being the catalyst for civilization), the upper extremities of Europe remaining in a state of quasi-barbarism as late the Roman Empire. Yet, despite having no real head start and no natural advantage, they managed to surpass all other civilizations, eventually elevating humanity to the state of modernity.

All this is pointless of course, since it is irrelevant whether Europeans could have achieved more or less had they been in the same position as the Indians. The fact of the matter is European civilization was in fact infinitely superior to that of the Indians when the two came in contact with the other, and that's the end of it.

The reason why Columbus Day should be abolished/renamed/replaced is because of Chamber Nut's second reason: Columbus didn't 'discover' anything. Erik was there before him, and the natives had been there for millennia before that.

No, the reason why we celebrate Columbus is that he has heralded the advent of European colonization. Its irrelevant whether America has been "discovered" by somebody else prior to the arrival of Columbus, since that discovery means nothing to us Europeans. Its like arguing that the achievements of Marco Polo shouldn't be celebrated since he wasn't the first to trade with the Chinese and write about it. The Chinese had been trading for a long time, they even traded with themselves!

[Josquin des Prez]

You do realize that the former sentence completely undermines the latter, right? If it would have happened anyway even if he hadn't done it, then there isn't really that much significance to his 'discovery', is there?

Hey, If Darwin hadn't developed his theory of evolution somebody else might have done it in his place anyway. So why even bother studying about Darwin at all?

And in any case, what is so worthy of celebration about the 'beginning of European expansion to the Americas'?

It paved the way for the founding of the US.

[MishaK]

Europeans had 1.8 million years to develop civilization? Where did you get such an absurd notion? Modern humans only left Africa 200.000 years ago, and it took another 100.000 thousand years before the first recognizable European was born, and they couldn't possibly have built a civilization since Europe was covered in ice up until 20.000 years ago. Furthermore, you seem to be under the assumption that the people who colonized the Americas came out of a vacuum. Where do you think those people migrated from in the first place, they didn't spontaneously pop out of the soil now, did they? Next. Your theory regarding the type of foods and animal stocks available to Europeans is based on an unproven fallacy perpetrated by the Marxist hack Jared Diamond. He has never proven any direct correlation between diet and achievement, between animal husbandry and the ability to develop civilization. The whole argument falls on its face when you consider that, for one thing, Europeans didn't develop any civilization of their own but they inherited it from somebody else to begin with, as did the Egyptians, the Indians and the Chinese. Indeed, among all those who build civilization the Europeans came last (so much for favorable environmental conditions being the catalyst for civilization), the upper extremities of Europe remaining in a state of quasi-barbarism as late the Roman Empire. Yet, despite having no real head start and no natural advantage, they managed to surpass all other civilizations, eventually elevating humanity to the state of modernity.

All this is pointless of course, since it is irrelevant whether Europeans could have achieved more or less had they been in the same position as the Indians. The fact of the matter is European civilization was in fact infinitely superior to that of the Indians when the two came in contact with the other, and that's the end of it.

JDP, not reading books that you wish to criticize doesn't help your cause. You can't criticize an argument you haven't understood. Firstly, that isn't Diamond's argument. Secondly, it's not even entirely his idea, as McNeill and others have been there before, essentially. Diamond simply added hard biological evidence and elaborated the theory, drawing on a number of disciplines. It is only because he wrote about it an accessible way that has made him famous. Thirdly, there is nothing remotely Marxist about this and Diamond wrote a whole 'nother book addressing precisely the fallacious argument you make, which seeks to reduce Diamond to mere environmental determinism (an argument he never made). Diamond's central point is very much valid and completely supported by the evidence: environmental factors do limit a civilization's potential for development, but availability of resources by no means guarantees success. Indeed, in his second book he shows just how the Scandinavians who came to Greenland and America were rather dimwitted in using the resources at their disposal, thus dooming the fate of their new settlements, which is indeed why we don't celebrate "Erik Day" today with good reason!

Yes, Europeans were vastly more advanced at the time they met the North Americans. But that is only because the Chinese were too stupid to go colonize Europe a few centuries earlier when they were vastly superior to the Europeans! These things are relative and ephemeral. It's not genetic superiority. In the early middle ages, Europe was vastly inferior to China. And you simply can't ignore the fact that North America had no domesticable animals available for creating livestock. Animal husbandry is the backbone of the rise of Middle Eastern and then European and Asian civilization. That level of development simply cannot be achieved without.

No, the reason why we celebrate Columbus is that he has heralded the advent of European colonization. Its irrelevant whether America has been "discovered" by somebody else prior to the arrival of Columbus, since that discovery means nothing to us Europeans.

No, that is not irrelevant. That is precisely the central point! You claim Europeans are inherently superior and we shouldn't care about Native Americans and their inferior culture. The reality is that the two simply met at an inopportune moment when their developmental levels were vastly divergent. We don't know how Native American cultures would have developed, had they had a few more millennia to do so like the Europeans did. There is nothing inherent in Europeans that makes them superior, nor does anything about the Native Americans' temporary state of development A.D. 1492 justify denying them any human dignity.

Its like arguing that the achievements of Marco Polo shouldn't be celebrated since he wasn't the first to trade with the Chinese and write about it. The Chinese had been trading for a long time, they even traded with themselves!

Last I checked, no European country, not even Italy, celebrates "Marco Polo Day". So what exactly is your point? And what do Chinese trading with themselves have to do with anything? How many alcoholic drinks did you have before you convinced yourself that this made a logical argument.

Hey, If Darwin hadn't developed his theory of evolution somebody else might have done it in his place anyway. So why even bother studying about Darwin at all?

And indeed someone else did! Look up Alfred Russel Wallace. The fact that the latter independently came up with the same idea pushed Darwin to rush to publish his paper first. BTW, we don't "study" Darwin, unless we're biographers. The study of his person yields nothing new for the natural sciences. We study nature, which keeps confirming his theory. I don't care about the personality cult about Darwin at all, neither the one that declares him a genius, nor the one that declares him the devil.

It paved the way for the founding of the US.

As did the British Crown's suppression of religious dissidents who then went and founded America. So why don't we have a "British Religious Intolerance Day"?  Credit where credit is due!

[Tapio Dmitriyevich]

In a similar vein, currently discussed in Germany:

A proposal by Germany's Turkish Community to have schools observe one Muslim holiday annually has set off a fierce debate in Germany. Most are opposed, though some say it would promote tolerance.

German politicians and religious organizations broadly shot down a proposal by Germany's Turkish Community (TGD) for schools to close one day out of the year to observe a Muslim holiday.

The head of the TGD, Kenan Kolat prompted the debate when he suggested that the Muslim festival of Eid al-Fitr, which marks the end of Ramadan, could become a school holiday for all students.

"That would be a sign of tolerance," Kolat said in comments published in the Tuesday edition of the German daily Berliner Zeitung.

Muslims enjoy a big feast at the end of Ramadan, the Muslim fasting month

The Central Council of Jews supported Kolat's proposal, and suggested that the Jewish holiday Yom Kippur be observed by schools as well.

However, many politicians and church representatives, as well as the Central Council of Muslims, came out against the idea.

"I see no reason to turn this day (Eid al-Fitr) into a general school holiday or bank holiday for everybody," Aiman Mazyek, secretary general of the Central Council of Muslims told German press agency dpa, saying it was good enough that Muslim students were excused from attending school on their religious holidays.

The chairman of Germany's Protesant Church, Bishop Wolfgang Huber, told Wednesday's edition of the daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that there was a "priority for Christian holidays in the culture of our country" based on millennia of Christian influence in Germany.

The education ministry in the state of Brandenburg said tolerance could be achieved in other ways. Green party parliamentarian Christian Stroebele, on the other hand, expressed interest in discussing the proposal further.

An estimated 3.8 to 4.3 million Muslims live in Germany.  

vj/dpa/epd
Editor: Trinity Hartman

I was at first surprised by "I see no reason to turn this day (Eid al-Fitr) into a general school holiday or bank holiday for everybody", but well, a likely translation is "This is not business of you infidels, we don't want you to stain our religion".

[Bulldog]

All this is pointless of course, since it is irrelevant whether Europeans could have achieved more or less had they been in the same position as the Indians. The fact of the matter is European civilization was in fact infinitely superior to that of the Indians when the two came in contact with the other, and that's the end of it.

Yes, European civilization is superior when you use European standards.

[MishaK]

I was at first surprised by "I see no reason to turn this day (Eid al-Fitr) into a general school holiday or bank holiday for everybody", but well, a likely translation is "This is not business of you infidels, we don't want you to stain our religion".

That's a very cynical reading. 

[Tapio Dmitriyevich]

That's a very cynical reading. 

Yes it is, but that's exactly what I feel the official turkish representants keep telling us: "Let us do our business. Our business is not your business". As a human being, I can feel they do not want to be part of us. Do you know Mr. Mazyek? I can always feel his arrogance towards non-muslims.

[drogulus]

     We could replace it with a general purpose I'm Sorry Day. Would that help? I don't think so, and the U.S. occupied a greater position in the minds of people around the world before we started apologizing for all of our faults. It was understood what kind of country we had built from learning its history, including the naive celebrations of flawed or semi-mythical heroes. Other countries have these figures, too. Should we Americans insist that everyone else sanitize their histories and drop any references to pirates, mercenaries, religious zealots, and bloodthirsty conquerors? I wouldn't want to do that, and I can't think of a good reason why I should. Let's not imagine that effacing these aspects of our history somehow atones for crimes that were committed. A great civilization was built here and should be celebrated for what it is, and we should also remember the high price that is always paid when a stronger people displaces a weaker one.

   

Yes, European civilization is superior when you use European standards.

    European intellectuals invented the kind of criticism that regards any judgment that Europe developed a great civilization as inherently "Eurocentric". It shouldn't be too surprising that some of the most trenchant criticism would be self-criticism, which is what you'd expect from....a great civilization. It's a form of decadence, perhaps, to see any estimate of civilization as special pleading or cheerleading. The logic of that position remorselessly leads to compensatory judgments about how great everyone is or, just as bad IMO that there no such thing as civilization, just everybody blowing their own horn. It's utter bullshit, and not designed to be believed, just worn as an amulet to ward off the evil eye... _{(one cheerfully hopes )}

[MishaK]

Whoa, drogulus, what's going on...?

    We could replace it with a general purpose I'm Sorry Day. Would that help?

Nobody asked for that. We could just get rid of that day or celebrate something else entirely.

I don't think so, and the U.S. occupied a greater position in the minds of people around the world before we started apologizing for all of our faults.

Not really. The never really apologized, though some of its citizens US started apologizing but only after the position of the US in the minds of people around the world had suffered severely after the nonsense in Vietnam. Cart before horse, you know.

It was understood what kind of country we had built from learning its history, including the naive celebrations of flawed or semi-mythical heroes. Other countries have these figures, too. Should we Americans insist that everyone else sanitize their histories and drop any references to pirates, mercenaries, religious zealots, and bloodthirsty conquerors? I wouldn't want to do that, and I can't think of a good reason why I should. Let's not imagine that effacing these aspects of our history somehow atones for crimes that were committed. A great civilization was built here and should be celebrated for what it is, and we should also remember the high price that is always paid when a stronger people displaces a weaker one.

Nobody said anything about effacing. Eliminating an unnecessary holiday won't wipe Columbus from the history books. And you're stretching things when you're making Columbus into an American hero. He's really an unlikely representative for this country. That's exactly what makes the holiday weird in a sense. And who said anything of sanitizing history? It's fine to discuss the history, but why celebrate characters who do not represent the nation's aspirations with a holiday?

Point is, Columbus didn't build the civilization in the US. He stood for quite a different culture - one that brought conquistadors, the exploitation of South and Central America for the benefit of Spain and Portugal, the legacy of which lives on in grossly inequitable states of Latin America today. That is not what the USA was founded on. Mere discovery I don't think merits a holiday. Australia doesn't celebrate 'James Cook Day' either.

    European intellectuals invented the kind of criticism that regards any judgment that Europe developed a great civilization as inherently "Eurocentric".

Not entirely. You'll find that a lot of the post-colonial studies stuff originated from this side of the pond, albeit often at the hands of transplants from Asia and the Middle East. You're painting with way too broad a brush.

[drogulus]

     The best course is to criticize or debunk, if you will, and keep the holiday, remembering all of the consequence of the discovery of the New World, not just those that fit one agenda or another. That's what a great civilization does, and in the process inspiring people around the world to likewise criticize their own cultures. Actually, I think we should all feel free to make judgments about other cultures. Judge, and prepare to be judged (which will happen anyway). Then we can compare notes.

    If you want to eliminate all offensive holidays you won't have many left. Let's not eliminate any, I say. The reasons for elimination are paltry, and suspect.

    If we are in the mode of being moralists about holidays, why not get rid of Christmas? Hey, did you know it used to be a pagan holiday?? That Christians persecuted Jews for 2,000 years? Get rid of it!  

    All in favor of abolishing religious holidays in our secular republic raise their hands.  

    From now on we'll only have holidays that conform to our current morality, so we won't be reminded of how different we once were. Columbus and Easter and 1776 and Labor Day (Labor Day?). And Lincoln, he thought blacks were inferior, we can't countenance that now that we know better. I think I'll miss Lincoln.