Poll
Question:
Should Columbus Day be rid of?
Option 1: Yes
votes: 20
Option 2: No
votes: 15
Option 3: Not sure
votes: 1
:-\
Why the hell would we? I get the day off. >:(
Quote from: MN Dave on October 13, 2009, 10:09:07 AM
Why the hell would we? I get the day off. >:(
Sorry, I should have put the question as "Should it be
replaced with something else?" Which would still allow the holiday/day off.
I can't think of a reason to get rid of it or replace it with something else. But I will postpone voting to see if someone has a compelling reason to do so.
Two reasons:
A) Out of respect for the Aboriginal/First Nations people of America.
B) It's pretty much known and acknowledged that Columbus did not discover America first.
Tony Soprano would never stand for it... :-\
(http://www.holland-mark.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/tony-soprano1.jpg)
8)
Quote from: ChamberNut on October 13, 2009, 10:18:37 AM
Two reasons:
A) Out of respect for the Aboriginal/First Nations people of America.
B) It's pretty much known and acknowledged that Columbus did not discover America first.
Stop trying to change the world!!!
How about "Kick A Canadian" Day? ;D
Quote from: ChamberNut on October 13, 2009, 10:18:37 AM
Two reasons:
A) Out of respect for the Aboriginal/First Nations people of America.
Sorry, but, screw them. Considering what Europeans accomplished in the new world compared to the people that already lived there i can't understand why everybody keeps mourning the passing of what was but a bunch of savages.
Quote from: ChamberNut on October 13, 2009, 10:18:37 AM
B) It's pretty much known and acknowledged that Columbus did not discover America first.
Yes but Columbus brought civilization with him. What did Leif Erikson leave, except for a few archaeological curiosities?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 13, 2009, 10:45:43 AM
Yes but Columbus brought civilization with him. What did Leif Erikson leave, except for a few archaeological curiosities?
Define "civilization." ???
Quote from: ChamberNut on October 13, 2009, 10:18:37 AM
Two reasons:
A) Out of respect for the Aboriginal/First Nations people of America.
B) It's pretty much known and acknowledged that Columbus did not discover America first.
A) They were conquered and the Europeans took over.
B) Even so, he did play a significant role in the European settlement of America.
I'm voting "NO" in the poll.
1 a : a relatively high level of cultural and technological development; specifically : the stage of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of written records is attained b : the culture characteristic of a particular time or place
2 : the process of becoming civilized
3 a : refinement of thought, manners, or taste b : a situation of urban comfort
Quote from: MN Dave on October 13, 2009, 10:38:56 AM
Stop trying to change the world!!!
Rocky Balboa put it best:
"If I can change, you can change....everybody can change!"
There is a Columbus Day? Just imagine the world had he got his bearings right. JdP probably would have been European. ;D
Quote from: ChamberNut on October 13, 2009, 10:56:58 AM
Rocky Balboa put it best:
"If I can change, you can change....everybody can change!"
Change something worth changing.
Quote from: ChamberNut on October 13, 2009, 10:56:58 AM
Rocky Balboa put it best:
"If I can change, you can change....everybody can change!"
But Michael Jackson sang:
If You Wanna Make The World
A Better Place
Take A Look At Yourself, And
Then Make A Change[Songwriters: Ballard, Glen; Garrett, Siedah]
Exactly. Start getting rid of Columbus Day by not celebrating it yourself. And that goes for all the other holidays too. Except the days I get off from work and my birthday.
Quote from: MN Dave on October 13, 2009, 10:38:56 AM
Stop trying to change the world!!!
Oh, it's you! I thought you were our resident SymphonyNut,
schweitzeralan Grazioso. (I believe he had the same painting for an avatar.)
And just as I post that, you change it. ::)
Quote from: ChamberNut on October 13, 2009, 10:18:37 AMA) Out of respect for the Aboriginal/First Nations people of America.
What does this have to do with anything? Following a similar line of reasoning, why not abolish Christmas as well, out of respect for Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc, etc. Or perhaps Halloween out of respect for uptight Christians. Or Veteran's Day and Memorial Day out of respect for non-veterans. Or Labor Day out of respect for the unemployed and layabout billionaires.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 13, 2009, 10:45:43 AM
Sorry, but, screw them.
Ah, the socially-challenged suuuper geeenius is heard from!
I voted No.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 13, 2009, 10:45:43 AM
Sorry, but, screw them. Considering what Europeans accomplished in the new world compared to the people that already lived there i can't understand why everybody keeps mourning the passing of what was but a bunch of savages.
The way I see it, you and your European pals are the savages. I voted yes.
Quote from: MN Dave on October 13, 2009, 11:05:53 AM
Exactly. Start getting rid of Columbus Day by not celebrating it yourself. And that goes for all the other holidays too. Except the days I get off from work and my birthday.
"Not to change the subject" but I notice from your avatar that...THE BOB DYLAN CHRISTMAS ALBUM IS FINALLY HERE! I listened to a few samples on Amazon--he sounds like Tom Waits.
Quote from: Harpo on October 13, 2009, 01:15:15 PM
"Not to change the subject" but I notice from your avatar that...THE BOB DYLAN CHRISTMAS ALBUM IS FINALLY HERE! I listened to a few samples on Amazon--he sounds like Tom Waits.
Yeah, his voice is shot, but I still love him.
Quote from: Bulldog on October 13, 2009, 12:37:29 PM
The way I see it, you and your European pals are the savages. I voted yes.
Me, too! (on both counts).
No, America should not get rid of it.
Quote from: Todd on October 13, 2009, 11:38:48 AMWhat does this have to do with anything? Following a similar line of reasoning, why not abolish Christmas as well, out of respect for Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc, etc. Or perhaps Halloween out of respect for uptight Christians. Or Veteran's Day and Memorial Day out of respect for non-veterans. Or Labor Day out of respect for the unemployed and layabout billionaires.
Yep. What will be left? A polished one-world, a lowest common denominator world, the European idea. Just yesterday I read Nietzsche/Zarathustra, "The Tarantulas" (http://underthesun.cc/Classics/Nietzsche/zarathustra/zarathustra30.html), which applies here.
Quote from: ChamberNut on October 13, 2009, 10:18:37 AM
Two reasons:
A) Out of respect for the Aboriginal/First Nations people of America.
Who cares? If they are so great then they wouldn't have had their land taken away from them. I know it sucks but the fact is the strong will conquer the weak, end of story.
Quote from: Bulldog on October 13, 2009, 12:37:29 PM
The way I see it, you and your European pals are the savages.
You are more then welcome to leave our civilization if it bothers you so much. Liberals seem so eager to attack Europeans and European history every chance they get yet they have no qualms enjoying the freedom and comforts produced by European culture. I'd call that hypocritical, wouldn't you say?
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 13, 2009, 12:18:51 PM
Ah, the socially-challenged suuuper geeenius is heard from!
I'm just using various forms of shock therapy to help people get a better grip on reality. Feeling sorry and teary eyed about the poor Indians when we all know the outcome would have been exactly the same had the roles been reversed is already silly enough as it is. When taking into account that we are talking about events that occurred hundreds of years ago its down right ridicolous.
Josquin, 200 years from now, on the Holocaust: Come on, the Jews walked right into those gas chambers! They would have done the same to the Germans if the roles were reversed! It was hundreds of years ago.
Quote from: The Six on October 14, 2009, 09:29:09 AM
Josquin, 200 years from now, on the Holocaust: Come on, the Jews walked right into those gas chambers!
The point of the matter of course is that there isn't a single nation or civilization that hasn't committed atrocities at one point or another during the course of its history, but we still measure those nations and civilizations but their accomplishments, not by their crimes. Unless those nations and civilizations happen to be of European origin.
Quote from: The Six on October 14, 2009, 09:29:09 AM
They would have done the same to the Germans if the roles were reversed!
You don't think so? You don't think Jews haven't proved to have genocidal tendencies in the recent past?
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html
Did you know in fact that much of the motivation of cleansing Germany of Jews was fueled by the aftermath of the Jewish-led Bolshevik revolution and Hitler's own fears Germany was going to be next in line? I think an holocaust of the German people at the hands of Jewish communist leaders is a very plausible scenario. Human nature spares no one. Sorry if that comes as a disappointment to you.
Since the US is sometimes criticized for telling other people what they ought to do . . . should people outside the US be telling America to get rid of Columbus Day? 0:) ;D 8)
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 14, 2009, 10:36:01 AM
Sorry if that comes as a disappointment to you.
Why should I be disappointed? I just predicted your response with complete accuracy. Except...
QuoteThe point of the matter of course is that there isn't a single nation or civilization that hasn't committed atrocities at one point or another during the course of its history,
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.
Quotean holocaust
OK,
now you've lost all credibility.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 14, 2009, 11:19:24 AM
Since the US is sometimes criticized for telling other people what they ought to do . . . should people outside the US be telling America to get rid of Columbus Day? 0:) ;D 8)
Stay away from our seal clubbling club! 0:)
Nice red clover, Ray! 8)
We should only get rid of Columbus Day if we change it instead to Columbo Day.
(http://www.tvacres.com/images/columbo1.jpg)
and ...
just one more thing ...
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!!
;D
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? ???
Quote from: Contents Under Pressure on October 14, 2009, 10:05:47 PM
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...
Quote from: Lethe on October 14, 2009, 11:27:36 PM
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 IndÃgenos.
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.
Quote from: The Six on October 14, 2009, 11:52:57 AM
I'm not sure what atrocity the Native Americans committed
You might try this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_massacre_of_1622) for a start.
never get rid of columbus day, and make Robt. E. Lee day a nat'l holiday.
Quote from: Florestan on October 15, 2009, 01:03:16 AM
You might try this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_massacre_of_1622) 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.
Quote from: opus106 on October 15, 2009, 01:57:21 AM
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?.
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.
Quote from: opus106 on October 15, 2009, 02:13:38 AM
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?
Quote from: Florestan on October 15, 2009, 02:14:56 AM
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.
Quote from: opus106 on October 15, 2009, 02:19:07 AM
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.
Quote from: Florestan on October 15, 2009, 02:23:53 AM
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.
Quote
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.
Quote from: opus106 on October 15, 2009, 02:41:22 AM
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.
Whether the people are English or other, to take any affront as "justification" for a massacre is, de rigueur, savage.
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.)
Quote from: Todd on October 15, 2009, 06:19:32 AM
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! ;D
Quote from: Todd on October 15, 2009, 06:19:32 AM
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."
The Indians killed the white man because they was afraid Europeans were stealing their jobs.
Quote from: The Six on October 15, 2009, 07:16:49 AMEasy 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.
Quote from: The Six on October 15, 2009, 07:16:49 AMWho said the natives were completely peaceful and innocent?
Well,
Quote from: The Six on October 14, 2009, 11:52:57 AMI'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?
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...
Quote from: opus106 on October 15, 2009, 02:13:38 AM
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.
Quote from: opus106 on October 15, 2009, 07:29:04 AM
killing-for-no-reason in true savage fashion.
Do you think Europeans killed for no reason?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 15, 2009, 07:44:31 AM
Do you think Europeans killed for no reason?
No, I don't. They had plans of invasion, of course.
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.
Quote from: O Mensch on October 15, 2009, 04:10:51 PMThe 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.
Quote from: Todd on October 15, 2009, 05:14:42 PM
(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?
Quote from: O Mensch on October 15, 2009, 05:28:05 PM
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. :)
Quote from: DavidW on October 15, 2009, 05:30:38 PM
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'?
Quote from: O Mensch on October 15, 2009, 05:49:36 PM
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. :D
Quote from: DavidW on October 15, 2009, 05:57:09 PM
Like death? :)
Exactly. Do we cemebrate "Death Day" perhaps?
Quote from: DavidW on October 15, 2009, 05:57:09 PM
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. :D
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.
Quote from: O Mensch on October 15, 2009, 04:10:51 PM
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.
Quote from: O Mensch on October 15, 2009, 04:10:51 PM
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!
Quote from: O Mensch on October 15, 2009, 05:28:05 PM
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?
Quote from: O Mensch on October 15, 2009, 05:49:36 PM
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.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 15, 2009, 06:52:58 PM
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.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 15, 2009, 06:52:58 PM
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.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 15, 2009, 06:52:58 PM
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.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 15, 2009, 07:05:52 PM
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.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 15, 2009, 07:05:52 PM
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!
In a similar vein, currently discussed in Germany: (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4787846,00.html)
QuoteA 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".
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 15, 2009, 06:52:58 PM
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. ::)
Quote from: Wurstwasser on October 15, 2009, 08:10:51 PM
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. ::)
Quote from: O Mensch on October 15, 2009, 08:22:41 PMThat'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.
(http://www.welt.de/multimedia/archive/00592/mazyek_DW_Politik_B_592884g.jpg)
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.
Quote from: Bulldog on October 15, 2009, 08:18:09 PM
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.
>:D 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 :P)
Whoa, drogulus, what's going on...?
Quote from: drogulus on October 15, 2009, 09:13:49 PM
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.
Quote from: drogulus on October 15, 2009, 09:13:49 PM
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.
Quote from: drogulus on October 15, 2009, 09:13:49 PM
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.
Quote from: drogulus on October 15, 2009, 09:13:49 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: O Mensch on October 15, 2009, 06:06:22 PM
Exactly. Do we cemebrate "Death Day" perhaps?
Halloween?
El Dia De Los Muertos!
Quote from: O Mensch on October 15, 2009, 05:28:05 PMYou do realize that the former sentence completely undermines the latter, right?
No it doesn't, that's just silly. Had Amerigo Vespucci been the first of the expansionist Europeans to discover America, it could be called America day. (Presuming one believes America was named after him.) The individual person isn't as important as what followed, but that doesn't mean the day shouldn't be named after the person who got here first. If people are for more accurate labels, then European Colonization day, or European Expansion day, or something similar would be the way to go. As it is, it's eminently sensible to name the day after the man.
Quote from: drogulus on October 16, 2009, 12:34:53 AM
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.
I can agree with that.
Quote from: drogulus on October 16, 2009, 12:34:53 AM
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.
I don't care whether someone considers Columbus Day offensive. I just find the holiday silly. There are greater achievements that could be celebrated and Columbus' significance to North America and the US specifically is rather limited. A "Mayflower Day" would indeed be more appropriate.
Quote from: The Six on October 16, 2009, 07:32:49 AM
Halloween?
That's a religious holiday. Columbus Day isn't a religious holiday. It doesn't make an argument that we should have holidays for obvious and inevitable things.
Quote from: Todd on October 16, 2009, 08:20:40 AM
No it doesn’t, that's just silly.
Well, yes it does. If the individual achievement is not significant and if it would have happened anyway, then there is nothing special to celebrate and there certainly is no reason to name it for the one individual who happened to do it.
Most definitely it should be scrapped.
Hell, no! We need more holidays, not fewer. Things are falling apart around here. Families need more quality fishing time. Everybody knows that!
By my estimation, we need to add at least three more 3-day week-ends to the calendar, if we are to mend the social fabric of this great nation. I would personally like to nominate the following gentlemen as worthy honorees:
1.) John Chapman (AKA "Johnny Appleseed")
2.) Curly Lambeau (founder of the Green Bay Packers)
3.) Karl Eisner (the foreigner who invented the Swiss Army Knife)
Quote from: Dan on October 17, 2009, 07:59:19 AM
Hell, no! We need more holidays, not fewer. Things are falling apart around here. Families need more quality fishing time. Everybody knows that!
By my estimation, we need to add at least three more 3-day week-ends to the calendar, if we are to mend the social fabric of this great nation. I would personally like to nominate the following gentlemen as worthy honorees:
1.) John Chapman (AKA "Johnny Appleseed")
2.) Curly Lambeau (founder of the Green Bay Packers)
3.) Karl Eisner (the foreigner who invented the Swiss Army Knife)
Whoever invented duct tape should get two holidays.
Quote from: Szykniej on October 17, 2009, 09:33:13 AM
Whoever invented duct tape should get two holidays.
Sounds fair. One for each Johnson. ;D
Quote from: Dan on October 17, 2009, 07:59:19 AM
By my estimation, we need to add at least three more 3-day week-ends to the calendar, if we are to mend the social fabric of this great nation...
... and the financial situation of the airline industry. ;)
Quote from: DanBy my estimation, we need to add at least three more 3-day week-ends to the calendar, if we are to mend the social fabric of this great nation...
Quote from: O Mensch on October 17, 2009, 07:53:27 PM
... and the financial situation of the airline industry. ;)
Sure! Holidays will cure whatever ails us. We don't need no stinking bailout!
Hey! ... How about "Wright Brothers Day" ?! :D
Quote from: Dan on October 18, 2009, 04:58:29 AM
Hey! ... How about "Wright Brothers Day" ?! :D
I'm cool with that.
There'll be increased tourist traffic to Dayton, of course.
do we have doughnut day? columbus loved doughnuts. a d-nut stand was his first stop in the new world.
dj
Quote from: david johnson on October 20, 2009, 01:40:51 AM
do we have doughnut day? columbus loved doughnuts. a d-nut stand was his first stop in the new world.
dj
Whoever invented doughnuts should get three holidays.
bump
A six-year bump!
364 days a year is not enough, we can't afford to lose any.