This week is a bit of a departure for me. There will be some humor, sure, but I wanted to address something serious, in my own way. I would just like to say that I'm glad I work for an employer who does not observe Columbus Day. I think it's pretty offensive that there are still places that "celebrate" this as a holiday, honoring a person who basically discovered a slab of rock which was already discovered hundreds of years earlier, and ignoring the rest of the story.
Why don't we celebrate Bjarni Herjolfsson Day? Arguably, that would be more accurate, and certainly borne of less questionable morality. One reason for this biased history I've read is that the previous discoveries were not widely known at that time, so Columbus's was the first that was widely publicized. Ah, okay, I think I understand now. We're saying that widespread ignorance is a good excuse for perpetuating ignorance, right? So, if you don't know something, it's okay to educate others on false histories. That makes sense, right? So, if there were large groups of people who didn't know that Gutenberg invented movable type, it would be okay to call it a discovery ascribed to, say, the New York Times. (Interestingly enough, that's the type of story you might read in the New York Times. Ooh! Journalism burn!)
Now, before I continue, don't get me wrong: I can already anticipate people rising up and crying out, "How dare you call me ignorant, I just didn't know that information!" Well, that's not what I'm saying - there are still people out there who don't actually know the extent of the negative deeds committed by Columbus. Those aren't the ones I'm calling "ignorant," because they just haven't heard the true story yet. The ones who are truly ignorant are those who know the real story and simply stick their heads in the sand and ignore it. To see evidence and pretend it doesn't exist, or to hear facts and simply ignore them is the definition of ignorance. (That would be what we English-speaking peoples call a "root word.") Specifically, that ignorance is perpetrated by government leaders and historians who would see textbooks and history books written (and government holidays celebrated) in support of a history written largely with blinders worn.
To those people who haven't heard the story, I hope you'll hear it now and share it with others when you hear of the supposedly "great" exploits of the Columbus about whose deeds we are taught a saccharine and falsely heroic account. Accounts of the early days of his voyage are largely accurate - sailing from Spain after the end of the Ottoman-Neapolitan War and Granada conquest. His initial visit to the island of Hispaniola was a peaceful encounter with the Arawak tribe.
This is where things go downhill, and accounts begin to diverge from one another. In Columbus's subsequent returns, gifts were exchanged, which is another primary reason Columbus is celebrated in place of our old Viking friend Bjarni - he established two-way commerce. (Fun fact, Bjarni was also the name of the first-known form of children's entertainment. He was a purple "Viking Dinosaur," with a long blond beard, an iron-horned skullcap, and a trademark song of "I kill you, you kill me, but not if I kill you first, you see." Not to be confused with loveable gumshoe Bjarni Mjiller.)
I digress. I would again argue that this is not necessarily the best reason to celebrate someone - because they opened up the opportunity for wealthy European merchants and trading companies to become even more wealthy, and in exchange giving precious little. I think the more important exchange involved commodities which aren't typically traded on the free market. Native Americans received things like Smallpox and the concept of slavery, while Europeans received things like land that didn't belong to them (by murdering most of the inhabitants), a claim on many Natives' eternal souls (after, y'know, murdering them) and treaties which the Euros and resulting Americans had no intention of honoring (because they got in the way of all that murdering.)
The amazing part is, even in some accounts which acknowledge the atrocities committed by the first waves of explorers, somehow Columbus escapes scrutiny! Are we so brainwashed as a society that we're willing to practically deify a person and fool ourselves even further into believing he had nothing to do with the actions of a vast majority of his crew? Really? That would be like saying Hernán Cortéz was really a saint, it was his followers who wiped out the Aztecs beyond his control - Cortéz just stood on the beach saying, "Really, we should try talking about this first!" What a nice guy. Let's have Hernán Cortéz Day.
I think it would be better to have Dan Cortese Day.
No, Columbus was just as much a part of the raping, dismembering, murdering, and enslaving of the Native American people as the rest of his fellow explorers. Capture and enslave the strongest of the men, working them in silver mines (after he finally accepted there wasn’t much gold to be found.) Rape the female tribe members, then string them up with the rest who are too young, old, or sick to work in the mines. Hanged and burned, or enslaved. That was the legacy of Columbus, not just that of his followers and fellow explorers.
One last thing before I step off my soapbox. As a man with some Cherokee ancestors, am I the only one who sees a sort of ultimate and final ignominy in the fact that the grand “Admiral of the Sea” had NO clue where he had landed, and because of that, an entire race of people have been mis-named? He thought he landed in the Indies, so he figured, let’s call them all Indians, overlooking the fact that they, y’know, already had names. Never mind the fact he wasn’t in the Indies, and even after they figured that part out, they continued to call them Indians! That would be like someone sailing from Mongolia in the 1400’s, landing in Alaska and, assuming they had landed on an island of Russia, calling all of the Inuit people “East Russians.” And then somehow convincing people to call them that FOREVER, even after realizing their mistake. Or more appropriately, like Leif Erikson landing in Newfoundland (which he did) and calling the Mi’kmaq people “West Icelanders” (which he certainly did not, because he wasn’t ignorant and stubborn like Columbus.)
Now, were ALL Native Americans peaceful? Not necessarily. Many, like the Mohawk and Chiricahua didn’t necessarily need a reason for war. But just because some tribes were at war with each other doesn’t mean all tribes should be painted with the same brush, or that any of them should be considered savages. The tribes were capable of taking care of their own disputes, and any who warred without cause always ran the risk of encountering a tribe who’s fight or flight response slanted more toward defending their families and fighting back rather than running and saving themselves. The Native tribes certainly didn't need the sort of "help" the frontiersmen ended up offering.
It’s little surprise the settlers to follow thought it was okay to squat on the Native’s lands, to poach their food supplies for nothing but skins, to murder and label as savages those that had the nerve to defend themselves, their families, their land, and their livelihoods, and to strong-arm the proudest into accepting treaties the settlers had no intention of honoring. No wonder they had so little respect for the Native peoples of North America. The man who started it all didn’t even have enough respect to get their names right.
Here endeth the lesson.
