The fact is that western Europeans would have stumbled upon the North and South American continents around the 15th century no matter what, whether it was specifically Christopher Columbus or some other explorer.

Furthermore, technology had advanced enough in Europe by that period that they would have stayed, no matter what.

So ... I guess I don't understand the point of this retroactive moralizing and revisionism. Are there folks out there actually positing that the 'discovery' of the Americas by Europeans would or could have proceeded along a different path? Considering the dominance of the Roman Church, the Inquisition, and European politics at the time, how could it have different?

Columbus bashing is so intellectually disingenuous -- and thankfully it is also very fringe because it is exactly the kind of snooty, "we're better than you" attitude that hurts liberals and progressives among average working folks.

The point is that on October 12, 1492, under the leadership of Columbus, Europeans entered the history of the Americas. We are here today because of that event -- a hugely significant event in human history -- it certainly is a moment to commemorate for both the good and bad it wrought. Yes, bad things happened, but so did bad things happen to the Cathars at the hands of the Roman Church, the Protestants -- Europeans were very proficient in killing each other, too, for many varied reasons. It is part of the human condition then and now that we aren't very decent to each other.

Focusing on Christopher Columbus, an individual, misses the broader historical context of what started 522 years ago. Indeed, turning one fellow into a Hitlerian monster is typical of the intellectual shallowness that is characterized by the pejorative term "liberal angst" ... and that is a pity because it stops analysis and investigation of even more unpleasant and inconvenient truths.

than someone who favors inflamed rhetoric over facts. Oh wait, the author has already dismissed academics and teachers, so guess that just leaves poorly informed editors.

Hint: Columbus didn't find "a sheer magnitude of gold" but instead decided to profit from taking natives as slaves. No, I do not opposes stripping his name from the day, I do oppose half-baked, poorly researched editorials.

William H Prescott saw him as a Providential figure, discovering the continent so that the US could be created on it and wrest the good parts from the lazy Papists; others saw him as an Enlightenment figure before the fact, proving the Earth round against the obscurantist Spaniards
Columbus Day was one of those post-Hayes regional-unity things, mandatory education linked to the Pledge of Allegiance 1892, and the Day was plumped as a way to appeal to Italian-Americans