Columbus Day is a reminder that nothing exists until a white guy “discovers” it
Columbus Day is a reminder that nothing exists until a white guy discovers it
Written by
Jake Flanagin
4 hours ago
At this point, its pretty much common knowledge that Christopher Columbus was not, in fact, the first European to come to the New World. Archaeologists have uncovered evidence of Norse settlements in Newfoundland, Canada, dating as far back as the ninth century. Meanwhile recently uncovered DNA evidence suggests Polynesians landed on South American shores almost a century before the Nina, the Pinta, or the Santa Maria.
Yet to suggest that any of these partiesColumbus or the Vikings or the Polynesiansdiscovered the Americas is not simply revisionism; its flat-out incorrect.
We know that Native Americans were living in the Americas for thousands of years before the arrival of Europeans. We know their ancestors crossed the Bering Land Bridge from northeastern Asia, and in the ensuing 10,000 to 15,000 years populated the New World with civilizations as diverse and distinct as the Mayans, the Inuit, and the Mapuche.
And yet, we still honor Christopher Columbus, an Italian in the employ of the Spanish crown, for ostensibly discovering the Americas. Why? Because our historiographical language maintains that, unless a white dude knows about a place, it doesnt exist. Unless its documented in the Spanish royal archives, or the record books of the Dutch East India Company, or the Bible, its not a thing. It isnt real.
Cities across the United States and Canada are finally starting to wake up to the damage wrought by Columbuss expedition, acknowledging why its wrong to blindly worship a man for essentially jump-starting the systemic extermination of two continents worth of indigenous societies. Several of these cities have begun to institute Indigenous Peoples Day in its place. And thats a step in the right direction.
More:
http://qz.com/521321/columbus-day-is-a-reminder-that-nothing-exists-until-a-white-guy-discovers-it/
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Judi Lynn
(160,211 posts)NonMetro
(631 posts)Stay where they were?
milestogo
(16,829 posts)Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay climbed Mt Everest in 1953.
Igel
(35,191 posts)And some basic pragmatics.
Not just inane proposals from the '50s that weren't accepted at the time, haven't been accepted since then, and have been found to be based on a poor understanding of a poorly written grammar.
The Chinese claim to have discovered America; and so they did. Just as did the Norse. (Unclear that the Polynesians did in any meaningful sense. What's missing is a semantic argument for the verb "discover"--discover what by whom for whom.. There's also a bit of a reinterpretation going on that alters not only current usage but rewrites previous usage to mean something that was never intended--Derrida would be proud, the supremacy of the listener over previous listeners and prior intent. Sort of makes Sartre and Camus look like rank amateurs when it comes to existentialist thought: not only does only the present matter, only the individual perceiver (assuming he has privileged status) matters.
If I discover the ultimate GUT or a new medicine and die before I tell anybody, it's a discovery that's not a discovery. If I wrote it down and 200 years after it's been rediscovered, my discovery remains a non-discovery. Darwin wasn't the first to "discover" natural selection or evolution, nor was he the first to publish; he was the one that was noticed, that made the information available to the culture that he was in, and the culture that we basically form a part of these days whether Nat Am or AA or "anglo". The previous discoverer is a non-entity and unimportant.
At the same time, I know well-educated people who straight-facedly say that they "discovered" a restaurant or new fishing spot--and aren't abusing the verb. It wasn't known to their microculture, their particular group. It's a valid use of the word, even if the person who opened the restaurant surely was the first.
What's left is linguistic manipulation in order to mislead. Some of the thinking is Worf-Sapirian (going back to the inane '50s "theory" that barely ranked as a hypothesis). Most is just Orwellian. Sensu stricto.
What's left is mostly founded in what Grice would have called a violation of the cooperative principle. There's ill will assumed before any need be shown; the hostility is palpable, and both invites and incites reciprocal ill will. The linguistic manipulation starts off by reinforcing one's bias, and triggers a reaction that confirms that pre-existing bias one more time. He who has shall have more; he who has not shall have less. It works with money as well as self-righteousness and animosity.
NonMetro
(631 posts)And "conservative" to support those who disagree. So, I can't question the motives and theories of those called "Native Americans" because...um....well, well!...."we" liberals don't do that?
It's coercive, bullying in a way, and it has consequences, too. Italians, and Italian-Americans, for instance, have already been insulted by some cities replacing "Columbus Day" with "Indigenous People's Day" saying they are "ashamed" of Columbus. What are we liberals supposed to say? The hell with Italians? Or, Italians shouldn't be so sensitive?
And yes, I do think Ill will is driving this.
Oh, yeah, the Irish are also upset because their Saint, who discovered America before the Vikings, is not honored!
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Have you ever read his letters? Do you understand at all what was done to the native population here? Europeans decimated the native populations.
NonMetro
(631 posts)I was responding to another post.