Today marks the 518th anniversary of Chrisopher Columbus' landfall in the Americas. A hundred years ago, Columbus Day was a celebrated by Americans (particularly Italian-Americans). Now, it's a day where the liberal elite trashes Columbus, America, and white people in general.
I understand why Native Americans protest Columbus Day, although it's worth noting that they are treated better than most other conquered indigenous peoples throughout history. But I suspect the white progressives who rant against Columbus are doing so only to open another front in their self-hating war against white people. Indeed, it's understandable as to why they hate the day so much, since Columbus' discovery led to the European colonization of America and eventually the creation of the United States.
I would disagree with the idea that Whites conquered the natives. The more accurate verb describing the Euro-American movement into America is colonization and settlement of a land that was largely empty.
ReplyDeleteNative tribes repeatedly attacked White settlers, which led to military conflicts. In subsequent peace treaties, tribes would usually end up with recognized land grants and cash settlements in return for their promises of peace.
We can accurately say the violent tribes were pacified. They were never conquered. That is an anti-White code word, which severely distorts what really happened.
I have a standing challenge to anyone who won't give up the "conquest" description: find me one example in U.S. history where Americans found an Indian tribe, and, unprovoked by prior attack, went into their villages, conquered them, and took their land.
The peaceful tribes were simply given land grants where they stood (such as Hopi and Zuni tribes). Even the Cherokee were given a land grant in Georgia, the ones who didn't follow their leaders to Oklahoma to receive the land their leaders had agreed to in negotiated treaty.
ReplyDeleteThe so-called Trail of Tears is one of the biggest con jobs in our memory of U.S. history. The Cherokee were NOT conquered and removed. They AGREED to a huge land grant outside the US borders, in exchange for giving up any tribal claims in Georgia. Individual Indians were free to stay, they just had to give up a claim to tribal ownership of the land. In fact, many of them did stay, and they were even later granted their own lands in Georgia.
Not a bad fate for a "conquered" people.
I have a standing challenge to anyone who won't give up the "conquest" description: find me one example in U.S. history where Americans found an Indian tribe, and, unprovoked by prior attack, went into their villages, conquered them, and took their land.
ReplyDeleteI'm tempted to take your challenge. I agree with you; I would only take your challenge if I didn't have so much homework - because on the face of it it looks impossible. There is SO much effort to look for dirt on Whitey that I can't believe if what you said had happened, it wouldn't have been endless rehashed to My Lai proportions.
The only thing worse for the Native American peoples than Columbus discovering America is the possible alternative that he did not. Hunter-gatherer existence, high rates of incurable desease and injury, constant wars with neighboring tribes, no horses, no domesticated animals, primitive metal working, no wheel.
ReplyDeleteOf course, it was inevitable in the age of exploration that the two hemispheres would discover each other. If no Columbus, then someone else. Once that bridge was crossed, it was futher inevitable that one group would have no immunities to teh diseases of the other.
What I find very amusing are those tee shirts that proclaim "Homeland Security...fighting terrorism since 1492" with a picture of Sitting Bull, Red Cloud, Geronimo, and Chief Joseph (I think). As if the Amerindians (I refuse to say "Native American" because Amerindians are about as indigenous to this continent as my forefathers were) didn't engage in their own special ethnic cleansing of Caucasians when they arrived in the Americas over the land bridge, and as if they didn't terrorize each other regularly before the Euros arrived.
ReplyDeleteTo leverage PH's comment, if not the Spainiards, French, and British, then it would have been someone else. Perhaps those less inclined toward accomodation and more inclined toward extermination.
Imagine a North America that was discovered and exploited by Japanese, Koreans and Chinese.
ReplyDeleteAs if the Amerindians (I refuse to say "Native American" because Amerindians are about as indigenous to this continent as my forefathers were) didn't engage in their own special ethnic cleansing of Caucasians when they arrived in the Americas over the land bridge...
ReplyDeleteThere's no evidence that actual Caucasians existed in America before the Indians came.
"Kennewick Man was in fact not European but rather resembled Ainu people of northeast Asia."
http://www.websters-dictionary-online.org/definitions/Caucasian+race?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744%3Av0qd01-tdlq&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=Caucasian+race&sa=Search#922