The freedom to march

The Denver Post ^ | October 7, 2005 | Reggie Rivers

[Millee]

Christopher Columbus was a murdering, slave-trading, culture-killing, exploitative conqueror who had no regard for the people living on the land and claimed ownership of everything he saw the moment he stepped off the boat.

He treated the indigenous population not as fellow humans, but simply as resources to be subjugated, raped and/or sold for profit. His defenders argue that we can't blame Columbus for all the bad things that happened during his repeated voyages to the New World, because conquering, enslaving and aggressively spreading Christianity were simply the norms of the time.

That's true, but even by the standards of his era, Columbus was worse than most. After sending his first load of slaves back to Spain, he was admonished by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabel to not send any more, but he continued the slave trade.

The abuses inflicted against the indigenous populations represent a true genocidal campaign that had enormous effect. Many historians estimate that within 60 years of Columbus' first arrival in the New World, 3 million Native Americans in Haiti were gone (diseases played a significant role in the devastation as well).

I completely agree with the American Indian Movement's (AIM) view that it's inappropriate for the United States to have an official federal holiday celebrating the accomplishments of a brutal dominator like Columbus. If Congress doesn't act to remove his name from the calendar, then Colorado should take the initiative to change the holiday within the state.

However, despite my distaste for the official holiday, I also completely agree with the Sons of Italy, who argue that they have a right to stage their march tomorrow in honor of Christopher Columbus. This is a simple free speech issue. They've planned their march, received a permit, and the city has an obligation to police the event and ensure that the parade can proceed without interference from protesters.

I have felt the same way about Ku Klux Klan marches in the past. I would aggressively campaign against any attempt by the state to officially honor one of the founders of the KKK, but I would defend with equal vigor the right of a particular KKK group to stage a march in Denver.

The controversial parade tomorrow gives us an important opportunity to publicly debate the violent legacy of Christopher Columbus.

Members of AIM object to the government naming a holiday after the man who murdered their ancestors. The simple logic of their complaint is easy to understand.

If, 100 years ago, a criminal broke into your great-grandfather's house, murdered or enslaved most of the family, looted the home, sold everything for profit and used the money to start a company that later became a corporate giant, you'd probably object if the government decided to honor this criminal as one of America's greatest entrepreneurs.

That official government praise would reveal an utter contempt for your family and the horrible crime that was inflicted up on it. Clearly, the guy who committed the crime had no respect for your family, and by naming a holiday after him, the public would be saying, "We don't have any respect for your family, either."

The good news is that the battle between the Sons of Italy and AIM has raised public awareness about Columbus' murderous past. I don't believe the public is deliberately disrespectful of the suffering that Native Americans have endured. I believe most of us are simply ignorant about the crimes that were committed.

However, while we push to change the name of this holiday, we must protect the First Amendment rights of anyone who wants to celebrate Christopher Columbus. If they lose the freedom to express themselves, we all lose.

[Millee]

Christopher Columbus was a murdering, slave-trading, culture-killing, exploitative conqueror who had no regard for the people living on the land and claimed ownership of everything he saw the moment he stepped off the boat.

Gee Reggie, how do you really feel?

[gondramB]

"That's true, but even by the standards of his era, Columbus was worse than most. After sending his first load of slaves back to Spain, he was admonished by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabel to not send any more, but he continued the slave trade."

I've never heard any thing like that ..has anybody else?

[manwiththehands]

Nope. I haven't heard anything like this, either. Seems a little far-fetched and made up if you ask me. But then again, those who don't like history have a nasty habit of rewriting it.

[556x45]

LOL...the moral outrage, the bile, the venom produced to show case a perceived wrong. What liberals completely fail to recognize is that the very things they despise and condemn they would (and are doing) do themselves. How are they basically different from any other human being? They are subject to the same flaws, appetites and failings. When they condemn someone else they're condemning themselves. Oh well I suppose the rest of us unclean should be happy they're willing to herd us in the right direction. :-)

[basil]

Wonder how he was able to round up all those Injuns and get them into his "slave boats"?

[frankenMonkey]

Reggie Rivers?
that goofball still around? good to see the post continuing its descent into irrelevance.

[Millee]

If, 100 years ago, a criminal broke into your great-grandfather's house, murdered or enslaved most of the family, looted the home, sold everything for profit and used the money to start a company that later became a corporate giant, you'd probably object if the government decided to honor this criminal as one of America's greatest entrepreneurs.

BUT if somebody breaks into your country Reggie expects you to feed, clothe, educated and give free medical care to. Strange, ain't it??

[AMERIKA]

"I've never heard any thing like that ..has anybody else?"

No it's a new one on me also.

I understand that the conjurer writes the history books, however if there is some truth to this I would like to see it.

"If, 100 years ago,a criminal".... 100 years ago is a far cry from 1492, which was a few hundred years even before the "Age of Enlightenment".

If 100 years ago someone would have tried welfare or affirmative action or a tax on ones wages or called themselves a hyphenated American they would have been laughed at.

The fallacy is that people tend to look at history through the eyes of now instead through the eyes and beliefs of the times of then. They make it sound like Columbus planned it all out, like a master race plan!
Evidently a product of outcome based education.
These people need to get a life. They should be counting their blessings instead of brooding over past history. P.S. Reggie should have met Attilia the Hun...

[RedRover]

This is horsefeathers. There wasn't a slave trade, on any measurable scale, from the Caribbean to the Old World. The slave trade went in the other direction. I think this writer smoked too much dope at Ward Churchill lectures.

[Captain Rhino]

However, while we push to change the name of this holiday, we must protect the First Amendment rights of anyone who wants to celebrate Christopher Columbus. If they lose the freedom to express themselves, we all lose.

Mandatory PC close...at base, liberals don't give a ***t about a conservative's freedom to express their ideas in the public forum.

[nothingnew]

They are subject to the same flaws, appetites and failings. When they condemn someone else they're condemning themselves.

"Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself".

It's written in many ways..."Treat thy neighbor..."

Still the golden rule.

FMCDH(BITS)

[CherylBower]

I keep hearing the disease issue, like Columbus and later the American Army, intentionally infected the native population with small pox or some such other disease. Humans at those points in time, did not know how disease was transmitted. Germs were completely unknown. It's a fallacious argument, and should be pointed out at every turn.

[FlingWingFlyer]

I don't know but it sounds to me like Reggie be hittin' the happy smoke while reading his Liberal revisionist "history" book.

Let me tell you something. The "suffering" of the "Native Americans" is a hell of a lot GREATER NOW under their Liberal 'RAT massas and their corrupt, phonyass "chiefs" than it ever was under Columbus. You can take that to the bank.

[PzLdr]

They were probably runnin g away fro the local power, the Arawak Indians -who were in the habit of eating them.

[joebuck]

"Many historians estimate that within 60 years of Columbus' first arrival in the New World, 3 million Native Americans in Haiti were gone..."

I would like to see a shed of evidence to support this. Anytime anyone says "Many historians (or experts) estimate that"......... you are about to be confonted with a totally BS factoid.

[CompSciGuy]

Pure hogwash. European interest in slavery came from the muslims in North Africa (imagine that, Religion of Peace after all). Most Indians (Native Americans) in Europe were a sort of curiousity, and from the history I've read, lived fairly well off lives, with a large portion returning to North America. That disease killed off the indian population is as much Columbus' fault as it was any of the explorers. More liberal whitewash. (or mudslinging as the case may be)

Cheers and Happy Columbus Day!,
CSG

[Belasarius]

As I recall, Columbus kidnapped about twenty locals and took them back for show and tell. I would imagine this is kind of like introducing a "new product line." I don't remember what happened to them but I'm pretty sure they never made it back home.

The main problem with the locals is that they didn't make good slaves. They died too easily from European disases and had to be replaced by Africans. The Spanish pretty much wiped out the Carib indians who occupied all of islands down there and started importing African slaves in 1517. I read something, I think, in National Geographic where the last native Carib speakers died in the 1920's.

There is a pretty good rebuttal to the anti-columbus sentiments here by Dinesh D'souza.

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9511/articles/dsouza.html

One of biggest points of debate seems to be how many Indians were here when Columbus arrived and how many died as a result of Columbus's fortuitous discovery. I'm not an expert but I would bet, "most of them."

[Mrs. Don-o]

That link doesn't work unless you're a FIRST THINGS subscriber. This one does:

D'Souza on Christopher Columbus