My Smart Mouth: Columbus Don't

Having been raised in a rather traditional lifestyle and culture, I by no means consider myself a person who places no value in the past. Having said that, I like to think that I also recognize the danger inherent in clinging inflexibly to outdated traditions that no longer fit in the world in which we live. I'm all for honoring and learning from the past, but at what point does holding on to the version of the past that suits us become a detriment to the future?

This is the question I asked myself after stumbling across an article shared on Facebook that was sparking some debate. Normally, I try to stay away from arguing with strangers online, as that way lies madness. But sometimes, the temptation to say something is so strong that I feel the need to comment or, even better, write a column about it.

The debate in question centered around an article originally posted by KRTV Great Falls reporting the Montana House endorsed a bill to replace the name of the Columbus Day holiday with "Indigenous Peoples Day" – something that several states have already adopted.

'Great,' thought I, 'it's about time!' After all, we all now know that far from "discovering" the Americas, what Columbus actually discovered was a landmass already populated by an array of native cultures heretofore relatively untouched by European visitors. Although Columbus has long been credited as the first European to set foot in the Americas, evidence to the contrary suggests, in a theory now widely accepted by historians, that Norse explorer Leif Erickson landed in North America some 500 years before Columbus famously sailed the ocean blue. In fact, Columbus never stepped on North American soil.

Regardless, Columbus was indeed the first documented European to land on South American shores. However, to say that he "discovered" the Americas is akin to saying that Marco Polo "discovered" China - an ancient and sophisticated culture that was producing elegant poetry written on finely manufactured paper while our European ancestors were wallowing in the filth of the Dark Ages. With modern histories finally acknowledging the stories of the millions of human beings NOT of the Caucasian, Christian persuasion, it is rather ludicrous to suggest that a continent populated by hundreds of well established, diverse and nuanced cultures has been "discovered."

This argument of semantics doesn't even take into consideration the fact that Columbus' "discovery" of the Americas entailed a fair amount of mass-murder and subjugation. Though he was far from the last individual of European descent to visit genocide upon native peoples of the Americas, he can without a doubt be credited as the first. We all know this now because, more than five hundred years later, the story of the hundreds of thousands of native peoples who dwelled in the Americas before colonization by European super powers is finally starting to be told in the mainstream as something more than a footnote.

Knowing all of this, it seems to me that it only stands to reason that the name of the holiday be changed to celebrate the first Americans, rather than the interloper who stumbled upon, then slaughtered them. 'Even if you're not passionately for a name change,' I told myself, 'why would you ever be against it?' My mistake, however, was assuming that most thinking Montanans would agree. Much to my dismay, even a cursory glance at the comments on KRTV's post revealed ample evidence to the contrary. Although many commenters took my "it's about time" stance, this article also brought the racists and rigid change-fearers out of the woodwork in embarrassing plentitude.

Having read more than my fill of the comments section, I was brimming with questions to pose. Firstly, what is the reason behind this sudden fierce attachment to Columbus Day? Were someone suggesting doing away with Independence Day or even Presidents Day, I could justify the concern. However, Columbus wasn't even an American. He was an Italian in the employ of Spaniards who sailed nearly 300 years before the United States was established. How many of you have cherished family traditions centering around the Columbus Day holiday? How many grew up with Christopher Columbus as a personal hero? In fact, how many know anything about him other than that he sailed the ocean blue in 1492? Also, why is it that so often, when some darker aspect of our country's history is brought to light, the modern American takes it as a personal insult, as though the revelation of truth is somehow aimed at defaming them, personally, in some fashion? Following quickly on the heels of this question is another: why do we feel that by uplifting another group, we are being downtrodden?

One of my "favorite" arguments against the name-change, paraphrased here, was something to the tune of "my great grandmother was Cherokee, and I'm not offended by Columbus Day and don't see the need to change anything." Honestly, in this age of genetic mapping and ancestry.com, how many primarily Caucasian Americans don't have a convenient Cherokee great-grandmother in their back pocket, ready to pull out for just such an argument, as though the existence of that bloodline makes them a final authority on all matters Indian? How many of us even know that great-grandmother's name, her story, or what she endured? How many were raised in a native culture or identify as native? I actually remember my own such great-grandmother, who spoke Lakota and attended Carlisle Indian School alongside the likes of Jim Thorpe. I was raised knowing many specifics of her life story, such as one quaint anecdote in which her marriage was reported in a Pennsylvania newspaper as "Local Businessman Weds Indian Princess," or the fact that, on their honeymoon, she and her bridegroom were sprayed with buckshot from a shotgun wielded by disgruntled Klansmen.

Although I remember my great-grandmother, that doesn't put me any closer to knowing what it is to identify as Native, be perceived by others as Native or be a member of a race of people continuously and casually disenfranchised by history and popular culture. In short, my native ancestors do not qualify me to speak with authority on behalf of an entire race of people.

Another point that was raised multiple times was that the Montana State Legislature has "more important" things to do and should be addressing issues that actually "matter." I'd like to point out the self-importance implied in that attitude. Just because something is of no importance to you does not render it without value. And while I agree that the State Legislature has plenty of work to do, including a bill that potentially matters to Montana's thousands of Native citizens is far from meaningless or pointless.

Lastly, I'll quote the comment of one Great Falls woman, who said "Yes, things change like...you change your pants every day, you can change your diet, change your hair color and so on. But history will never change! It will always be Columbus Day sorry."

To this comment I cannot resist a rebuttal. Because, on the contrary, history changes with whoever is writing it. The indigenous peoples who populated the Americas long before Columbus sailed in search of India feel it's time their history is acknowledged. What, exactly, do we lose by doing so?