Yesterday was Columbus Day and the usual suspects were in high dudgeon. There was an article on Townhall: GOP Senator Had the Perfect Response for the Columbus Day Haters to which I added my wooden nickel’s worth:
Certain of the tribes had virtues that can properly be honored with a separate ‘Indigenous Peoples Day”, perhaps as a whole. If the tribal instinct and history prevailed however it could be that many of the tribes would object to honoring other individual tribes. They had a blood lust for one another.
And so I am not sure it is rank and file members of individual tribes that are so agitated by anything honoring an explorer or warrior. Most would simply take a pass and not participate. The agitation is from hypocritical woke ignoramuses.
Every social segment desires validation but one wonders if people with certain heritage looked at their hold cards as the saying goes (card playing does seem to be well adopted given the proliferation of casinos on the property of people with so called indigenous heritage) — do they seriously want to go back to the stone age societies they lived in prior to western culture’s presence? They did not even have the wheel.
That is not to say “they” are not just as intelligent or morally capable but western culture brought them (everyone) much. Indeed adaptation is key to success. My heritage has been well blended from previous warring “tribes” in Europe as has much of “indigenous” blood. I am the “product” of invasions, slavery, rape, pillaging, — everyone reading this has similar heritage if you go far enough back. Should we all carry chips on our shoulder, agitate for separatism, insist on blood quantum? I wouldn’t know which one to pick.
In the “Indian Nations” of present day Oklahoma tribal membership eligibly and consequent benefits offered are determined (in keeping with tribalism) by each tribe. The minimum blood quantum ranges from 1/4 degree to any degree descendent of a tribal member ( see https://thorpe.law.ou.edu/OILS/blood.html ). It gets kind of silly.
Even as a kid I never looked at a cigar store indian statue with anything worse than the idea of it as a portrayal of indomitable spirit and strength. I saw it as a general representation. The statue was not to honor whatever peculiar tribal goofiness pertains to a tribe. The same for Columbus.
And after 600 plus years of european presence on the continent (for some that is 25 or more generations) “indigenous” ought not be an overwhelming debate stopping concept. As to land rights what land rights did the various tribes honor inter-territory among themselves other than by might? The moral preening and fruitless despondency or resentment of “europeans” being my point.
What difference did it really make to a Navaho or an Osage to be “displaced” by a Comanche or a “European” traipsing over their lands coming from wherever as if they had discernible borders rather than broad vague claims they cannot defend and they may well have “stolen” from other tribes? Initially perhaps not much but ultimately quite a bit as warring tribes were not interested in sharing or being tolerant or offering reservations or providing endless welfare. It was more like pound sand. I prefer being an American and I think most “indigenous” do as well.
Related reading: Christopher Columbus Deserves a National Holiday.
