Last year New Hampshire State signed into state law that any government reference to a holiday on the second Monday in October must be called Columbus Day (see XXV: 288:1). It’s one of our evolving holidays, for sure: Washington’s and Lincoln’s Birthday became Presidents’ Day, Decoration Day became Memorial Day, but they held the same themes. (Don’t look for Fast Day anymore – could be scary, except that it too evolved.) The second Monday in October is changing in a somewhat contrarian way from the original.
Columbus Day originated as a celebration of the discovery of the Americas by Christopher Columbus, an Italian sponsored by a Spanish Queen. Those who promote this celebration see it as a triumph of the human spirit and thirst for knowledge, with a bold sailor setting off into the unknown. The holiday later evolved into celebrating the Italian immigration that followed, along with the settlement of the Western Hemisphere with a variety of European systems.
That “discovery” has become recognized for the exploitation it was, and the genocide that resulted. Indeed, we know and accept that the real drivers were for resource extraction, subjugation, and religion, and the expansion of European culture without regard to any culture that existed.
Indigenous Peoples’ Day shifts the theme to acknowledge the reality of the European invasion. Instead of the invader Columbus, it celebrates the peoples that were and are here in the Western Hemisphere. We now condemn the way these cultures were treated; indeed, it could be a day of mourning as well.
Is it reasonable to hold these two thoughts in our hearts and minds at the same time? Can we honor Columbus for a spirit of adventure and boldness, no matter what the real motivators may have been? Can we simultaneously honor the cultures that were here, are here, and would have been here at the same time? Western culture in the Americas (even the naming convention) is now an established fact. It is the freedom we now enjoy which allows us to acknowledge and seek redemption from the original sin of the genocide Columbus precipitated.
The thought takes us further: does exploration always lead to exploitation? European powers sailing the world in the vaunted “Age of Discovery” certainly led to the exploitation of peoples that had not the ability to resist. Is it likely – or even guaranteed - that all state-sponsored or commercial exploration results in exploitation? It sure seems that way – although the jury is still out on moon landings and Mars probes, I wager Martians are watching nervously. I would proffer that exploration, where one side has some advantage over the other, will no doubt lead to displacement of the “explored” culture by the former’s; without going too far back, consider the spreads of Islam and Christianity, totalitarian communism, and the spread of capital market driven democracy after WWII. Existing cultures tended to disappear.
Seems that Gene Roddenberry had it most closely to some ideal: the Prime Directive, not to interfere with an indigenous culture until there is some level of technical equality. Even then, Star Trek is riddled with violations. Can we do better? Or will we too be displaced someday….