- To reject Columbus Day, then, is not to revise history — it is to finally tell it honestly.
Some myths die hard, especially those that flatter power. For generations, Columbus Day has stood as a national symbol of discovery, courage and European ingenuity — a neat, triumphal story that smooths over the violence it conceals.
Rejecting Columbus Day is not about erasing history, but rather about refusing to perpetuate a national holiday rooted in myth, conquest, enslavement and sexual terror.
Donald Trump’s proclamations to “bring back” traditional Columbus Day celebrations have reignited debate, but his posturing only underscores the moral confusion at the heart of America’s commemoration.
The holiday was never legally abolished; it remains a federal observance under federal law. What Trump and his supporters seek to revive is not legality but mythology — an attempt to sanctify empire as heritage and to cast truth-telling as heresy.
Columbus did not discover America — he invaded it.
When the Spanish ships arrived in the Caribbean in 1492, the islands were already home to vibrant Indigenous civilizations — the Taíno, Arawak, and Carib peoples — with languages, political systems, and ecological knowledge that had sustained them for millennia.
Columbus’s arrival marked not the dawn of civilization, but the beginning of one of the bloodiest chapters in human history.
Bartolomé de las Casas, a Dominican friar who witnessed those years firsthand, chronicled the horrors in his History of the Indies.
He wrote of men “cutting off the hands of Indians who failed to bring in enough gold” and leaving them to bleed to death. He described Indigenous people burned alive, women enslaved, and children murdered in retribution for resistance.
Las Casas was no modern radical — he was a man of the 16th century — yet he could not stomach the cruelty carried out under Columbus’s rule.
Columbus established a tribute system that demanded Indigenous people deliver a quota of gold or cotton every few months. Those who failed were punished by mutilation or death.
The historian Samuel Eliot Morison, once a defender of Columbus, conceded that the system amounted to “slavery in all but name.” Within a generation, the population of Hispaniola collapsed from an estimated several hundred thousand to just a few thousand survivors.
Then there was the sexual violence. In a 1500 letter quoted by Las Casas, Columbus observed with cold detachment that “there are many dealers who go about looking for girls; those from nine to ten are now in demand.”
Michele de Cuneo, an Italian nobleman who sailed with him, wrote that Columbus gave him a Carib woman “as a gift.” Cuneo’s own account describes how he beat and raped her when she resisted. Columbus’s son, Ferdinand, later wrote that his father permitted his men to take Indigenous women freely.
There is credible historical evidence — from Columbus’s own reported words and from contemporaneous witnesses — that girls as young as nine or ten years old were being trafficked and raped by members of his expeditions with his awareness and consent.
While we lack direct proof of Columbus personally committing rape, his complicity in the sexual enslavement of underage girls is strongly supported by the historical record.
To reject Columbus Day, then, is not to revise history — it is to finally tell it honestly. It is to confront the difference between exploration and exploitation, between contact and conquest. It is to acknowledge that the so-called Age of Discovery was, for millions, an age of devastation.
Indigenous Peoples’ Day, celebrated in a growing number of cities and states, is not about replacing one hero with another. It is about shifting the moral lens of commemoration. Where Columbus Day celebrates domination, Indigenous Peoples’ Day honors survival, resilience, and cultural continuity. It calls on Americans to remember not only who “discovered” but who endured.
The irony is that the same political movement that rallies to “save” Columbus Day often claims to defend moral values — especially when it comes to sexual violence. Trump’s calls for harsher penalties for child rapists, including his push to expand the death penalty, are offered as proof of moral toughness.
In 2024, he declared he would “vigorously pursue” the death penalty for “violent rapists, murderers, and monsters.”
In 2025, he signed an executive order directing the Attorney General to “seek to overrule Supreme Court precedents that limit the authority of State and Federal governments to impose capital punishment.”
Under current Supreme Court law, that ambition would require overturning Kennedy v. Louisiana, the 2008 decision holding that the death penalty for child rape violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
The Court reasoned that executing someone for a non-homicide crime was disproportionate and inconsistent with “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”
Trump’s vow to reverse that decision rests on a belief that today’s Court might embrace a more punitive moral order — one that values vengeance over restraint.
Yet the contradiction is staggering: a president who exalts a man implicated in the sexual enslavement of children now calls for executing child rapists in the name of civilization.
To sanctify Columbus while condemning sexual violence is to exalt a symbol whose own record defiles the very values one claims to defend. The same logic that excuses colonial brutality as “necessary for progress” reappears whenever cruelty is repackaged as justice.
The moral challenge of rejecting Columbus Day, therefore, is larger than one holiday.
It asks whether America can confront the violence that underwrote its origins — and whether truth, not nostalgia, will guide its national story.
The evidence of Columbus’s brutality is not the invention of modern ideology, but a matter of historical record, documented by the very witnesses of the conquest.
Historians such as Kirkpatrick Sale, Howard Zinn, and Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz have argued that the mythology of Columbus functions as a founding fable: it transforms invasion into discovery and genocide into destiny.
The power of that myth endures because it absolves and allows Americans to celebrate a “new world” without facing the price paid by the old one.
Rejecting Columbus Day is not an emotional exercise or a matter of guilt, but an acknowledgment of the historical record — a record that documents genocide, enslavement, and sexual violence, including the rape of children, carried out under the system Columbus helped create.
His legacy is not one of discovery, but of domination.
The Taíno, Arawak, and other Indigenous nations did not disappear by accident; they were decimated and displaced through policies of forced labor, cultural destruction, and organized terror.
Restoring their place in the narrative is not symbolic revision — it is historical repair.
The holidays a nation enshrines define what it is willing to see and what it prefers to forget. To continue honoring Columbus is to affirm myth over evidence and conquest over truth.
Replacing Columbus Day with Indigenous Peoples’ Day means confronting the reality of colonial violence and affirming that survival, not subjugation, is what merits remembrance — for America cannot heal its history by cloaking it in ceremony, but only by facing it, naming it, and teaching it with honesty.
The time has come to end the veneration of a man whose expeditions unleashed centuries of human suffering.
Rejecting Columbus Day is not about erasing the past, but about telling it truthfully — an overdue act of historical integrity.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
Ironic that the Santa Maria replica sank the day before Columbus day.
Kind of like the iconic tree that fell over right after the Measure X vote.
I thought that iconic oak tree was cut down before the vote and created a huge controversy.
Well I’m mistaken, it fell on Jan 6 2006, after the vote.
https://localwiki.org/davis/The_Jagged_Tree
Trump this, Trump that…
I’m curious, where’s the Vanguard article about today’s historic release of the Hamas war prisoners and Trump bringing peace to the Mideast?
I believe this is what you’re looking for: https://scheerpost.com/2025/10/11/chris-hedges-trumps-sham-peace-plan/
I know it riles Trump haters when he’s being given a hero’s welcome in the Mideast. It’s a tough day for democrats.
“It’s a tough day for democrats.”
I agree. It’s been a tough year for “small d” democrats. It’s only going to get worse.
What the h*ll is a “small d” democrat? I don’t know which direction that is intended to go.
I’ve seen quite a few liberals, even some progressives, thanking Trump. I’m wait and see. Many are celebrating. I am mostly sad at all that has been lost to achieve this.
And no, AE, that isn’t what we were looking for. We were looking for V’s take.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/small-d_democrat
Okay then, it was a great day for democrats and democracy but many Democrats hate it that Trump is being given a hero’s welcome for his actions.
I don’t get a sense that that’s the case.
After thinking about it, here’s my current take…
I’ll concede it was one of the few genuinely positive moments of Trump’s presidency — fleeting, but real. Still, let’s be clear: the Middle East is still the Middle East. Hamas is still Hamas. Netanyahu is still Netanyahu. And Trump is still Trump — a fountain of corruption, cruelty, and chaos.
“And Trump is still Trump — a fountain of corruption, cruelty, and chaos.”
No surprise because David is still David (-:
And Keith is still Keith
Good one…LOL
In the coming weeks, if not sooner, I am confident that this so-called peace deal will turn out to be like one of his real estate deals. Shiny on the outside, half-finished and semi-abandoned on the inside with looming bankruptcy on the horizon.
There are already signs of that
Well, the hostages have already been released – so it’s “bombs away” if Hamas does anything that Israel and the U.S. don’t like.
Hamas has no power at this point (or as Trump might say, has “no cards to play”).
Maybe the non-Hamas residents shouldn’t move back to areas of conflict just yet.
Israel might end up killing some of the 2,000 prisoners it just released back to Gaza.
I agree with this article. The US can acknowledge the many immoral acts involved in its creation. We can also acknowledge the native people of this land have been and still are treated poorly and less than human overall and are one of those groups it seems like it’s ‘almost’ socially “OK” to ridicule. I don’t believe there’s a chance in hell there is a way to reverse this or give all the “land back”, but that doesn’t mean not acknowledging the irreparable harm done, and in some places still being done.
KO say, “I’m curious, where’s the Vanguard article about today’s historic release of the Hamas war prisoners and Trump bringing peace to the Mideast?”
I am wondering that as well.
Actually, because it keeps happening, prohibiting the creation of new settlements and abandoning all that have been built in the last 30 years would be a good first step and show true goodwill. It may not reverse the horror of Gaza, but it would show true moral direction which is why I doubt it will happen.
An even bigger irony is the parallel coincidence between the U.S. colonial history, the “peace” plan between Israel and Hamas and the colonial history of Israel. Acknowledging the native people of Palestine/American indigenous who have been and still are treated poorly and less than human overall and both groups are socially “OK” to ridicule. In fact, we have a new state law that will potentially make truth-telling illegal. I also don’t believe there’s a snowball’s chance in hell of finding a way to reverse this and give all the land back, (though in the case of Palestine it could be done if the U.S. weren’t so determined to avoid doing so) but that doesn’t mean not acknowledging the irreparable harm done, and still being done. In fact, the “peace” plan in Palestine is crafted to continue the harm in more nefarious ways.
“… potentially make truth-telling illegal.”
Still haven’t read your response to my question about how you would deal with real Antisemitism in juxtaposition to your worries about potential excesses of first amendment transgressions?
DH say: “the colonial history of Israel.”
Yeah, right. What nation state do Jews come from that they “colonized” from?
DH say: “Acknowledging the native people of Palestine/American indigenous who have been and still are treated poorly and less than human overall and both groups are socially “OK” to ridicule.”
Thank you for that profound word salad. I especially love how you fused Palestinians and Native Americans into one mega-oppressed blob. Meanwhile, Israel — the only country in the Middle East where Jews, Arabs, Druze, and yes, Palestinians vote, study, and insult each other freely online — is apparently your villain. Maybe before lecturing Israelis about humanity, try granting the English language a ceasefire.
DH say: “In fact, we have a new state law that will potentially make truth-telling illegal.”
If so, a lot of Jews, who are the biggest critics of Israel (and I’m not talking antizionist Jews, who just don’t think Israel should exist), are going to end up in “truth” prison. I have lots of problems with Israel policy towards the WB especially, so do a lot of non-antizionist Jews. I wasn’t in favor of that law because I don’t think any group deserves extra laws against bigotry — the problem is the media and the darkness in people. My concern with the law is that the existence of the law would be weaponized by people like you, as you are doing here, when in fact my actual concern regarding Jew-bigotry is what is in people’s hearts, not what can be ‘enforced’ by some law.
DH say, “I also don’t believe there’s a snowball’s chance in hell of finding a way to reverse this and give all the land back, (though in the case of Palestine it could be done if the U.S. weren’t so determined to avoid doing so)”
Ahhhh, so you are also one of those people who thinks Israel should not exist. Do tell, how would you carry that out? Where would you send all the Jews to? And how would you get them to leave? How would you propose that the Gazans take over the companies there to continue the economy? If the greenhouses in Gaza are any example that isn’t going to go well — and all they had to do is continue to water the plants.
“Yeah, right. What nation state do Jews come from that they “colonized” from?”
Europe. The only difference between what happened to the Jews fleeing Europe pre and post WWII and say the Puritans fleeing religious persecution is that there was at least a distant tie to the land they settled. But you still have the problem of displacement, you still have the policy of resettlement, and you still have the problem of the green line and non-democratic Israeli policies toward the occupied territories.
DG: “Europe”
Um, Mr. Greenwald, Really? . . . Really??? Do a bit more research on the whole of where Israeli Jews come from and call me in the morning.
And you might want to look up the difference between a country and a continent.
And you might want to notice that some European Jews are considering getting the F out, and some countries, like France (that’s a country) and Ireland (that’s a country) top the list — but there are others. And unlike in 1945, they have a place to go.
“Meanwhile, Israel — the only country in the Middle East where Jews, Arabs, Druze, and yes, Palestinians vote, study, and insult each other freely online — is apparently your villain.”
(Apparently, insults – even unintended (or misunderstood) ones, aren’t allowed in THIS country (on the Vanguard at least. Not without a subsequent “apology” – or so I’ve heard.)
Maybe the Santa Maria was mistaken for a drug running cartel asset that got sunk while being interdicted.
AM: “Yeah, right. What nation state do Jews come from that they “colonized” from?”
I am referring to Israel as the colonizer and as the colonial power in this case. Specifically, Israel’s colonial actions toward the Palestinian people, toward occupied territories and continual violent displacement of Palestinians.
AM: “I especially love how you fused Palestinians and Native Americans into one mega-oppressed blob. Meanwhile, Israel — the only country in the Middle East where Jews, Arabs, Druze, and yes, Palestinians vote, study, and insult each other freely online — is apparently your villain.”
You don’t want to see the parallel of U.S. violent colonial advance against the indigenes who lived here for thousands of years. We owe those people for what we did to them morally and materially. Dismissing or erasing the resistance of people who you have displaced. The civil rights of those groups you mention in Israel are conditional and subject to revocation at any time.
“If so, a lot of Jews, who are the biggest critics of Israel (and I’m not talking antizionist Jews, who just don’t think Israel should exist), are going to end up in “truth” prison. I have lots of problems with Israel policy towards the WB especially, so do a lot of non-antizionist Jews. I wasn’t in favor of that law because I don’t think any group deserves extra laws against bigotry — the problem is the media and the darkness in people. My concern with the law is that the existence of the law would be weaponized by people like you, as you are doing here, when in fact my actual concern regarding Jew-bigotry is what is in people’s hearts, not what can be ‘enforced’ by some law.”
Pretty twisted logic, Mr. Miller, there is no law I am wishing to weaponize but I am concerned that the new law could be weaponized by people like…you who would protect a rogue state as Israel has become over the last few decades by declaring opponents to Israel as anti-semitic. The new state law on “anti-Semitism” is authored specifically as a weapon to squelch criticism of the state of Israel by hiding behind the very real need for resistance to anti-semitism. You seem to be implying that I and “people like me” want this state law so we can somehow beat up on somebody though I don’t know who that would be in your view. I don’t know how you came up with that when it is my contention that anti-semitism is covered by laws that prohibit discrimination and hate speech against many classes of people including Jews.
“DH say, “I also don’t believe there’s a snowball’s chance in hell of finding a way to reverse this and give all the land back, (though in the case of Palestine it could be done if the U.S. weren’t so determined to avoid doing so)”
Ahhhh, so you are also one of those people who thinks Israel should not exist. Do tell, how would you carry that out? Where would you send all the Jews to? And how would you get them to leave? How would you propose that the Gazans take over the companies there to continue the economy? If the greenhouses in Gaza are any example that isn’t going to go well — and all they had to do is continue to water the plants.”
Like most Americans who grew up in the 1950s, the memory and photo journalism of the Nazi holocaust was burned into my consciousness and with it a sympathetic and empathetic support for the concept of the state of Israel. For me, all of that has slowly but inexorably eroded over the decades because of Israel’s behavior toward the unarmed Palestinians. Israel was created where it is because of its strategic significance, the presence of British and French economic interests, as a counter to the Soviet Union and the relatively weak resistance from Palestine as an organized entity. That widespread support from the international community on the heels of WWII has evaporated over the years, not because of anti-semitism, but because Israel never misses a chance to take advantage of its strategic alliance with and political clout in the U.S. to leverage its hostility to the Palestinians inside its borders. Its policy to be a “Jewish” state by displacing non-Jews, a type of zero sum game, is perhaps its fatal decision especially by establishing borders that required the expulsion, mostly violent expulsion of the Palestinians who lived there for centuries. Over the last 50 years, the Palestinians have been increasingly humiliated and brutalized leading to predictable (might we say desired by Israel) violent reactions in response to Israeli provocations in the occupied areas; strategically goaded into violence, with absolutely nothing to lose, which can then be responded to by Israel at 10, 20, 30 times the damage, laying the foundation for further violence and providing the pretext for ever more military support and repression. This self-driving spiral of violence and hegemony can no longer be papered over with reference to the Nazi holocaust is evident to those who have eyes to see.
DH say, “I am referring to Israel as the colonizer and as the colonial power in this case. Specifically, Israel’s colonial actions toward the Palestinian people, toward occupied territories and continual violent displacement of Palestinians.”
That’s not what colonialism is. You have to come from somewhere else to colonize. I don’t agree with the settlements in the West Bank, so on that we might agree. But as far as the need to eradicate Hamas by war, that was clear on 10/7/23.
DH say, “You don’t want to see the parallel of U.S. violent colonial advance against the indigenes who lived here for thousands of years. We owe those people for what we did to them morally and materially. Dismissing or erasing the resistance of people who you have displaced. The civil rights of those groups you mention in Israel are conditional and subject to revocation at any time.”
Some of those aren’t sentences. I have long been very uncomfortable with the lack of awareness of Americans to the violence used against the native people here. What happened with the Arab people of Palestine is extremely complicated and involves multiple wars with multiple countries, as well as extreme religious and race issues. There are some parallels with displaced peoples, but the situations are very different.
DH say, “Pretty twisted logic, Mr. Miller, there is no law I am wishing to weaponize but I am concerned that the new law could be weaponized by people like…you who would protect a rogue state as Israel has become over the last few decades by declaring opponents to Israel as anti-semitic. The new state law on “anti-Semitism” is authored specifically as a weapon to squelch criticism of the state of Israel by hiding behind the very real need for resistance to anti-semitism. You seem to be implying that I and “people like me” want this state law so we can somehow beat up on somebody though I don’t know who that would be in your view. I don’t know how you came up with that when it is my contention that anti-semitism is covered by laws that prohibit discrimination and hate speech against many classes of people including Jews.”
Why is Israel a rogue state, what do you mean by that, and why focus just on Israel with all the “rogue” states out there, whatever that is. I don’t know how you think I “would” “protect” Israel. By “opponents” do you mean those critical, or those who would wish to see Israel cease to exist? Considering most Jews have issues with Israel policy on various levels, I don’t see how ‘criticism of Israel’ could be ‘antisemitic’. Now, those seeking to destroy Israel or kill all the Jews is another matter. I don’t agree with the state law because the issue is anti-Jew bigotry, and a specific laws for one people isn’t needed, its recognizing the increase in bigotry that is the issue. But is it ‘authored to squelch’ — seems it could backfire if so. I didn’t say you wanted the law, I said you can now use it to criticize those who may just be concerned — but I don’t know what all involved’s motivations are. I agree with your last sentence. I recently got in touch with some who helped push the law through and intend to ask them why they think it’s needed – because right now I’m a skeptic.
DH say, “Like most Americans who grew up in the 1950s, the memory and photo journalism of the Nazi holocaust was burned into my consciousness and with it a sympathetic and empathetic support for the concept of the state of Israel. For me, all of that has slowly but inexorably eroded over the decades because of Israel’s behavior toward the unarmed Palestinians. Israel was created where it is because of its strategic significance, the presence of British and French economic interests, as a counter to the Soviet Union and the relatively weak resistance from Palestine as an organized entity. That widespread support from the international community on the heels of WWII has evaporated over the years, not because of anti-semitism, but because Israel never misses a chance to take advantage of its strategic alliance with and political clout in the U.S. to leverage its hostility to the Palestinians inside its borders. Its policy to be a “Jewish” state by displacing non-Jews, a type of zero sum game, is perhaps its fatal decision especially by establishing borders that required the expulsion, mostly violent expulsion of the Palestinians who lived there for centuries. Over the last 50 years, the Palestinians have been increasingly humiliated and brutalized leading to predictable (might we say desired by Israel) violent reactions in response to Israeli provocations in the occupied areas; strategically goaded into violence, with absolutely nothing to lose, which can then be responded to by Israel at 10, 20, 30 times the damage, laying the foundation for further violence and providing the pretext for ever more military support and repression. This self-driving spiral of violence and hegemony can no longer be papered over with reference to the Nazi holocaust is evident to those who have eyes to see.”
How about the Palestinian’s behavior towards Israel? Like bombings and rockets? And the “unarmed” Palestinians? What the Acutal F are you talking about? What did Hamas shoot up the kibbutzim and the music festival with, water balloons or machine guns? I’m stunned by that statement. Israel was created where it was because it is the Jewish homeland. You are aware of the Old Testament. You are aware that every Jewish service and every holiday and d*mn near everything Jewish refers to Jerusalem and Israel. Every synagogue in the world faces Jerusalem, in the entire diaspora in dozens of countries. I’m not saying there weren’t other people living there, and they certainly got screwed, but it wasn’t just by the Jews, it was by multiple imperial empires, western manipulators and attacking middle-eastern countries. The hostility towards the Palestinians inside its borders? They have full rights as citizens and serve in government. Not saying there isn’t racism, there is, but they are full citizens. Outside the borders, not so much. The expulsion occurred during wars, and Gaza didn’t have a wall around it until the resistance became violent a few decades back, and that has increasingly been the result of outside forces trying to destroy Israel and using the Gazans as pawns. I’m not saying Israel hasn’t made mistakes — some pretty serious — but as long as forces loyal to the Muslim Brotherhood are dominating, there isn’t going to be co-existence. If Jews had reason to believed they wouldn’t be wiped out by forces that want to eradicate them, the perhaps a Jewish dominated state would not be necessary and all could live in harmony as some idealists in this town seem to want, and is about as realistic after 10/7/23 as nuclear disarmament of the world and everybody singing kumbaya. ‘Might we say desired by Israel’ — no, not at all. As I said, we may agree on the settlements in JS/WB, but on Gaza I don’t think we’re going to agree. As far as your last sentence, that’s seems like some idea of what you think is going on in Israel that somehow whatever you think Israel is doing Israel thinks it can for some reason justify because one third of world Jews were wiped out. That in itself seems a made-up anti-Jewish trope, as I don’t know any Jews or Israelis who think that way. But hey, go one thinking that.
Alan, my definition of colonialism is correct, yours is old fashioned. Colonialism in the 21st century is any nation state that uses its power to dominate colonized populations under its control and to preserve that one-sided relationship. Domination can manifest as economic, political, social or in other ways, but the goal is to keep subjugated populations dependent, powerless and to adopt or even show allegiance to the colonizer. It need not be geographically adjacent. I would argue that 21st century colonialism is now a phenomenon mutating into the ultra large corporate sphere of finance and communications. They want to colonize your mind and in so doing have you permanently depend on them for your daily needs and say nice things about them while you’re at it. Maybe that isn’t what is taught in university, but it describes what regular people are up against.
The parallels with indigenous Americans and Palestinians is striking and not really all that different. But you don’t trust my opinion on this, so try asking some indigenous Americans and see what they say, if you have the guts to be contradicted.
Israel is a rogue state because it acts outside accepted norms and is universally condemned for its behavior particularly over the last year in Gaza, but before then in regard to the occupied territories. It is only due to AIPAC that the U.S. has been increasingly roped into support. Gotta give AIPAC credit for the effectiveness of its bullying politics which maybe is why they get along so well with the current POTUS. Of course their are other rogue states, but none of then have such a huge financial and political backing of the United States. That’s the only thing that distinguishes their rogue status.
Criticism of Israel under the new state law is designed to conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism (interesting fact: The term antisemitism was coined in 1879 by an antisemitic German agitator Wilhelm Marr campaigning to reverse Jewish emancipation laws of the time) because criticism of Israel of the kind that I am engaging in here makes “Israeli Americans” uncomfortable. I understand it would make them uncomfortable in the same way that criticizing slavery in South Carolina makes southern whites uncomfortable. Sorry, but if we value free speech, we have to be able to speak freely which can make some people feel uncomfortable. That said, with children, it is a difficult problem and professional educators probably have ways to discuss difficult issues without making people feel targeted. Where, oh where, is Mr. Rogers when we need him more than ever?
Finally, on the issue of the Palestinian’s behavior toward Israel: OMG, talk about a deep topic. It cannot in any way be truly understood without reading about the history from late 19th century leading up to the creation of the state of Israel in 1947 and then myriad blow by blow mistakes and carelessness of Britain, France and the U.S. And, I assert that religious and cultural differences are a highly popular, easy to manipulate yet bogus distraction as a cause of discord. What happened on October 7 was a predictable boiling over of countless depredations of increasing seriousness over the last 50 years. The first 25 years of Israel presented many opportunities to deal with the artificial boundaries inherent in attempting to create a new nation state with boundaries in the 20th century. I can’t say the project was necessarily doomed from the start as many historians will assert, but it certainly wasn’t pursued in the spirit of brotherly love. Albert Einstein, a very smart man and humanist, was a self-declared Zionist. His vision of a Zionist nation was very different from what has developed. So, I am not knee-jerk anti-zionist. You can call me zionist skeptical because I have more respect for the idea that one cannot summarily go into any part of the planet, plop down and declare to the current inhabitants that this is a new country and you can either bend a knee or get out. I am anti- that kind of zionism.
“I am referring to Israel as the colonizer and as the colonial power in this case.”
Hey Dave, whose land do you live on? Whose land did Union Pacific and Central Pacific colonize?
Thank you for not picking apart my sentence structure and focusing on the issue. Yes, you are quite correct and you will notice I never made the claim that the house and parcel I live on does not have a history that involves displacing the indigenes that used this land as their home. That is why we owe their descendants. One good place to start is moving their healthcare out of the budget process into a medicare style entitlement because they are entitled to it on moral grounds. The Republicans don’t give a damn about who they hurt and that most definitely includes Palestinians and our indigenous populations.
There are those who believe that black people are (also) entitled to reparations.
My question would be what happens in a case like the one below. Should this family be forced to pay some of that $20 million to whatever tribe claims to have ancestors who once inhabited the area?
Or, since this particular family is black, do they get a “pass” on paying reparations to indigenous people (other than what they lose at casinos)?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/la-county-pay-20m-black-familys-seized-land-rcna64133
Also, you do realize, I assume, that tribes were fighting each other across the continent (and taking territory from each other), well-before the newer “colonizers” from Spain/Mexico arrived.
Also, shouldn’t the previous landowners (whether it’s in the form of the Spanish or Mexican governments, subsequent landowners and developers, etc., be the ones who are on the hook for reparations? Why wait until the land was subsequently subdivided/titled?
For that matter, why are we supporting “foreign” (sovereign) governments – who in no way represent anyone other than themselves? Including those who can’t establish a claim for tribal membership – even if they have indigenous ancestors?
And why are the members of these “sovereign nations” able to claim dual citizenship?
I would ask you what form of apology or making amends works in your mind other than hollow words. Being in someone’s thoughts and prayers is pretty cheap reparation I assume you would agree.
You’re making an assumption that I think an “an apology” or “making amends” is needed.
But again, the example I provided shows some of the problems with this. The government is already “us” – including black people, indigenous people, etc.
What’s being asked is to give something to one group, at the expense of all of other groups. (None of which had anything to do with what happened hundreds of years ago – even if their own ancestors may, or may not have been involved with it as a “victim” or “victimizer”.)
I didn’t even have control of what my own parents did, let alone what my earlier ancestors did or had done to them (when they were still back in Europe). For all I know, they might have been “victimized” in Europe – which may be why they ended up in this country.
Reparations is not a zero sum game where you lose if someone else “wins”. And apologies are official acts that convey the murder and mistreatment of those being apologized to was an injustice. But if you don’t see it, you don’t see it. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Nevermind, I’m sure you won’t let it worry you.
I’m not sure if most people are aware of this, but there are truly massive amounts of land being given to tribes (who have no legal claim to it), paid for by government and environmental organizations. I’ve been tracking this for some time.
Those dams that were removed along the Klamath River? That resulted in a give-away of land owned by the state to a local tribe. (That’s why you’re seeing tribal support for this type of thing – their interest is not necessarily driven by environmental concerns.) They are planning to build housing on that particular site.
Again, I’m talking about many thousands of acres within California alone. Land that would normally be transferred to a public agency, but is instead privatized for tribes often times at taxpayer expense.
In one case, the Save the Redwoods League actually INTERFERED WITH plans to add a site (O’Rew) to the surrounding public redwood parks, and instead arranged for it to be transferred to a tribe.
An approximately 400-500 acre site along the Marin coast was given to a politically-connected, casino-owning tribe in Sonoma county. I believe it includes a ranch house, but would have to confirm. The leader of that tribe was appointed to the Board of Regents by Newsom.
This is happening across the nation – many thousands of acres of land given to tribes who have no legal claim to them, arranged for by environmental organizations and government agencies. Virtually no public input or notification regarding this. These are lands that would normally end up in public hands, but are being privatized for tribes. (They sometimes engage in the same extractive industries as any other American corporation does.)
(Tribes already have something like 56 million acres across the country, by birthright. I’m not sure if that even addresses the land in Alaska, in regard to Native Corporations there.
Much of the land that was once owned by the federal government in Alaska have been given away, in recent decades.
You remind me of my grandmother who put in her will that her kids couldn’t sell the farm until they turned 45. “Here, it’s yours, but I control what and how to manage it even though I’m dead.” When you give it back, it’s not yours anymore. You don’t get to decide. I would trust the tribes, from what I’ve seen, more than anyone else.
Not seeing the connection with your analogy.
Also, “trust the tribes” to do what, exactly? (Other than to keep “non-tribal” members off of land that would otherwise be in public hands?
(Last time I checked, I wasn’t kicked off of public land – or subject to “sacred tribal rules” therein.)
They’re already fighting each other over casino rights. So much of “indigenous cohesiveness”.
There are also fights regarding who, exactly, gets to claim membership in these “Tribal Bohemian Clubs”. But needless to say, the first step is to be born with the right skin color.
In any case, the main problem I see with tribal ownership (vs. public ownership) is that one is a private organization – accountable to no one but their members, and one is accountable to everyone.
And in the case of state/county lands, I have yet to see any of them sold-off.