The Republic of T.

Black. Gay. Father. Vegetarian. Buddhist. Liberal.

Oh Happy Day…

Today is one of those days when I’m tempted to say things that aren’t supposed to be said, or that need to be said more artfully and with with more nuance than I can manage. So I’ll let others say it and just point to them.

I don’t know if anyone watches these video playlists, since they get kinda long, but for those who do, this collection seemed appropriate.

If you don’t have a copy of Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States handy, and can’t run out and get a copy right now (which I highly recommend), at least read the opening chapter, “Columbus, The Indians, and Human Progress.”

What I mean to say, and have meant to say in other Columbus Day posts, Zinn puts much better than I did.

To emphasize the heroism of Columbus and his successors as navigators and discoverers, and to de-emphasize their genocide, is not a technical necessity but an ideological choice. It serves- unwittingly-to justify what was done. My point is not that we must, in telling history, accuse, judge, condemn Columbus in absentia. It is too late for that; it would be a useless scholarly exercise in morality. But the easy acceptance of atrocities as a deplorable but necessary price to pay for progress (Hiroshima and Vietnam, to save Western civilization; Kronstadt and Hungary, to save socialism; nuclear proliferation, to save us all)-that is still with us. One reason these atrocities are still with us is that we have learned to bury them in a mass of other facts, as radioactive wastes are buried in containers in the earth. We have learned to give them exactly the same proportion of attention that teachers and writers often give them in the most respectable of classrooms and textbooks. This learned sense of moral proportion, coming from the apparent objectivity of the scholar, is accepted more easily than when it comes from politicians at press conferences. It is therefore more deadly.

The treatment of heroes (Columbus) and their victims (the Arawaks)-the quiet acceptance of conquest and murder in the name of progress — is only one aspect of a certain approach to history, in which the past is told from the point of view of governments, conquerors, diplomats, leaders. It is as if they, like Columbus, deserve universal acceptance, as if they-the Founding Fathers, Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy, the leading members of Congress, the famous Justices of the Supreme Court — represent the nation as a whole. The pretense is that there really is such a thing as “the United States,” subject to occasional conflicts and quarrels, but fundamentally a community of people with common interests. It is as if there really is a “national interest” represented in the Constitution, in territorial expansion, in the laws passed by Congress, the decisions of the courts, the development of capitalism, the culture of education and the mass media.

…Thus, in that inevitable taking of sides which comes from selection and emphasis in history, I prefer to try to tell the story of the discovery of America from the viewpoint of the Arawaks, of the Constitution from the standpoint of the slaves, of Andrew Jackson as seen by the Cherokees, of the Civil War as seen by the New York Irish, of the Mexican war as seen by the deserting soldiers of Scott’s army, of the rise of industrialism as seen by the young women in the Lowell textile mills, of the Spanish-American war as seen by the Cubans, the conquest of the Philippines as seen by black soldiers on Luzon, the Gilded Age as seen by southern farmers, the First World War as seen by socialists, the Second World War as seen by pacifists, the New Deal as seen by blacks in Harlem, the postwar American empire as seen by peons in Latin America. And so on, to the limited extent that any one person, however he or she strains, can “see” history from the standpoint of others.

My point is not to grieve for the victims and denounce the executioners. Those tears, that anger, cast into the past, deplete our moral energy for the present. And the lines are not always clear. In the long run, the oppressor is also a victim. In the short run (and so far, human history has consisted only of short runs), the victims, themselves desperate and tainted with the culture that oppresses them, turn on other victims.

My point is not that people shouldn’t celebrate today, in whatever way they choose, but that the “other side” (literally) of that history should be presented along side the more celebratory aspects as an equally valid and necessary aspect of any remembrance of that history. The two sides of the story should serve to balance out one another, and increase our understanding. It should not be “set aside” for the sake of celebration.

Not even for one day.

One Comment

  1. Three words: Roman Catholic Church. Three more words: Knights of Columbus.

    But by all means continue to blame it on “capitalism” (which, incidentally, did not even exist in 1492).

    By all means damn Columbus. But have the intellectual honesty to damn him for the right reasons.