This essay is from Michael Polignano’s book Taking Our Own Side
An elegant proof of this thesis is “Indigenous Peoples Day,” which is the multiculturalist replacement for Columbus Day, the holiday honoring the White (re-)discovery of the Americas in 1492. The idea was first proposed in 1977 at a United Nations-sponsored International Conference on Discrimination Against Indigenous Populations in the Americas, which took place in Geneva, Switzerland. It received impetus from the approach of celebrations of the 500th anniversary of Columbus’s arrival on Turtle Island on October 12th, 1992. In July of 1990, representatives of 120 American Indian tribes and various human rights, peace, social justice, and environmental organizations met in Quito, Ecuador, and announced the plan to turn Columbus Day 1992 into a forum for denouncing White imperialism, colonialism, genocide, and environmental destruction in the Americas and for celebrating indigenous cultures and their resistance to Whites. (Apparently, “nativism” and anti-immigrant xenophobia are only bad when practiced by White people.)
In the San Francisco Bay area, a “Resistance 500 Task Force” proposed to the Berkeley City Council that Columbus Day be replaced with Indigenous Peoples Day. They did not merely argue that Amerindians deserved a holiday, but that Columbus did not deserve one because he was guilty of genocide. The Berkeley City Council voted unanimously to adopt the proposal, thereby symbolically repudiating all of White history and civilization in the Americas. (In 1990, Berkeley changed Columbus Day to Native American Day. In 1991 the name Indigenous Peoples Day was adopted. After several flip-flops under pressure from both Italian American and Amerindian groups, in 1996 Berkeley adopted the compromise “Indigenous Peoples Day-Columbus Day.”) Other California cities followed Berkeley’s lead, as did the state of South Dakota.
I have mixed feelings about Indigenous Peoples Day. On the one hand, Columbus did kill, enslave, exploit, and plunder the Indians he discovered out of sheer base greed, and these are behaviors that no civilized society should tolerate.
On
the other hand, the frontier between two societies is not civilized.
There is no common culture, government, or legal system to adjudicate
disputes peacefully. Instead, there are competing systems, i.e., a state
of war. The notion that Columbus and the Amerindians could appeal to
common moral sentiments of humanity and fair play seems like a
sentimental ethnocentric projection when one reads actual accounts of
Amerindian cultures.So it seems foolish and decadent when modern Americans, who have never had to face unsubjugated savages, morally condemn the much tougher men who wrested this continent from them, the men whose blood and sweat purchased the long and enervating peace in which fantasies about noble savages and White guilt could grow unchecked.
What I reject is the use of Indigenous Peoples Day as an occasion to spread lies about the unqualified virtues of the Amerindians and the unqualified depravity of Whites. I am glad that Whites conquered and colonized the Americas. All told, it is a much better place for our presence. I celebrate Columbus Day not because of Columbus himself, but because of the historical transformations he set in motion.
But I grant that the history of White men in the Americas is not just a record of creativity and progress, but also of crimes and follies—written in blood and stained with tears. But the same is true of Red men in the Americas, and of all races of men everywhere in the world. Thus it is transparent anti-White racism to create a holiday where Whites are asked to feel guilt for the crimes of fellow Whites but the other races are exempted from the same moral reflection and instead play the role of accusers.

As first step toward blancing Indigenous Peoples Day propaganda, I recommend Kevin Beary’s essay “Life Styles: Native and Imposed.” There Beary quotes Bernal Díaz del Castillo’s The Conquest of New Spain, which chronicles Hernán Cortés’ discovery and conquest of the Aztec empire. As Díaz reports, in the town of Cempoala near the Gulf of Mexico:
Every day they [the Native
American priests] sacrificed before our eyes three, four, or five
Indians, whose hearts were offered to those idols, and whose blood was
plastered on the walls. The feet, arms, and legs of their victims were
cut off and eaten, just as we eat beef from the butcher’s in our
country. I even believe that they sold it in the tianguez or markets.
When
the Spaniards reached Tenochtitlan, the capital of the Aztec empire and
the site of present-day Mexico City, Díaz had occasion to observe the
Emperor Montezuma’s dinner table:
. . .
more than thirty dishes [were] cooked in their native style . . . I
have heard that they used to cook him the flesh of young boys. But as he
had such a variety of dishes, made of so many different ingredients, we
could not tell whether a dish was of human flesh or anything else . . .
I know for certain, however, that after our Captain spoke against the
sacrifice of human beings and the eating of their flesh, Montezuma
ordered that it should no longer be served to him.
Díaz also describes how the Aztecs performed human sacrifices:
They
strike open the wretched Indian’s chest with flint knives and hastily
tear out the palpitating heart which, with the blood, they present to
the idols in whose name they have performed the sacrifice. Then they cut
off the arms, thighs, and head, eating the arms and thighs at their
ceremonial banquets. The head they hang up on a beam, and the body of
the sacrificed man is not eaten but given to the beasts of prey.

Díaz also describes the widespread practice of slavery in the Aztec empire. In the great market of Tenochtitlan, he saw:
.
. . dealers in gold, silver, and precious stones, feather, cloaks, and
embroidered goods, and male and female slaves who are also sold there.
They bring as many slaves to be sold in that market as the Portuguese
bring Negroes from Guinea. Some are brought there attached to long poles
by means of collars round their necks to prevent them from escaping,
but others are left loose.
As for the Indians of North America,
they were not always the peaceful purveyors of tax-free cigarettes,
casino gambling, and earthy wisdom we know today. Beary quotes Francis
Parkman’s France and England in North America, where he
describes an attack by the Iroquois on an Algonquin hunting party, in
the autumn of 1641, and the Iroquois’ treatment of their prisoners:
They
bound the prisoners hand and foot, rekindled the fire, slung the
kettles, cut the bodies of the slain to pieces, and boiled and devoured
them before the eyes of the wretched survivors. “In a word,” says the
narrator [that is, the Algonquin woman who escaped to tell the tale],
“they ate men with as much appetite and more pleasure than hunters eat a
boar or a stag . . .”
The conquerors
feasted in the lodge till nearly daybreak . . . then began their march
homeward with their prisoners. Among these were three women, of whom the
narrator was one, who had each a child of a few weeks or months old. At
the first halt, their captors took the infants from them, tied them to
wooden spits, placed them to die slowly before a fire, and feasted on
them before the eyes of the agonized mothers, whose shrieks,
supplications, and frantic efforts to break the cords that bound them
were met with mockery and laughter . . .
The
Iroquois arrived at their village with their prisoners, whose torture
was designed to cause all possible suffering without touching life. It
consisted in blows with sticks and cudgels, gashing their limbs with
knives, cutting off their fingers with clam-shells, scorching them with
firebrands, and other indescribable torments. The women were stripped
naked, and forced to dance to the singing of the male prisoners, amid
the applause and laughter of the crowd . . .
On
the following morning, they were placed on a large scaffold, in sight
of the whole population. It was a gala-day. Young and old were gathered
from far and near. Some mounted the scaffold, and scorched them with
torches and firebrands; while the children, standing beneath the bark
platform, applied fire to the feet of the prisoners between the crevices
. . . The stoicism of one of the warriors enraged his captors beyond
measure . . . they fell upon him with redoubled fury, till their knives
and firebrands left in him no semblance of humanity. He was defiant to
the last, and when death came to his relief, they tore out his heart and
devoured it; then hacked him in pieces, and made their feast of triumph
on his mangled limbs.
All the men and
all the old women of the party were put to death in a similar manner,
though but few displayed the same amazing fortitude. The younger women,
of whom there were about thirty, after passing their ordeal of torture,
were permitted to live; and, disfigured as they were, were distributed
among the several villages, as concubines or slaves to the Iroquois
warriors. Of this number were the narrator and her companion, who . . .
escaped at night into the forest . . .
Ideally, I would like to
get beyond Whites and Amerindians trading atrocity stories about and
demanding apologies for the actions of one another’s ancestors. But
gaining a balanced picture of those atrocities is probably the only way
to do this.In the meantime, if today’s Native Americans wish to express shame and guilt for their racial brethren’s behavior, what better occasion than Indigenous Peoples Day?
October 11, 2004
Taking Our Own Side by Michael Polignano
1 comment:
An interesting read and 'borrowed' to post in the library of PLE UK http://www.ple-uk.org/ regards, Aggro Saxon
Post a Comment