The Controversy Of Columbus Day Essay, Research Paper

The Controversy of Columbus Day

The contention of whether or non Christopher Columbus should go on to be acknowledged by a federal vacation proves that his bequest has non escaped the examination of history. Arguments born of both sides of the contention root from issues such as race murder, racism, multiculturalism, geographical land rights, and the high quality of certain civilizations over others. In The Christopher Columbus Controversy: Western Civilization vs. Primitivism, Michael Berliner, Ph.D. declares that acknowledgment of Columbus Day is well-deserved, claiming that Western civilisation is superior to all other civilizations and Columbus personifies this truth. On the contrary, Jack Weatherford & # 8217 ; s Analyzing the Repute of Christopher Columbus equates Columbus & # 8217 ; alleged find with barbarous race murder and the devastation of antediluvian sophisticated civilisations. These articles demonstrate two utmost points of position in a mode that makes clear each writers & # 8217 ; ends, taking the reader to see issues of writer prejudice, motive, and information cogency.

Berliner & # 8217 ; s article, which appears in Capitalism Magazine, makes his pro-Columbus stance clear with the caption of his article: & # 8220 ; Western Civilization vs. Primitivism, & # 8221 ; an obvious deduction that crudeness is the lone option to Western civilisation and that all non-western civilizations are crude. He criticizes the & # 8220 ; politically correct & # 8221 ; for seeking to & # 8220 ; intimidate schools across the state into replacing Columbus Day jubilations with & # 8216 ; cultural diverseness & # 8217 ; yearss & # 8221 ; and claims that the existent mark for onslaughts on Columbus Day is Western civilisation ( Berliner par. 2 ) . Berliner insists that Western civilisation ( a term he considers synonymous with the federal vacation ) is the & # 8220 ; objectively superior civilization & # 8221 ; ( par. 5 ) , and that an effort to dispute this threatens to perpetuate the racism that ( harmonizing to him ) is created by cultural individuality and jubilation of cultural diverseness.

Weatherford presents the antithesis to Berliner & # 8217 ; s statement. He begins by indicating out that Christopher Columbus ne’er set pes on the North American continent, nor did he open it to European trade: & # 8220 ; Norse Vikings already had colonies here in the 11th century, and British fisherman likely fished the shores of Canada for decades & # 8221 ; ( Weatherford par. 2 ) . Acknowledging that vindicators like Berliner are alternatively marking Columbus & # 8217 ; find as the great & # 8220 ; cultural brush, & # 8221 ; he describes the flagitious offenses against humanity that Columbus introduced to the new universe. & # 8220 ; Under [ the vindicator ] reading, & # 8221 ; Weatherford contends, & # 8220 ; Columbus becomes a sensitive mastermind believing beyond his clip in the passionate chase of cognition and understanding & # 8221 ; ( par. 3 ) when really he prompted the first moving ridge of North American race murder, bondage, and European-style warfare.

It is noteworthy that Berliner & # 8217 ; s article was written for the Ayn Rand Institute, an organisation that founds its rules on the doctrine of objectivism and the impression of individuality. It was republished in Capitalism Magazine, an online publication that prides itself in supporting single rights. It is evident that Berliner is talking to his pro-capitalistic audience, as his blandishing descriptions of Western civilisation appear extremely overdone. Informed readers recognize that Berliner & # 8217 ; s historical facts are grossly construed to back up his utmost positions of Western civilisation. Field-grade officer

R illustration, he describes the dwellers of what is now the United States as “wandering across the land, populating from hand-to-mouth and from day-to-day” and as holding “no written linguistic communication, no division of labour, small agribusiness and light lasting settlement” ( Berliner par. 4 ) . Berliner uses no historical informations or fact to back up these points, and for good ground: historical fact refutes these points. History texts describe the early agricultural techniques of the Native Americans as sophisticated, and although Nomadic folks did be, several lasting colonies arose throughout the centuries predating Columbus’ reaching. Berliner does recognize “endless, bloody wars” to Native American civilisations, but once more, his statement goes unsupported: the construct of full war or violent warfare was non introduced in the Americas until English and Gallic conquering. Columbus and Cortez used military force to repress a antecedently free people, and with it, launched a tradition of public force and decease. Berliner ignores this, as it contradicts his statement that Western civilisation is the objectively superior civilization, a salvaging grace to the “nasty” and “brutish” being of civilisations prior to its domination.

Weatherford, an anthropologist at Macalaster College in St. Paul, Minnesota, wrote his article for the Baltimore Evening Sun. His mark audience is both the American populace, whom he accuses as & # 8220 ; embroidering many fables around Columbus & # 8221 ; ( par. 4 ) and the academic community. Weatherford & # 8217 ; s statements concentrate on popular folklore that has been embellished to the point where it wipes out historical truth about wholly. While Westerners remember Columbus as a innovator for the integrating of Western virtuousnesss and values into & # 8220 ; underdeveloped & # 8221 ; American Indian communities, faculty members and the ascendants of Columbus & # 8217 ; victims recall the horror and calamity that he brought to the New World. Weatherford recalls the Taino people who became virtually nonextant after Columbus captured them as slaves, runing them for athletics and net income, & # 8220 ; whipping, ravishing, tormenting, killing, and so utilizing the Indian organic structures as nutrient for their hunting Canis familiariss & # 8221 ; ( par. 7 ) .

While Berilner makes sweeping generalisations of the Western invasion of North and South America with statements like & # 8220 ; whatever the jobs it brought, the vilified Western civilization besides brought tremendous, undreamed-of benefits, without which most of today & # 8217 ; s Indians would be boundlessly poorer or non even alive & # 8221 ; ( par. 4 ) , Weatherford uses specific cases of anguish, devastation, and panic to do his stance clear. By utilizing specific facts, Weatherford & # 8217 ; s information can be easy digested as valid, although his word use suggests a clear prejudice while Berliner simply appears to be doing a & # 8220 ; yay, America! & # 8221 ; rally cry. Berliner clearly attempts to confirm the concealed American attitude that & # 8220 ; West is Best & # 8221 ; while Weatherford presents his audience with a contrasting position from the other terminal of the spectrum. By analyzing the contrast between these point of views, including writer prejudice and information cogency, a reader is more expeditiously equipped to organize his or her ain decision of the Columbus Day Controversy.

Berliner, Michael. & # 8220 ; The Christopher Columbus Controversy: Western Civilization vs. Primitivism. & # 8221 ; Capitalism Magazine Oct. 1999. 1-08-2000 *www.capitalismmagazine.com/1999/october/columbus/htm*

Weatherford, Jack. & # 8220 ; Analyzing the Repute of Christopher Columbus. & # 8221 ; Feb. 22, 2000. *www.hartford-hwp.com/taino/docs/columbus.html*