It Is Time for Native People’s Day in Davis


This article contains graphic descriptions of crimes against humanity. I have done my best to keep my own descriptions to a minimum, instead allowing the words and actions of Columbus and his men to speak for themselves. With that disclaimer in mind, on to the substance of the article.

The earliest recorded celebration of Columbus Day in America (that I could find) was in New York in 1792 to celebrate the 300th anniversary of the voyage to the new world. President Benjamin Harrison asked Americans to celebrate the day under pressure from many Italian American advocacy groups, including the Knights of Columbus. In 1937, President Roosevelt made an official proclamation celebrating Columbus Day. In 1972, President Richard Nixon made Columbus Day a national holiday.

But why celebrate Columbus? What did he accomplish? Why is that relevant today? Well, the declaration signed by Nixon in 1972 goes like this:

“On October 12 we again celebrate in honor of the great sea captain and explorer whose historic westward voyage across the Atlantic led to the permanent settlement of America.

“Respect for the achievement of Christopher Columbus is especially appropriate this year when we have witnessed an epic journey of discovery, the journey to the moon. Both the voyages of Columbus and those of our modern astronauts are expressions of man’s great ambition to confront the unknown, and to master the challenges of distance and space.

“We remember also that Columbus was a man of Italy, a noble example for the many other men of Italy who have come to our country and to so many other lands of the new world. Sailing in the service of the Spanish crown, which had the vision to support his courage and initiative, Christopher Columbus opened America for all the people of the world.

“In tribute to the memory of Columbus, the Congress of the United States, by a joint resolution approved April 30, 1934 (48 Stat. 657), requested the President to proclaim October 12 of each year as Columbus Day for the observance of the anniversary of the discovery of America.

“Now, Therefore, I, Richard Nixon, President of the United States of America, do hereby designate Sunday, October 12, 1969, as Columbus Day; and I invite the people of this nation to observe that day in schools, churches, and other suitable places with appropriate ceremonies in honor of the great explorer.

“I also direct that the flag of the United States be displayed on all public buildings on the appointed day in memory of Christopher Columbus.

“In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this eleventh day of September, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred sixty-nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred ninety-fourth.

Richard Nixon.”

There are so many problems with this narrative, but it shows the profound ignorance of the time. Did Richard Nixon really think America was totally unsettled when Columbus sailed across the Atlantic? Did Columbus really discover America? He was not even the first European to set foot in the Americas! Was it “courage and initiative” by Ferdinand and Isabella to outfit a military expedition to systematically enslave and plunder the wealth and people of the new world? I suppose that is one way to look at it…

Columbus is not someone who we, as Americans and in particular Davisites ought to be honoring, even if it is only symbolic. He perpetrated systematic slavery, genocide and rape of native peoples. He was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Need convincing? Here are some quotes from the diary of Columbus. (these are the subject of the disclaimer at the beginning). Here is Columbus on raping native women:

While I was in the boat, I captured a very beautiful Carib woman, whom the said Lord Admiral gave to me. When I had taken her to my cabin she was naked—as was their custom. I was filled with a desire to take my pleasure with her and attempted to satisfy my desire. She was unwilling, and so treated me with her nails that I wished I had never begun. But—to cut a long story short—I then took a piece of rope and whipped her soundly, and she let forth such incredible screams that you would not have believed your ears. Eventually we came to such terms, I assure you, that you would have thought that she had been brought up in a school for whores.

Awful right? Why does this guy have a national holiday again? How about this bit about genocide in Cuba: (again this is graphic)

And the Christians, with their horses and swords and pikes began to carry out massacres and strange cruelties against them. They attacked the towns and spared neither the children nor the aged nor pregnant women nor women in childbed, not only stabbing them and dismembering them but cutting them to pieces as if dealing with sheep in the slaughter house. They laid bets as to who, with one stroke of the sword, could split a man in two or could cut off his head or spill out his entrails with a single stroke of the pike. They took infants from their mothers’ breasts, snatching them by the legs and pitching them head first against the crags or snatched them by the arms and threw them into the rivers, roaring with laughter and saying as the babies fell into the water, “Boil there, you offspring of the devil!” Other infants they put to the sword along with their mothers and anyone else who happened to be nearby. They made some low wide gallows on which the hanged victim’s feet almost touched the ground, stringing up their victims in lots of thirteen, in memory of Our Redeemer and His twelve Apostles, then set burning wood at their feet and thus burned them alive. To others they attached straw or wrapped their whole bodies in straw and set them afire. With still others, all those they wanted to capture alive, they cut off their hands and hung them round the victim’s neck, saying, “Go now, carry the message,” meaning, Take the news to the Indians who have fled to the mountains. They usually dealt with the chieftains and nobles in the following way: they made a grid of rods which they placed on forked sticks, then lashed the victims to the grid and lighted a smoldering fire underneath, so that little by little, as those captives screamed in despair and torment, their souls would leave them….

I could continue, talking about the forced labor system called encomiendas or the mass suicides of the Tiano people in order to avoid enslavement from Columbus’ men, but I think the point has been made sufficiently. If Columbus were alive today, I hope he would be put on trial for crimes against humanity in the Hague. It is long past time for Davis to celebrate Native Peoples Day instead of Columbus Day. Next year I will ask the City to make it official, and I encourage all of you to do the same.

Now I can already hear my Italian friends and family screaming at me “But Columbus Day has turned into a celebration of Italian American heritage, and it is not really about Columbus anymore!” I actually agree with that sentiment. To that end, I would propose we also celebrate Italian American day, March 9th, on Amerigo Vespucci’s birthday. He is after all the reason why North America and South America have the “America” part of their names. Alternatively, we could celebrate Italian American Day on the birthday of Arturo Giovannitti, a famed labor activist and poet who stood up for regular working people and fought discrimination against Italian Americans in the early 1900’s. Italian Americans deserve someone better than Columbus to celebrate their culture.

I wrote this article to show Vanguard readers that history is often kind to the victors, and tends to overlook the flaws and heinous crimes of famous or influential figures. This is true of practically every historical giant. Constantine, Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Ronald Reagan and yes, even Gandhi. To deify these historical figures does no favors to the truth, and learning from history. George Santayana famously said “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. How are we to learn from history, if we ignore the evils perpetuated by the powerful?

Sean Raycraft is a lifelong Davis resident and proud Shop Steward with UFCW 8


About The Author

Disclaimer: the views expressed by guest writers are strictly those of the author and may not reflect the views of the Vanguard, its editor, or its editorial board.

Related posts

79 thoughts on “It Is Time for Native People’s Day in Davis”

    1. Alan Miller

      Damn, BP.  You beat me to the punch . . . because you apparently wake up at 5:00am to troll the Vanguard.  Was going to say:

      “Now that Davis has a statue of a pedophile in the park, why not add a statue of a rapist?”

      Dark humor for sure. And no, I am far from convinced of many of the claims of the protestors of the Ghandi statue, though they did raise awareness that there is a large population that have a beef with Ghandi’s legacy.

      My true comments on the subject, below.

      1. Justice4All

        Gandhi certainly has his issues, and his deeds are far from the lofty legacy put upon him by historians, and that is the point of protest, and in some ways, this article.

  1. Tia Will

    It is interesting to me how much time we spend arguing over which “heroes” we should honor with special days and statues that could be spent in contemplating what positive contributions we could be making to our own current society by working together rather than in opposition.

    1. David Greenwald

      A fair comment. But given the historical Columbus and his contribution to genocide, is there any reason we should be celebrating his legacy at this point?

      1. quielo

        If you hold the original inhabitants to the standard above why would you have a “Native People’s Day”? Historical evidence shows tens of thousands of skulls outside of Aztec temples from live human sacrifices. If Columbus had ripped the still beating hearts out of tens of thousands of people you would be very negative.

        1. quielo

          BP I had thought it was an object lesson in “implicit bias” where rape and murder by Europeans is bad and a disqualifier for a holiday while the Original People who were also fond of rape and murder can get a holiday. I was hoping for an explication by Sean. In another parallel both Italians and Original People opened casinos in the 20th century.

        2. Don Shor

          The Aztec empire didn’t extend into what is now the United States. Do you think all native people were the same, had the same practices and beliefs? Do you have evidence of human sacrifice by native people of the United States?

        3. quielo

          Don, There is an abundance of evidence for rape, slavery, and murder by North American tribes, especially after the arrival of the horse greatly upset the balance of power. Tribes raiding other tribes, killing the males, and enslaving the females for breeding purposes is well documented. Sean notes above that he considers this very naughty.

          1. David Greenwald

            And now we wonder why we had the conversations about changing the posting policy. Do you think this kind of discuss is encouraging or discouraging to future participation>

          2. Don Shor

            Not all “North American Indians” are the same.
            If someone proposes that we celebrate a particular chief or native American leader, it might be reasonable to consider all facets of that person’s life — just as has been done with Columbus over the years. We don’t make generalizations about the behavior of Italians or Italian-Americans based on the behavior or one or some Italians or Italian-Americans. Celebrating Italian-American history would not be unreasonable. As I just noted elsewhere, celebrating explorers would not be unreasonable.

        4. Barack Palin

          So is this where the Vanguard is going to go?

          Where one can post an article denouncing a historical figure for his acts in favor of implementing a different holiday in favor of another group and when some of the bad acts of this group are also pointed out that is somehow discouraging participation?

          So is all that is going to be allowed are comments that go along with and agree with the articles?

          1. David Greenwald

            My problem is the manner of debate not the fact of debate.

            Quielo’s comment is a perfect example, “Sean notes above that he considers this very naughty.” Is that necessary?

            The key is not the fact of the debate. That’s fine. I encourage a hearty debate. The manner is I think what turns people off. And Quielo personalizes it and does so in a mocking manner that is unnecessary.

          2. David Greenwald

            The message that was driven home and that was unequivocal was that there is a small group of anonymous posters on the Vanguard that make it so that other people don’t want to participate in the discussion. There is not yet consensus over how to fix it, but the problem to me is clear. Some of it is very overt, such as the posts that have been pulled. Some of it is more subtle. Those of you like to post here and do so anonymously should think about how they can change the way they respond to things they disagree with and how they interact with others.

        5. Chamber Fan

          My question, Barack, is why is your response not more like Don’s?  Why does it have to convey rape, etc, rather than point out as Don does that there are a broad range of people, some of whom did good things, others who didn’t. But that doesn’t mean that Genocide is warranted.

        6. South of Davis

          Don wrote:

          > Do you have evidence of human sacrifice by

          > native people of the United States?

          I don’t want to post all the links I found, but with a quick Google search you can read for hours about human sacrifice (and a lot of other bad stuff) by the native people that lived in what is now the US.

          Just like every Italian and Spaniard that came to the new world was not a rapist every American Indian was not violent.

          With that said North American Indians were stealing livestock and killing Americans as recently at the early 1900s (a cousin who died at 99 a few years back would tell us stories about this).

          Over 100 years ago the rich WASPs in politics looked down on the Irish and Italians the way so many rich WASPs (and rich Italians and Irish) look down on Mexicans and Blacks today.

          Just like the rich WASPs in politics have given the Mexicans the Cesar Chavez holiday and given Blacks Kwanza events in schools to make them happy get votes in recent years the rich WASPs in politics gave the Italians the Columbus Day holiday and gave the Irish St. Patrick’s Day events in schools to make them happy and get votes.


        7. Frankly

          Ok, reading this exchange I can absolutely see that the anonymous posting pursuit is largely ideological… basically setting ground rules to favor those of the liberal Davis collective from having to endure counter-points that they find upsetting because they challenger strongly held liberal beliefs.

          And while they are at it, because they lack evolved enough senses of humor, they also want to stamp out any “color” except that denigrating any conservative politician or idea.  Because of course we all find that humor acceptable.

          This is clearly ideological censorship.

          I find what quielo and DP wrote very thought-provoking and reasonable.

        8. Davis Progressive

          i haven’t posted here, but i will now.  i believe the objection was to the last sentence quielo wrote not ideology.  it did make me realize that many of the regular anonymous posters are conservative and so there may be an ideological component to people’s complaints.

        9. Barack Palin

          Yes Frankly,  I also think David  overreacted to what Quielo wrote.

          It’s becoming more and more obvious where this is going which is fine with me, my wife tells me all the time that I waste too much time on here.

      2. South of Davis

        David wrote:

        > And Quielo personalizes it and does so in a mocking

        > manner that is unnecessary.

        It is hard to comment on something a “person” wrote without “personalizing” it.

        Do you really think that Quielo was “mocking”/”making fun of someone or something in a cruel way” Sean?

        If David wants to avoid any comments that get “personal” it will be easy to have every article written by a “Vanguard Contributor”.

        1. David Greenwald

          Explain to me why the last sentence was necessary that Quielo wrote? This is the problem and in the end the solution is likely to be one you don’t like unless you and a few others decide to modify how you post your comments.

        2. Justice4All

          It is possible to make critiques of any position without making snarky commentary. I personally enjoy discussions about controversial issues when the discourse is rational, reasonable, and based on fact. What I don’t like are condescending comments that contribute nothing of substance to the broader discussion. It is sophomoric punditry, rather than reasonable discourse that furthers understanding for all participants.

  2. Tia Will


    Also a fair comment. I do not believe in, nor do I practice the celebration of Colombus day. However, as the Gandhi issue pointed out, as humans, we do not have universal agreement on whose actions should be celebrated and whose should not. So why do we feel the need to tout our own cultures “mythic heroes ” while denigrating those of others ?  I would rather just be done with this form of “lionization” altogether, admit that as humans, we all have our strengths and weaknesses and work to build on the former while addressing and improving the latter. Personally, I would prefer not to salute the flag, to replace all “hero” statues with works of art and expressions of beauty of form rather than personal identity, and to not name our public places after specific individuals or companies.  But that is just me.

  3. Alan Miller

    Deifying most anyone is a dangerous practice.

    I have long been weirded-out by the sanitized version of Columbus that we were fed in elementary school.

    There is simply no reason except American pride that we can’t get real about teaching the true history of the genocide of so many natives of the Americas . . . and in truth continuing atrocities against many natives today.

    Columbus Day should be abolished.  I don’t know if “natives”, as such, want a Native People’s Day.  If that is the consensus among natives, that would be a fine replacement.


      1. South of Davis

        Don wrote:

        > The more federal holidays the better.

        My firefighter friends are always happy when they get to work on a federal holiday and get double time…

        P.S. Other than the mail carriers who got the day off and some union workers who got extra pay I’m guessing that few in Davis did anything different (or were even aware) of the Columbus Day holiday…

        1. Alan Miller

          Where did my comment go re: plant sales?  Was that a violation of a policy?

          [moderator]No comment to be found on that subject. Didn’t post, apparently.

        1. Don Shor

          “some merchants.” Right.
          Leisure industries comprise something like 10% of US employment, millions of workers and billions of dollars in the economy. The more leisure time, the better.

    1. Marina Kalugin

      True….the less those folks are allowed to work, the less trouble for us all.


      Actually the real reason the Columbus holiday is no longer for the UC system, which is part of the state when we feel like it, or separate when we want better, was to bunch the holidays around Thanksgiving, Christmas and NY… Same was done with Veterans Day…which may have now returned or not….the last day of Spring break became Cesar Chavez day…to keep the numbers of holidays the same…. when the law was passed to honor Mr Chavez

  4. Frankly

    This connects to a great paper I recently read on the state of American politics.

    Historicism or (critical theory) has established itself as the closest thing to a public philosophy when it comes to understanding history, society, and culture. Applied to elections, the empirical method required that politics be understood in terms of measurable and quantifiable aggregates. This proved compatible with the positivist understanding of law and interest group liberalism. Critical post-modern theory established personal autonomy and group diversity as central to what is morally defensible in terms of public policy. As a result, political partisanship and analysis has focused on race, class, gender, and other such demographics, to provide the kind of information that has become central to the shaping and predicting of elections and to legitimize dividing the electorate into categories that came to be understood in moral terms. Consequently, political campaigns have made a science of dividing the electorate into groups and reassembling them as voting blocs committed to specific policies and issues denominated by the demographic categories themselves. This strategy requires the systematic mobilization of animosity to ensure participation by identifying and magnifying what it is that must be opposed. Appeals to the electorate are strategically controlled by the experts. Which issues are allowed to be raised seems to be more important than the manner in which they are packaged and sold to the electorate.

    Understood in this way, what is central to politics and elections is the elevation of the status of personal and group identity to something approaching a new kind of civil religion. Individual social behavior, once dependent on traditional morality and understood in terms of traditional virtues and vices, has become almost indefensible when judged in light of the authority established by positivism and historicism. Public figures have come to be judged not as morally culpable individuals, but by the moral standing established by their group identity. Character is almost unrecognizable and no longer serves as the means by which the people can determine the qualifications for public office of those they do not know personally. As a result, it is difficult to establish the kind of public trust that made it possible to connect public and private behavior, or civil society and government. When coupled with the politicization of civil society and its institutions, the distinction between the public and the private or the personal and the political has almost disappeared. Anything and everything can become politicized, but things can only be understood and made intelligible—or made politically meaningful—when viewed through the lens of social science and post-modern cultural theory. In short, the public and private character of American politics has been placed in the hands of the academic intellectuals.

    For the people that continually agitate demanding “progressive” group-favoring policy from a basis of historical justification, I believe they are demonstrating personal and maybe societal “gap filling”.  Something fundamental is missing in their psychological, cognitive or emotional make-up that send them on a personal relevancy egg hunt.  And lacking tangible findings in the real world, they back it up in time and begin to rev-up their feeling processors for historical events and circumstances.

    Since this gap-filling is only placebo, it will have to happen again and again and again… eventually resulting in a detachment from the reality of actual history and demanding that history be re-written to reflect assessment in a modern context.  This way, the liberal groupists as I will call them, can resist personal introspection as to what is missing in their lives (I think spirituality) using the the bondo of being a righteous social justice crusader.   However, as in most situations where unresolved issues that get masked by substitution, the law of unintended consequences is fired up.

    And the consequences we see to day is growing social decay… a decline in community social capital caused by new forms of segregation, group-think, tribalism and me-ism.

    There is a sort of sickness present… a Camus-style depressed apathy that leads to amplification of empathy for the slightest indication of unfairness… even those that can be resurrected from history presently irrelevant.

    Is it the hormones in our chicken?   Something that happens staring at CRT screens many hours of the day?

    I don’t know, but it is clear that we are experiencing a societal devolution from this tendency to divide almost every individual to a special interest victim group based on some justification from an ever-more-nitpicky rewrite of history.

  5. Alan Miller

    an ever-more-nitpicky rewrite of history

    Frank Lee, I understand and agree with your point to some degree.  However, in this case, is it really ‘nit-picky’ to decide it is best not to deify someone responsible directly for rape and murder of natives of the Americas, and indirectly responsible for the start of their genocide?  I don’t consider that nit picky, I consider it a good idea.

    1. Frankly

      It is absolutely nit-picky to try and convict history using a current moral context.  What is your statute of limitations.  Would you support Texas removing the monuments to JFK because of his infidelity… which at the time was sort of socially acceptable behavior of married males?  What about FDR and his infidelity?  What might the private recordings of either of those men sounded like if we had the technology back then?  And then there is the issue of slavery.  It was prevalent in the world for centuries before it was deemed morally unacceptable by western society.

      This is the exact problem… public norms have shifted tremendously in my short life.  Things we accept as more righteousness today were taboo just a decade or two ago.

      We are idiots doing this type of thing… generating modern moral outrage over the historical behavior of historical figures.  We really look like silly fools.


      1. Alan Miller

        Frank Lee,

        The ‘current moral standards’ argument has merit, and where the line is drawn will always be arguable.  However, rape and murder are way beyond anyone’s line, even if the society at the time viewed them as ‘less than human’ — that view is as wrong as blacks being 3/5 of a human —  .  Infidelity?  Pu-leeez, not even remotely on the same level as rape and murder.

        Do you feel teaching children that “in 1400 + 92 Columbus sailed the ocean blue” is a proper teaching of history?  Or is it better to teach them how their country relocated and slaughtered the native people for their land and the resources it contained?  In public school, I was taught the former, not the latter.  Both are true.

        1. Justice4All

          I agree there is a line.  It seem that this crosses a line.  I also agree that public schools should teach the unbiased truth.  Good luck with that.

          Which line would you say has been crossed? Is it your position that the status quo of venerating a myth is acceptable? Or something else? I agree that schools ought to teach objective truth. But clearly the truth to me, and the truth to you are two very different concepts. If the truth is the truth, then we must by the nature of the truth being true, accept historical revisionism as the truth. Omitting Columbus’s nefarious activities from the history books, or portraying him as some kind of heroic figure, as our textbooks often do is perpetuating falsehood. The very opposite of truth.

        2. Frankly

          The truth is simply fact and not opinion.  And in order to prevent opinion, the facts need to be delivered in a way that covers the alternative view of the interpretation of the facts.  It might simply be “some people believe this.”  The problem with moral judgement of historical figures for their actions is that scientific peer review did not exist then, and even if it did it might have concluded that the actions that seem so reprehensible today were standard then.

          1. Don Shor

            History is primary sources, secondary sources, interpretation, and narrative. There is no objective way to present history. I went to school in a very conservative school district decades ago and got one narrative. My kids went to Davis schools and got a different narrative. Fortunately, they also acquired good critical thinking skills.

      2. Justice4All

        It is absolutely nit-picky to try and convict history using a current moral context

        Columbus was controversial even in his own time for his illegal slavery schemes. With that said, the conditions the academic who wrote that essay you quoted have existed in America since its inception. Really they have existed in every democratic society going back to ancient Athens and Rome. The Optimates and Populares are great examples of this.

        And the consequences we see to day is growing social decay… a decline in community social capital caused by new forms of segregation, group-think, tribalism and me-ism

        You write as if tribalism, segregation, group think and me-ism are new phenomenon. Anyone who has an understanding of history knows these concepts are far from new.

        Consider this. History is always written by the victorious. Therefore the written histories are often inaccurate, clearly biased in favor of the conquerors. That truth is as old as time. If we want to seek the truth, and further our knowledge as individuals or as a society, we must therefore understand the motives of those who write history. We must also ask ourselves what the purpose of teaching history is today. What history should be taught? Are we going to teach history from an objective perspective? Or are we simply going to re teach propaganda from the victors? Should we not seek truth over all else in scholarly pursuits?

        1. tribeUSA

          J4All–what is the ‘objective’ perspective, and how can it be achieved? What standards of epistemology should be used, and how can criteria for determining such standards be achieved in an impartial manner? Is it possible for there to be such a thing as an unbiased account of the past?

        2. Justice4All

          J4All–what is the ‘objective’ perspective, and how can it be achieved? What standards of epistemology should be used, and how can criteria for determining such standards be achieved in an impartial manner? Is it possible for there to be such a thing as an unbiased account of the past?

          Thats a great question. One that I am not sure I have a good answer for. I would say that the best way to go about it would be to analyze history using as many primary sources as possible, with an understanding of those sources’ biases, confirmed by physical evidence.

          I am not sure if there is such a thing as a totally unbiased account of the past, simply because each individual has their own biases. What is possible however is better analysis of history through evidence based reasoning.

          What is clear, is often in American schools, the history taught is influenced by politics. When I went through the Davis schools for example, I was taught about Columbus being heroic, admiral of the ocean seas, first European to discover the new world etc, without being taught at all about the atrocities. Natives were taught as one universal people, absent of their own cultural identities. The slave trade triangle was taught in a sanitized, boring way. Great man theory seemed to dominate the narrative. At best these are errors of omission, which paints a woefully incomplete picture of history. At worst, its fiction, as in the case of Columbus, or Andrew Jackson, or in the south, “the War of Northern Aggression” or the Civil War being “about states rights” or the confederate flag being about “History or Heritage”, ominously omitting the History or Heritage of white supremacy and slavery.

          I could continue, but I think you get the gist. We can do better.

        3. tribeUSA

          J4All–Yes, fair enough, seems to me you make some good balanced points.

          I’d have to think long and hard about what might be some of the best ways to present history to children in junior high school and high school. One aspect would include that for teenagers, it seems to me best to emphasize the positive and best aspects of american society and history, while acknowledging the downsides and negative side. Kind of like getting to know a friend or introducing a guest, where you maintain focus on his positive qualities and how you can have a positive relationship together; while admitting the presence of flaws and imperfections as you get to know them; which hopefully can be handled with humor and support; and guide him and yourself on the way to becoming better human beings. At the college level in advanced undergraduate and graduate levels; I think it can then be OK to teach courses that emphasize negative aspects of society and history; with a critical eye and an aim in trying to understand how such negative conditions come about–seems to me that this can be done without the development of a hostile attitude towards society or the history of our society. Perspective is gained by comparisons with other societies throughout the world and thruout different centuries.

      1. quielo

        Did they give the “Indigenous People” any land back or was it just pretentious posturing?

        It’s easy to ridicule the sale of Manhattan for 60 guilders until you realize the actual net value of these proclamations.

        1. Marina Kalugin

          gosh and did the US ever return Alaska to Russia…..why should they, right?

          all of this is such nonsense really….did you know that recent science proves that nearly every single person alive today in the USA has some african blood?

          and that scientists recently found human remains in South America that are over 14000 years old according to the very latest and most accurate tests available.

          All of us are likely some fraction of “minority blood”… what, really….stop honoring criminals and stop hiding behind pc verbiage…..

          we would all be better off…

  6. Marina Kalugin

    would anyone who read my earlier posts which were scrubbed away, please explain to me why?  For one thing there was no swearing or any such infractions, I don’t think.

    For another, it was very much on topic….though those who lack some very basic skills in the subject of logic may not be able to follow the dots.

    I didn’t even save that one, because of assuming it would pass muster or be kosher or whatever one would say.

    In it I discussed how in HA they do not celebrate Columbus Day, but rather “discoverer’s day”.

    And, went on to share that all of what is now The USA  first was settled with native peoples of Mexico, then almost the whole of the USofA was under Mexican control…and how if we are to be really PC , then we should celebrate Mexico and how much better off we would be now if we were part of MX…

    All of which was on topic….but like many others on this board, I shared it in the form of a story on Monday……

    PS>   As I have said many a time from the very beginning, of “finding” this group back in April….that censure only happens when one is  not on the same side/mood of those in charge that day.   Once I finally retire, my other family members and I will be staring our own anti-DV…where anyone can truly share without being censured.   I met a lot of people in the early months who tell me they read the DV but no longer post, as they got bashed for unpopular sides of topics……


    [moderator] It was removed because half of it was off topic, and I didn’t feel like editing it.

  7. Justice4All

    This is clearly ideological censorship.
    I find what quielo and DP wrote very thought-provoking and reasonable

    Who is censoring anyone? I love critical analysis of my positions. What I dont enjoy is the internet tough guy attitude, baseless degrading of character, and acrimonious commentary. There are reasonable conservative critiques that can be written without the anonymous condescending attitudes in the comments section. If you want to write that way, fine, I wont censor you. But you ought to own it.

    1. Barack Palin

      Tell everyone where an Internet tough guy attitude came into play in any of the responses?  People simply posted that many of the native Indians had their issues too just as Columbus did and since you seem to advocating for a “Native People’s Day” that makes it part of the conversation.  I think you’re upset because our views don’t line up with your left leaning views of the world so now you just write it off as others having condescending attitudes.  Maybe it’s you that’s coming across as condescending?

      1. Justice4All

        Comparing Columbus to millions of native peoples for the purposes of moral relativity, each with distinct history and culture is a false equivalency. I advocate for native people’s day as a counterpoint to Columbus Day. Columbus is not someone that we as Americans ought to admire, much less celebrate. To do so is to ignore his innumerable atrocities.

        I do not mind when people critique my work, my thoughts, or my political positions. I view each discussion on controversial subjects as an opportunity to learn more, and thus make more informed opinions about those subjects. What I could do without is the snarky remarks and the attacks on the character of the poster, rather than the issues at hand.

        1. Barack Palin

          And that’s exactly what happened, people critiqued your thoughts.  I think you’re being a little over sensitive here, but that seems to be the theme of the day lately on the V.

        2. quielo

          Sean, “Comparing Columbus to millions of native peoples for the purposes of moral relativity, each with distinct history and culture is a false equivalency.” It was your equivalency, not mine. You could have said “let’s just get rid of Columbus Day” and left it at that. “attacks on the character of the poster” can you be more specific about that?

        3. Justice4All

          “attacks on the character of the poster” can you be more specific about that?

          Well, to be clear, there have not been such attacks in this article in my opinion. However in the past, I and many many others who have submitted articles to the Vanguard have been subject to personal attacks in the comments section.

          And that’s exactly what happened, people critiqued your thoughts.  I think you’re being a little over sensitive here, but that seems to be the theme of the day lately on the V.

          I encourage people to do so, preferably in a civil manner. Snarky comments and snide remarks are not conducive to public discourse, and too often that mentality prevails here in the comments section.

        4. Justice4All

          So why are you complaining about snarky comments, snide remarks and personal attacks here when you admit it didn’t take place?

          I said personal attacks did not happen. However the snide remarks and snarky comments are abundant on this thread.

  8. tribeUSA

    J4ALL–I too vote against personal attacks on Vanguard threads–it is definitely uncivil, and for anonymous posters such as myself is dishonorable to make such attacks, in my view.

    Snide and snarky–this is fine, leave them in there. One person’s annoyance may be another’s giggle or guffaw–I think as adults we can learn to handle snide and snarky without trauma, and such remarks are not necessarily uncivil (though some can be).

    1. Justice4All

      I just think the anonymity allows for a certain internet tough guy attitude to fester. People are not accountable at all for their words, and that contributes heavily to unproductive discussion. If people want to be snarky, fine. Just do so with disclosure.

      1. quielo

        Perhaps we could use model above of a “trigger warning”? Innstead of “This article contains graphic descriptions of crimes against humanity. I have done my best to keep my own descriptions to a minimum, instead allowing the words and actions of Columbus and his men to speak for themselves. With that disclaimer in mind, on to the substance of the article.”


        We could have

        “This article contains elements of humor though I have tried to keep snide elements to a minimum and have removed sarcasm entirely. Still, some people may find the content to be offensive to their sensibilities. With that disclaimer in mind, on to the substance of the comment.”


        Would that work?

        1. quielo

          “The point of writing this article was to point out a serious issue, and for it to be discussed seriously.”


          There is the disconnect Sean. People who get the holiday like it and don’t care what it’s called and people who don’t get the holiday pay almost no attention to it as all other than as the last sale before black friday. Even in Davis you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would place this in the top 500 problems facing us.

          The genesis for the holiday is that Columbus’s trip allowed people from other places to emigrate to these continents and escape where they were at. There are few people who have had a greater impact on the world. Holidays are not necessarily named because the someone was a nice person. For example in SF they have a “Mario Woods Remembrance Day”. Mario Woods was a psychopathic, homicidal fool, and if he killed fewer people than Columbus it is only due to incompetence. Yet the same people who want to make an icon of Mario Woods will denigrate Columbus, which is of course complete hypocrisy.

  9. Marina Kalugin

    your pals, Sean,  on the DV, my OP friend….are still censoring and removing my comments on this thread…

    which were not personal attacks, nor hardly snarky and I have reposted several parts several times and guess what, even those bits were moderated for many hours and disappeared..

    If you want to see them, I will email them to you….thank you

  10. Marina Kalugin

    PS>  There is no such thing as “objective”….everyone has an agenda….some won’t admit it and others cannot even recognize it…

    many of such folks live here 24/7….they don’t like me either….some are more open about it….and some don’t have a clue …oh well…

  11. Paul Thober

    From just below the opinion piece above:

    “Sean Raycraft is a lifelong Davis resident and proud Shop Steward with UFCW 8”

    Does this mean that Sean Raycraft is the author?

    From Justice4All above:

    “I do not mind when people critique my work, my thoughts, or my political positions.”

    Which leads me to the question: are Sean Raycraft and Justice4All the same person?

  12. Marina Kalugin

    yes, Sean is not hiding behind a phoney moniker…..he is open and honest and I love that about him…..and he truly is a beacon of Justice4All….we are long time friends and he stands behind that in the best light I have seen on this board   🙂


  13. tribeUSA

    Yes, I’m fine with an Indigenous Peoples day as well; however there are some lingering concerns I have about the fracturing of american society, including national holidays that honor certain ethnic groups on one day and a different ethnic group on another day, etc…I only hope that such developments do not contribute towards a direction of balkanization of american society–we are nowhere near that yet; but it seems to me there is some potential danger of acceleration in that direction, including other developments such as the recent resurrection of identity politics and the emphasis on multiculuralism while devaluing the time-tested melting pot, wherein history has shown melting pot policies and values to yield very good results.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
Sign up for