Controversies surrounding the celebration of Columbus Day raise a number of interesting questions. Unfortunately, many of the new answers offered are at least as simplistic and historically false as the established answers they are meant to replace.
It is true that Europeans confiscated land on which other people lived, sometimes intentionally killed those people through war or disease, and more often unintentionally killed those people with disease (this was, afterall, before the development of the germ theory of disease or any practical means to control its spread).
While there is no doubt that Europeans confiscated land in the Americas from other people, we almost always fail to ask how those people came to possess that land. We regularly refer to the people from whom Europeans confiscated lands as Indigenous Peoples or First Nations, but those terms are clearly inaccurate.
Indigenous means “having originated in and being produced, growing, living, or occurring naturally in a particular region or environment” and first is defined as “preceding all others in time, order, or importance.” Neither term correctly describes the connection between the people whom the Europeans displaced and the land from which they were displaced. Those peoples neither “originated” from nor preceded “all others in time” on that land. Instead, those peoples confiscated that land from other groups of people who preceded them, often through war and disease. And those displaced people confiscated the land from people before them, and so on.
It would be more accurate to describe the people from whom the Europeans confiscated land as the “T-1” Peoples because they were the people in possession of the land in the prior time period. And those T-1 Peoples confiscated the land from T-2 Peoples, who in turn took it from T-3 Peoples, etc….
This all raises some very messy and complicated questions about how a People can have a legitimate claim to a land. You can’t just declare that history starts whenever it suits you. Being a T-1 People does not make them the “first” or “indigenous.” There was a history before that with its own prior claims of ownership.
Just to illustrate this messiness — much of the land around the Dakotas was in the possession of a group of Sioux known as the Lakota when large number of European descendants arrived in the area. The struggle between these European-Americans and Lakota culminated in the massacre of Lakota at Wounded Knee and their confinement to reservations. This chain of events was filled with suffering and cruelty inflicted on the Lakota and has been cited by activists to justify claims of expanded control over land in that area by the Lakota descendants.
But how did the Lakota come into possession of that land before large numbers of Europeans arrived? The Lakota can be traced to the Great Lakes area (and almost certainly came from somewhere else before that). They were pushed west by the Ojibwe as the Ojibwe were pressured by the westward expansion of the fur trade. The Mandan and Hidatsa blocked the Lakota from crossing the Missouri river, but eventually their resistance was weakened by disease and the Lakota were able to conquer the grassland in the Dakotas. In doing so they also pushed west the Shoshone, who were struggling for that same valuable grassland.
So, who has the rightful claim to that land? Is it the Lakota, because they were in possession of it before large-scale arrival of Europeans? What if descendants of the Shoshone, Mandan, or Hidatsa showed up, could they legitimately claim the land as their own? What about the descendants of the various peoples who preceded all of these groups?
Only simple-minded college students and slogan-shouting activists could say that Europeans stole that land from the indigenous people, massacred its people, and ought to give it back. The problem is that all land has been stolen countless times, with round after round of massacres, and an endless string of confusing claims to rightful ownership. Being the T-1 People is hardly a sufficient justification for the legitimate possession of land.
If college students want to think seriously about these issues, they should discuss multiple, practical criteria for legitimate ownership of land, which might make them appreciate some of the messy compromises that explain status quo arrangements.
Jay P. Greene's Blog 
Well, now, you’re right that the history is much more complicated than most people know. On the other hand, just because the Lakota were living on land that “they” (meaning not really them but their ancestors) got by displacing someone else doesn’t make it OK that somebody else (“us”, meaning *our* ancestors) came in and slaughtered them for it. If the European-descended settlers came in with guns drawn and said, “What are you complaining about? Sure we’re stealing this land and killing you, but you got it by doing the same thing!” I think the Lakota could have justly replied, “We didn’t steal it, our ancestors did, and we don’t deserve to die for their crimes.”
But I think the really important issues have nothing to do with any of that. The only two issues worth discussing (outside of history class) seem to me to be “whatever you think of what happened five hundred years ago, does anyone *today* owe anybody else anything *today* because of it?” Clearly not. The other issue is “Should we retain Columbus Day or change it?” And while Columbus did do some things wrong, he can hardly be held personally responsible for everything done by every European settler who followed.
In general, I agree with you, Greg. But we can’t completely ignore history in deciding who owes who what. If my father stole something from your father and I have inherited that thing from my father instead of you, you might reasonably claim that I should give that thing to you. Yes, time erases the stregnth of these claims to some extent, but we wouldn’t want to reward thieves who oppress their victims so much that they cann’t make their claims for a long time. Nor do we want to reward thieves who kill their victims so that no one is around to make the claim. These are real problems.
Greg – what were the things Columbus did ‘right’ that indicates he should be the subject of an US national holiday?
[…] at Jay Greene’s Blog, Jay points out that ”many of the new answers offered are at least as simplistic and […]
*We* aren’t doing any rewarding and the taking was done under rules widely-accepted at the time. Making judgments of actions taken under a different set of rules then apply now isn’t evidence of moral rectitude but of moral self-indulgence.
Besides, there’s a romanticization of the Indians that undercuts the credibility of those who weep for their loss. They were neither the noble, environmentally-splendid stewards of the Earth they’re portrayed to be nor were they the peaceful, tolerant peoples they’re portrayed to be. About the only things “they” were was on the losing end of an inter-cultural face-off and proximate which brings us back to moral self-indulgence.
Jay: You’re right that in general, we can’t ignore all history when we ask who owes whom what. Things that happened only one generation ago are relevant. But I feel confident in saying that there’s nothing that could possibly have happened 500 years ago that would have to be taken into account now. If you could prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that Hitler built a time machine and went back to 1492, took on the name “Christopher Columbus,” and led an expedition to the new world for the express purpose of genocide in order to make room for a secluded homeland in which to build his master race, but the plan failed and his actions produced America instead, that would certainly require us to recalibrate our understanding of the history. And it would certainly merit renaming Columbus Day! But it would not generate any argument that we, now, owe anybody anything, now, as a result.
Todd: It took a lot of vision and guts – and a lot of technical skill – to sail out into the Atlantic with no certainty of what he’d find. I can certainly see a lot of room for legitimate debate over whether Columbus is more deserving than other figures who don’t have their own holiday. In fact, I didn’t say in my comment that we should definitely keep Columbus Day because I don’t actually have a strong opinion about that. My point was that Columbus shouldn’t be blamed for a lot of stuff other people did that he’s not responsible for.
Allen: The “rules” you refer to were not “widely accepted at the time.” They were very fiercely debated. This issue was not only relevant to the new world, it was relevant to political questions back in Europe. There was widespread debate over the question of whether and under what circumstances a conqueror could acquire legitimtae title to keep the land he took rather than having to give it back at the end of the war (which was the conventional practice in medieval conflicts).
Jay: “If college students want to think seriously about these issues, they should discuss multiple, practical criteria for legitimate ownership of land, which might make them appreciate some of the messy compromises that explain status quo arrangements.”
College students cannot think seriously about these issues if they have previously experienced 12 years of training into reflexive moralization. A Secondary-level History of Hawaii textbook from the Universiry of Hawaii’s Curriculum Research and Development Group discusses European imperialism only (going back to Roman times) and not Mongol, Bantu, Aztec, Incan, Japanese or Chinese imperialism. Kamehameha did not win Oahu in a hula contest.
The sociologist David Reisman recommended that schools exclude History from the pre-college curriculum since, he believed, some teachers would find the temptation to indoctrinate students irresistable.
Barak Hussein Obama. Mmmm mmm mmm.
Actually Greg, the rules that were widely-accepted at the time are still widely accepted since might, to a very great extent, still makes rights. Whatever tedious debates may have taken place about establishing the right to land seized by force came to a halt at the edge of a sword. It’s only in our enlightened era in which rights that you can’t enforce yourself have any meaning.
The “savages” of the Americas didn’t even warrant the modest considerations that might apply in Europe. They were, after all, not Christians and by the standards of the time, barely human.
As to the validity of Columbus Day, there isn’t any. Columbus was a reckless idiot and far from being a master navigator he didn’t have a fricken’ clue where he was going, other then east, or what he might run into. Holidays ought to memorialize accomplishments of courage and intelligence not con games that worked out for the con man.
I see we’re using different definitions of what “widely accepted” means. By your definition, something can be fiercely debated and considered by many people to be illegitimate, and still be “widely accepted.”
I’m curious to learn the instances from before the modern era in which a European (or non-European for that matter) conqueror (for land and not merely for plunder ) of a non-European power turned around and gave back the conquered land that the conqueror thought they could occupy and defend. Bonus if the land was given back without any concessions.
I just can’t think of any examples off the top of my head which is not to say they don’t exist.
What’s your definition of “the modern era”? European conquest of the new world didn’t get underway until the 16th century, which many people consider the start of the modern era. Did the European powers even conquor anything outside Europe before the modern era? (Conquor it and keep it, I mean – obviously in their ongoing wars with the Ottomans they frequently took territory but I don’t know if they kept it long.)
Ah, I see.
My definition of widely-accepted is the actual behavior that was governed by a particular set of beliefs whereas your definition seems to include irrelevant argumentation as part of the definition of “widely-accepted”.
I guess that makes sense in context.
Greg, I’m thinking the precedent should have started before or at least contemporaneously with the conquest/colonization of the new world if we’re going to criticize the conquerors/settlers for ignoring or disregarding the precedent. That’s probably before what many consider to be the modern era come to think of it Why don’t we use 1634, the year the Pequot War broke out (thanks Google) as the demarcation point.
[…] Greene has an interesting take on indigenous peoples and land […]
Ahh the Pequot War, a famous flashpoint of American History for anyone who has been unfortunate to mistake “A People’s History of the United States” as a historical work.
Allen: So you use the word “accepted” as a synonym for “practiced.” Whatever is done is ipso facto accepted. Since abortion rights are the law of the land, they’re therefore widely accepted. 🙂
Ken: I think the real issue with your question is that you specified examples of European powers giving back land to non-European powers. Suppose it was the case that European powers often gave back each other’s land at the end of their wars with each other, but they always played for keeps when they went to war with non-Europeans? That would certainly provide a basis for criticizing their hypocrisy, wouldn’t it? I would think it would provide more of a basis, not less.
Let me do a little brushing up on this before I get back to you, but I believe it was in fact the case – at least in, say, the 16th century – that when European powers went to war with each other over anything other than disputed claims to a piece of land (and most of their wars were not about land disputes) they did give back the territory they took at the end of the war. Earlier, before national bounadries were starting to emerge, that was not the case – but before national boundaries emerged we can’t really talk about one “nation” going to war with another anyway.
A quick update: a little bit of brushing up confirms that in 16th century wars among European powers, land was often, but far from always, given back at the end of the war. Wars among major powers over who had rightful claim to some piece of land were not a big cause of warfare during this period; they were much more likely to fight 1) for prestige and honor, 2) over theology, or 3) to keep the territories they each already controlled from breaking away.
A friend has pointed me to the example of the Peace of Cateau-Cambrésis at the end of the Italian War. France gave back some territory it had taken, and kept some – most notably Calais, a city on the continental side of the English Channel that had belonged to England since 1347, but had belonged to France before that.
Greg, the reason why I specified non-European powers was because I suspect that the inbred monarchs of the era would play by a different set of rules when dealing with their cousins and other “civilized” neighbors and by another set of rules when dealing with “savages” and “barbarians.”
And, as you point out, the Europenas certainly did not voluntarily give back reconquered land to the Ottomans. And even that situation is not completely on point because the beconquered land was most likely viewed as being rightfully European.
So, I’m not sure the precedent (and thanks for doing that research) of a European to European giveback gets us all the way there. Especially, since in the Italian War case, at least one purpose of France’s taking and returning of conquered territory was to reclaim Calais which France thought belonged to them in the first place.
In any event, for these reasons I think the precedent is distinguishable.
I must have misunderstood the point of your question. What were you trying to prove?
Greg, I was responding to your response to Allen @ 7:55 re the debate over returning conquered lands. I suspected that to the extent there was debate it probably did not extend outside of Europe or Europe’s possessions. And, to the extent it applied to Europe between European countries, it probably was never enforced. Might made right then and still does today by and large.
Oh, I’m afriad that’s totally wrong, Ken – at least, the first part is. There was definitely debate over whether it was OK to take land from the “T-1 peoples” in the New World. As late as 1689 Locke was still dealing with this controversy in his Two Treatises.
I don’t think any government actually did give back any land, but that doesn’t mean there was no debate. It just means the imperialists won the debate.
We started this discussion with the question of whether we have grounds to criticize people back then, or if we’re applying anachronistic standards if we do that. I see now that we’ve been arguing at cross purposes. My standard is that we can criticize them without anachronism if at least some people back at that time saw that this was wrong and said so. If the rulers didn’t listen to those people, they’re accountable for refusing to listen. But your standard (and Allen’s) is whether anyone had ever actually listened before. Because no ruler had ever actually made policy based on the view we now hold, it’s not their fault that they didn’t.
I think the problem with your view is selection bias, because you’re only asking whether people who took land then gave it back, and not at whether there was anyone who didn’t take land in the first place. Obviously the only people who are in a position to give land back are people who took land in the first place, so from the start you’re only including the people who have made their choice to follow imperialism rather than justice. The point is that they did, in fact, make a choice – and they knew what they were doing.
Greg, I don’t mean to be rocking a dead baby here, I don’t question that there was debate. But, as you point out, the losing side of the debate did not become the consensus (at least by any nation in a position to do a little conquering) until much later in time. (If I were a weak/small nation, I’m sertain my consensus would be that stronger nations shouldn’t go around conquering me. Can’t we all just get along.) In the colonies, the consensus, which originated with the monarchy, even carried over to the democracy. But, your point is well taken.
There’s also the issue of “conquering” versus “settling.” The English, at least, seemed to be more in the business of settling than conquering. The conquering tended to start after the disputes broke out. Then you’re in a vae victis situation, especially when there have been atrocities.
Today we have millions of Mexicans flooding over our borders and settling in the US. We don’t say they are conquering the US even though some of these settlers proclaim that they are reclaiming land that is rightfully theirs.
Right, the whole issue of conquoring versus settling hasn’t even been raised here. We’re only dealing with the question of how we should weigh our attitudes toward historical figures who committed imperialism; we aren’t asking which particular actions did or did not constitute imperalism.