I think it may be that, over time, we grow uneasy in our complacency. Not everyone takes a stance in the protests, but we almost always find ourselves siding with one entity or the other (i.e. the protesters or the protested). I find it an interesting method of effecting change, or at least of attempting to.
While I find the protests themselves interesting and I'm still deciding where I stand on one of them (the two I have been seeing a lot on specifically are the 99% protests and the online protests of Columbus Day, the latter of which I already have a firm position about), I do not appreciate protesters being shown as violent/riotous simply because a pesky idiot-"journalist" wants a story and tries to incite violence himself to get it (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/reporter-incites-occupy-d-c-riot-write-180750896.html).
As for Columbus Day, I have three questions:
1. Why do we consider him to be a hero?
2. What did he do that actually benefited society?
3. Would we celebrate someone today who was responsible for the same things?
What are your thoughts on these ongoing protests, and what do you think the results will be with either of them?
5 comments:
I agree about Christopher Columbus. I don't want to villiainize someone who was just operating within the standards of their time, but I also want my children to grow up with a balanced view of the effects of colonialism. I also think if I had the energy to protest, I would be one of the 99% protesters. But alas.
I haven’t been able to find work in six months. I blame both the inept government and Christopher Columbus; I blame Columbus because without him I wouldn’t be alive and struggling to survive. If only we could have a holiday in which we sing protest songs against the two most evil entities to ever grace human civilization.Maybe Jeremy can write this song. I think the song should be called “I had no clue that my actions could destroy the whole infrastructure of your civilization, sorry about that.”
Bethany: I agree with the idea of understanding colonialism in a balanced, realistic way. What I'm not sure about is whether Columbus was merely operating within the standards of his time. While it's true that he was trying to please the monarchy he worked for, even according to his own contemporaries (e.g. Bartolemé de Las Casas), Columbus took things further than was necessary. But perhaps as Las Casas was a historian and opposed both Indian slavery and (eventually) African slavery, he might have been considered a radical at the time. (And yes, by the by, he was opposed to slavery in the early 1500s.) Also, to conclude and change the topic simultaneously, all this protesting reminds me of the film Across the Universe.
Benjamin (Ben? Are you a Benjamin that I know?): I understand the not being able to find work dilemma. I was running on food stamps myself not so long ago, and that was with an MA degree. I was one of the lucky ones to find (temporary) work. "Temporary" is actually in my job title. There's a lack of available work, and it seems to be getting more ridiculous all the time. I am curious about how Columbus caused your existence; maybe I'm missing something in the wording there--are you referring to his impact on culture, or are you specifically related (I'm honestly curious)? I do like your song idea, but I'm not certain what the two most evil entities are that you're referring to. But the title is just so catchy, I might have to write it anyway. That or watch Eddie Izzard's Dress to Kill again.
1. We make Columbus to be a hero because we want our story to be the one everyone tells. We want our history to be the history that wins out and is accepted without question. We want to be able to justify our own existence by saying that colonialism wasn't all bad.
2. I think I would reject the question. Whose society? And is benefit to society good or bad? Is civilization a net good or bad? What about asking if he benefited humanity?
3. Oh, very likely. As long as we couched what he did in patriotic terms.
4a. A protest against Columbus Day is relatively useless. There are too few who seriously champion the day or the man to make much of a difference. But I support the idea behind the protest.
4b. I support the Occupy protests. Those who protest are in the relatively unique position of being (quite likely) in the top 5% of wage earners in the world, well-educated and mostly white. If there is an opportunity for real change in the way humanity does things, in our systemic, history-long oligarchy and plutocracy, then perhaps it will take the very rich protesting the insanely rich to get the ball rolling. I know it is cynical to say that common people rising up cannot change things. And maybe the 95-98% at the protests just want to be the 1%. But maybe enough people how have power really do want to let go of that power, and change business as usual.
Timothy: I think you make some very good points about all of this. Also, I apologize for my misspeaking--I did mean 'humanity' in that second question, not 'society.'
With the 95-98% you mention, do you think their heightened financial status as compared to the majority of the populace will work more as a boon or a drawback when it comes to getting other people involved in the cause, or even when it comes to how the whole thing will turn out?
Post a Comment