# Columbus Day v Indigenous People's Day v Leif Erikson Day **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 11, 2021, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323 "2021-10-11T21:56:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2021, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/377 "2021-11-10T18:45:58Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > the choice to distinguish U.S. history from Irish history &etc. is entirely mine and follows from the bright-line definition of national identity I have used. Which, as you agreed, excludes both Columbus and his voyages. > [@Max\_S](#): > > > [@thorny\_locust](#): > > > > Part of the problem with it is that you want to broaden it all the way to Columbus, but narrow it everywhere that applies to non-Europeans. > > I don’t see why that would be a problem in and of itself. Again, I don’t know where to start. I don’t understand why you seem unable to understand that that’s deliberately diminishing the contributions to the country of all heritages that aren’t European, while exaggerating the contributions of Europeans. Or, alternatively, why you seem unable to understand what’s wrong with that. / / / You want a single national identity for the USA, one that includes all its citizens? Try this: We are the country that started off by saying that it is self-evident that all men are created equal and have the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And that has been arguing, ever since, about exactly what that means. I think it’s quite possible to see all of US history through that lens; to teach it to children in that fashion; to include both the evils that were done, and the resistance to those evils; to include the evil-doers, the sufferers, the resisters, and the complicated and difficult but nevertheless essential fact that many people were more than one of those at the same time. And _it doesn’t leave anybody out_. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2021, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/378 "2021-11-10T18:55:43Z")
Apologies. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2021, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/379 "2021-11-10T19:40:47Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Yes. OK, so if there _is_ a moral difference, and one is _necessarily_ a negative one, how do you justify rejecting that one _not_ having a positive moral value? > [@Max\_S](#): > > Both could have the same singular national identity without both acknowledging it. One explicitly identifies with European colonialists and one explicitly does not. How can they have the same identity when who they identify with is, according to you, an inextricable part of national identity? > [@Max\_S](#): > > I did not say B and I _have_ different national identities, but I did say B _thinks_ we belong to different nations. No, you said _you think_ B belongs to a different nation: > [@Max\_S](#): > > If a slave-owner’s descendent and a slave’s descendent did not share the same national identity, they would not belong to the same nation ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2021, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/380 "2021-11-10T21:12:36Z")
> [@thorny\_locust](#): > > Which, as you agreed, excludes both Columbus and his voyages. That’s right. > [@thorny\_locust](#): > > I don’t understand why you seem unable to understand that that’s deliberately diminishing the contributions to the country of all heritages that aren’t European, while exaggerating the contributions of Europeans. Or, alternatively, why you seem unable to understand what’s wrong with that. It’s the latter. The contributions of non-European heritage was for a long time actually diminished, so it only makes sense to identify the United States as a people who, for a long time and even to some extent today, were dominated by European heritage. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2021, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/381 "2021-11-10T21:24:43Z")
> **Recap (click to show/hide)** > > > [@Max\_S](#): > > > > the idea that we should replace Columbus Day with a dedicated Indigenous People’s Day gives me the impression that we are re-defining the national identity; re-identifying the nation with the Native Americans that resisted colonists and European derived culture, because now we realize how horrible the colonists were. > > > [@MrDibble](#): > > > > You say this like it would be a _bad_ thing… > > > [@Max\_S](#): > > > > Would you care to argue why it would be a _good_ thing? > > > [@MrDibble](#): > > > > If you don’t see the self-evident moral value in basing your identity around resisters to oppression rather than oppressors, I don’t think any amount of _argument_ is going to help you. > > > [@Max\_S](#): > > > > I don’t see the self-evident moral value, so I guess that’s that. > > > [@MrDibble](#): > > > > Let me just check - are you actually saying you see no moral difference between an oppressor and a resister to oppression? > > > [@Max\_S](#): > > > > I am not actually saying that. > > > [@MrDibble](#): > > > > Do you see a moral difference between an oppressor and a resister to oppression, yes or no? > > > [@Max\_S](#): > > > > Yes. ETA: An oppressor is by definition unjust, whereas a resister to oppression is not necessarily just or unjust. > [@MrDibble](#): > > OK, so if there _is_ a moral difference, and one is _necessarily_ a negative one, how do you justify rejecting that one _not_ having a positive moral value? Do you mean, how do I justify rejecting that an oppressor lacks positive moral value? Or do you mean, how do I justify rejecting that a resister to oppression is part of the national identity? ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2021, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/382 "2021-11-10T21:49:58Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > One explicitly identifies with European colonialists and one explicitly does not. How can they have the same identity when who they identify with is, according to you, an inextricable part of national identity? If the two are part of the same nation, at least one person is wrong. Look at it this way. Let’s say my friend John thinks the U.S. was founded by Martians, and that the planet Mars is our national homeland. I still think John is an American - he was born here, is considered a citizen by the law and pretty much everybody in this country. John still thinks _I_ am an American. We both think we share the same national identity - we just have different ideas as to what that identity entails. John thinks it involves Martians. I think it doesn’t. John thinks I’m wrong. I think John is wrong. > [@MrDibble](#): > > No, you said _you think_ B belongs to a different nation: > > > [@Max\_S](#): > > > > If a slave-owner’s descendent and a slave’s descendent did not share the same national identity, they would not belong to the same nation What you quoted relies on a premise: two people do not share the same national identity. That premise is denied in example B, so far as I am concerned: > And if B thinks I belong to a different nation, **but I think B and I belong to the same nation _and_ I think the law backs me up** , I still think B and I belong to the same nation. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2021, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/383 "2021-11-10T23:43:28Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > > [@thorny\_locust](#): > > > > Which, as you agreed, excludes both Columbus and his voyages. > > That’s right. OK, so you’re now saying that we should not celebrate Columbus Day, and while we’re at it should not identify with the conquistadors, who also long pre-dated the nation? > [@Max\_S](#): > > The contributions of non-European heritage was for a long time actually diminished, so it only makes sense to identify the United States as a people who, for a long time and even to some extent today, were dominated by European heritage. No; that’s why it makes sense to stop diminishing the contributions of non-European heritage by pretending that the European contributions are the only ones that matter. > [@Max\_S](#): > > > [@MrDibble](#): > > > > One explicitly identifies with European colonialists and one explicitly does not. How can they have the same identity when who they identify with is, according to you, an inextricable part of national identity? > > If the two are part of the same nation, at least one person is wrong. Consider the possibility that the person who’s wrong is the one who’s insisting that national identity rests on identifying with only one specific segment of the nation. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2021, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/384 "2021-11-11T01:34:41Z")
> [@thorny\_locust](#): > > OK, so you’re now saying that we should not celebrate Columbus Day, and while we’re at it should not identify with the conquistadors, who also long pre-dated the nation? I didn’t say either of those things. But if you can quote where I did, I will recant. > [@thorny\_locust](#): > > Consider the possibility that the person who’s wrong is the one who’s insisting that national identity rests on identifying with only one specific segment of the nation. I don’t insist that it rests on identifying with one specific segment of the nation, I’ve been saying that for most of history the nation didn’t include swaths of Native Americans or Blacks or Chinese or what have you; and when those groups were integrated into the nation, the only changes to the national identity were changes going forward. > [@thorny\_locust](#): > > No; that’s why it makes sense to stop diminishing the contributions of non-European heritage by pretending that the European contributions are the only ones that matter. The language you use, “diminishing” or “exaggerating”, are present-tense. This hasn’t escaped my notice and… _reminds_ me that you have a totally different perspective of the issue than I do. You write as if I am _actively_ doing something wrong. My idea of a national identity is rather fixed - I won’t say I’m totally close-minded but this is not something I would expect to change from a single internet debate. I’m sure you understand that a lot goes into a person’s sense of identity, both mine and yours. * * * To me the national identity is sort of like a gallery, a particular exhibit in a museum of identities, with a painting associated with event or each time period I happen to consider. The exhibit has a well-defined subject, the _nation_ of people. I look at the paintings that represent the nation in 1789, 1820, 1840, &etc. and where Native Americans are present at all, they are usually sidelined or in the background. For example there is a painting of the Cherokee removal, for example, but the subjects of the paintings are U.S. army or state militia members. Before 1776, borrowed from other national collections (such as the British or Dutch) the paintings show the people of the colonies who would later form the nation. Native Americans are even more rare as the subjects of a painting. And so on, until we pass paintings of the Mayflower and other such ships, and the hall opens up into large room. Here are those portraits of ships and explorers and conquistadores and missionaries, a bridge between the Eastern and Western hemispheres. Prominent in this room is the arrival of Columbus in the Caribbean. * * * So, take the Cherokee removal as an example. You come to me, and tell me my museum is poorly curated. Cherokees are part of the nation now, aren’t they? So why are you diminishing the heritage of Cherokees by displaying paintings where their removal is _only in the background_? Let’s paint a more accurate picture of the nation and hang it in that spot, a picture where the Cherokee people are in focus too. I understand but only to some extent. Only recently did the nation include the Cherokee people, and so it doesn’t make sense to me to _go back_ and make changes - it seems revisionist. Dangerous. I need more to go on than inclusiveness for the sake of inclusiveness… which is not inherently moral enough to make changes, in my opinion. The entire purpose of having a national identity, or any other form of identity, is to distinguish in-groups from out-groups. Inclusiveness for its own sake is antithetical to that purpose. I don’t know… just some thoughts… ~Max ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2021, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/385 "2021-11-11T01:57:29Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > > [@thorny\_locust](#): > > > > OK, so you’re now saying that we should not celebrate Columbus Day, and while we’re at it should not identify with the conquistadors, who also long pre-dated the nation? > > I didn’t say either of those things. But if you can quote where I did, I will recant. It seems to me that they follow from your saying that Columbus is excluded from “the bright-line definition of national identity” that you were using. > [@Max\_S](#): > > I don’t insist that it rests on identifying with one specific segment of the nation, I’ve been saying that for most of history the nation didn’t include swaths of Native Americans or Blacks or Chinese or what have you Yes it did. > [@Max\_S](#): > > To me the national identity is sort of like a gallery, a particular exhibit in a museum of identities, with a painting associated with event or each time period I happen to consider. The exhibit has a well-defined subject, the _nation_ of people. I look at the paintings that represent the nation in 1789, 1820, 1840, &etc. and where Native Americans are present at all, they are usually sidelined or in the background. [considerably etcetera, I’m not going to quote it all] The problem is that you’re looking at a museum full of paintings that were selected to focus on members of only one group; not at a museum full of photographs which show who was actually there. And when people point out that the paintings left people out, you want to cite the paintings as if they proved that those who they chose to leave out weren’t there in the first place. But they were there; and it’s a problem that you’re preferring to look at the selectively-chosen focus of the paintings, and refusing to look at the people who were actually there. > [@Max\_S](#): > > The entire purpose of having a national identity, or any other form of identity, is to distinguish in-groups from out-groups. Nope. For one thing, it isn’t really something that has a purpose, as if it were designed by somebody and imposed on the others – it’s something that happens as the result of a concatenation of a whole lot of interactions. For another, cohesiveness and indentification within a group has to do with that group’s internal interrelationships. If the only relationship they’ve got with each other is that they all want to other somebody else, you haven’t got a group identity there at all. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2021, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/386 "2021-11-11T02:30:46Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Only recently did the nation include the Cherokee people, and so it doesn’t make sense to me to _go back_ and make changes - it seems revisionist. Dangerous. You say revisionist, everyone else is saying that it is correcting historical wrongs. You seem to insist on remaining on the wrong side of history. This nation always included the Cherokee, we just didn’t acknowledge it until relatively recently. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2021, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/387 "2021-11-11T02:59:31Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > it doesn’t make sense to me to _go back_ and make changes - it seems revisionist Revisionism is a good thing. It’s how the study of history is supposed to work. If we don’t occasionally revise our understanding of history we’re being shitty historians. There’s are reasons [Gibbons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_the_Decline_and_Fall_of_the_Roman_Empire) is no longer the go to text on the Roman empire. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2021, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/388 "2021-11-11T04:43:53Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Do you mean, how do I justify rejecting that an oppressor lacks positive moral value? The first one, first. > [@Max\_S](#): > > If the two are part of the same nation, at least one person is wrong.[…]I think John is wrong. You’re saying someone is wrong about correctly assessing _who they identify with_? Because if you mean they’re wrong about which nation they consider themselves to be, we’re right back to “Blacks who don’t identify with colonialists aren’t real Americans”. Because you’re saying you think they’re wrong. > [@Max\_S](#): > > What you quoted relies on a premise: two people do not share the same national identity. So, circular reasoning, then. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2021, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/389 "2021-11-20T21:51:59Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Of course Columbus is an important part of USA history, as his voyages started European settlement of the New world In this sense, of course, so are Hideki Tojo, Thomas Pelham-Holles, and John Cabot. I’d argue Cabot, certainly, is more important in the sweep of early American history than Columbus, and yet there’s no Cabot Day. Italian-Americans could even claim him in place of Columbus (his real name was Caboto.) ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2021, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/390 "2021-11-22T17:50:56Z")
> [@thorny\_locust](#): > > It seems to me that they follow from your saying that Columbus is excluded from “the bright-line definition of national **identity** ” that you were using. History, not identity. > [@thorny\_locust](#): > > > [@Max\_S](#): > > > > > [@thorny\_locust](#): > > > > > > Consider the possibility that the person who’s wrong is the one who’s insisting that national identity rests on identifying with only one specific segment of the nation. > > > > I don’t insist that it rests on identifying with one specific segment of the nation, I’ve been saying that for most of history the nation didn’t include swaths of Native Americans or Blacks or Chinese or what have you; > > Yes it did. We disagree on what is or is not part of a nation’s history proper; however I still do not insist that national identity rests on identifying with only one specific segment of the nation today. > [@thorny\_locust](#): > > The problem is that you’re looking at a museum full of paintings that were selected to focus on members of only one group; not at a museum full of photographs which show who was actually there. Exactly my point, I see a nation as a specific group of people - not necessarily the people who were “there”. You are not pointing out a lost work that belongs in my exhibit, nor proposing a restoration, nor are you exposing any works in my collections as fraudulent. You would have me change the subject of the exhibit itself. > [@thorny\_locust](#): > > Nope. For one thing, it isn’t really something that has a purpose, as if it were designed by somebody and imposed on the others – it’s something that happens as the result of a concatenation of a whole lot of interactions. For another, cohesiveness and indentification within a group has to do with that group’s internal interrelationships. If the only relationship they’ve got with each other is that they all want to other somebody else, you haven’t got a group identity there at all. I disagree. I think there _is_ a purpose to identity: to distinguish same from different, self from non-self, us from them, in-groups from out-groups etc. A desire to ‘other somebody else’ is all it takes. Identity can be designed and imposed unilaterally, or by mutual consent. I am at liberty to assign any group a common identity without their knowing, much less their consent; I may do so without the members sharing any other trait whatsoever. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2021, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/391 "2021-11-22T17:55:32Z")
Actually, apparently, he liked to sign his name _Zuan Chabotto._ But yes, I will give you Cabot. The question is- would Cabot have made his voyages if Columbus hadn’t done his first? It does not appear so, and Cabot still thought he could find China going West. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2021, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/392 "2021-11-22T18:01:55Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > You say revisionist, everyone else is saying that it is correcting historical wrongs. You seem to insist on remaining on the wrong side of history. This nation always included the Cherokee, we just didn’t acknowledge it until relatively recently. Is it a historical wrong - that is, an inaccuracy - that the Cherokee nation was a foreign adversary during the war for independence in 1776? That they became U.S. nationals on an individual basis, until an act of Congress granted the remainder citizenship in the '20s? ~Max ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2021, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/393 "2021-11-22T18:52:27Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > But yes, I will give you Cabot. The question is- would Cabot have made his voyages if Columbus hadn’t done his first? Maybe; exploration fever was running high in Europe, and had not started with Columbus. Advances had been made towards the exploration of Africa and as far westward across the Atlantic as technology and people’s courage allowed. Columbus was not the only guy thinking of finding a new way to the Far East, since the Ottomans had cut off the overland trade routes. Columbus wasn’t even the first guy to think of heading West to go the other way around the globe. I am not sure if Cabot specifically went because of Columbus or because it seemed like a profitable idea to sell to a patron (and he had significant financial concerns that would motivate a venture that could be lucrative and would also get you away from Europe for awhile) but it’s worth noting that, of course, Cabot actually found North America, and did so on behalf of the English crown. His was the first foray by England, and the fact Columbus landed in Hispaniola and South America while Cabot landed in (what is now) Canada and the USA has a lot to do with why the USA was founded the way it was by the people it was founded by. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2021, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/394 "2021-11-22T18:54:14Z")
Sure. I will give you that. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2021, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/395 "2021-11-22T19:58:46Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Is it a historical wrong - that is, an inaccuracy - that the Cherokee nation was a foreign adversary during the war for independence in 1776? Yes. They were there first, how could they be _foreign_? Now, were they traditionally presented as such, as though they were a foreign power like the British they allied with? Yes. But that view was/is _ **wrong** _. ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Mouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mighty_mouse/32/7776_2.png) [@Mighty\_Mouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Mouse)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2021, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/396 "2021-11-22T20:17:54Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Is it a historical wrong - that is, an inaccuracy - that the Cherokee nation was a foreign adversary during the war for independence in 1776? Words fail me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323.md?page=18)