# 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:** 9\ **Page:** 18
**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, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/397 "2021-11-22T23:09:52Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > > [@Max\_S](#): > > > > Do you mean, how do I justify rejecting that an oppressor lacks positive moral value? > > The first one, first. The act of oppression lacks positive moral value, in my opinion. Therefore an oppressor lacks positive moral value. I do not reject that and do not attempt to justify rejecting it. I’m confused with the whole line of questioning, so please do retain the initiative. > [@MrDibble](#): > > You’re saying someone is wrong about correctly assessing _who they identify with_ ? No. There is a subtle difference between _who they identify with_/_what they identify as_ and _their identity_. The former construction specifies that it is up to the person. The latter construction does not. A person can identify themself as a Martian and be wrong about their identity. If I say that person is wrong about their identity, I can still say they identify themself as a Martian without contradicting myself. (You can insert any word for “Martian”.) ~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, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/398 "2021-11-22T23:15:33Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Yes. They were there first, how could they be _foreign_ ? Well, if you had a map of tribes from 10000 BC and one from 1776, the tribes would be radically different. Tribes warred, came, went, disappeared, interbred, joined together, were wiped out and etc. True, the native American tribes were here first. ---
**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 22, 2021, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/399 "2021-11-22T23:24:27Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > 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. What is the subject of the exhibit itself? Because it seems to me that you’re claiming that the subject of the exhibit is ‘everybody who matters to the history and/or identity of the USA’. And if that’s the subject: then you need a whole lot of additional people in there. If the subject is ‘men of European descent who were important to the history of the USA’, then your exhibit seems pretty accurate, though we could certainly argue about the prominence of Columbus in relation to Cabot and a batch of fishermen whose names may not have been recorded. > [@Max\_S](#): > > 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. If a sense of identity is based solely on othering somebody else, I think that’s a pretty poor sense of identity, and probably indicates a weak one. The purpose of a group sense of identity is to hold that group together. Most, maybe all, human groups occasionally bring in people who were, and may in some senses continue to be, members of other groups. We are an out-crossing species, and need such exchanges. Part of the essential identity of the United States is exactly that it has brought in members of many other groups. > [@Max\_S](#): > > I am at liberty to assign any group a common identity without their knowing, much less their consent; Inside your own head? Sure, nobody can stop you. But don’t expect anybody else, let alone members of that group, to agree with you. > [@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? The British were a foreign adversary during the war for independence in 1776. ---
**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 23, 2021, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/400 "2021-11-23T00:04:45Z")
> **Recap (click to show/hide)** > > > [@Telemark](#): > > > > Are you saying that a national identity that includes descendants of slaves and descendants of slave-owners is singular? > > > [@Max\_S](#): > > > > Yes, of course. 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. > > > [@MrDibble](#): > > > > Blacks who don’t identify with slaveowners aren’t real Americans, gotcha. > > > [@Religious/Secular holidays in America (mostly Christmas, split from the Columbus Day thread)](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-secular-holidays-in-america-mostly-christmas-split-from-the-columbus-day-thread/954138/52): > > > > FFS, dude, you’re expecting non-Christian Americans to treat the iconography of Christian angels etc. as a neutral de-religionized element of a shared secular holiday, even though in your next breath you can point out how Max\_S is wrong in expecting Black Americans to treat the iconography of the white Founding Fathers as a neutral de-racialized element of shared cultural identity? > > > [@Religious/Secular holidays in America (mostly Christmas, split from the Columbus Day thread)](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-secular-holidays-in-america-mostly-christmas-split-from-the-columbus-day-thread/954138/53): > > > > That’s not what I was saying. I said _when_ they _don’t_ do that, he’s wrong to call them not part of the same nation. > > > [@Max\_S](#): > > > > To clarify, if A and I agree we belong to the same nation, but A thinks that isn’t the same national identity as slaveowners in the 1820s, I think A has the wrong definition of national identity. But I still think A and I belong to the same nation. > > > > 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. > > > [@MrDibble](#): > > > > The issue here is you have outright said B and you _don’t_ share a national identity. _B_ is the one who thinks they belong to the same nation as you. > > > [@Max\_S](#): > > > > I did not say B and I _have_ different national identities, but I did say B _thinks_ we belong to different nations. > > > [@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 > > > [@Max\_S](#): > > > > 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. > [@MrDibble](#): > > So, circular reasoning, then. Where? Circular reasoning involves the conclusion being a premise in its own argument, but I haven’t done that here. 🤔 You must think ‘a Black who doesn’t identify with slaveowner descendants’ is the same as ‘a descendant of slaves who doesn’t share the same national identity as a slave-owner descendant’. They are different, to me. I don’t mean Black vs descendant of slaves. I mean, ‘_doesn’t identify with X_’ is different from ‘_doesn’t share the same identity as X_’. See the second half of [post #397](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/397) and the last paragraph of [post #390](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/390). ~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 23, 2021, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/401 "2021-11-23T00:29:22Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > They were there first, how could they be _foreign_ ? Foreign meaning not part of the United States, the nation. If the Cherokee were not a foreign nation, it follows then that they were part of the United States at the time when the same Cherokee fought a war against the United States. This is revisionism but I have not yet heard a relevant (let alone persuasive) reason for the reinterpretation. ~Max ---
**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 23, 2021, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/402 "2021-11-23T03:34:03Z")
Your entire thesis revolves around your definition of National Identity, which appears to be unique to you. The history of people who are currently part of the USA (Native Americans, descendants of slaves) is part of their sense of who they are and where they came from. If that’s not included in your definition of National Identity then your definition is worthless. It sounds like it is logically consistent, based on a few simple principles, and totally useless for any legitimate purpose. Literally no one uses your definition, because it needlessly excludes the history that forms the identity of people in the USA. What is the purpose of your definition? How would you go about using it? ---
**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 23, 2021, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/403 "2021-11-23T05:22:01Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Foreign meaning not part of the United States, the nation. The … nation that didn’t yet exist? _That_ nation? > [@Max\_S](#): > > I mean, ‘ _doesn’t identify with X_ ’ is different from ‘ _doesn’t share the same identity as X_ ’. More sophistry. As to the 2 posts referenced: > [@Max\_S](#): > > A person can identify themself as a Martian and be wrong about their identity. Blacks are not Martians. Do you have any idea _how_ insulting that kind of analogy is? People can’t be _wrong_ about their own identity. They can _lie_ about it (see Doleanz, Rachel) but they won’t be _mistaken_ about the one they do have. You may _disagree_ that they should identify that way. That doesn’t make them wrong, it just means there are multiple identities in play. > [@Max\_S](#): > > 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; That’s not how identity works. You’re just assigning a _label_, not an actual _identity_. Identity - national identity - comes from within. ---
**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 23, 2021, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/404 "2021-11-23T05:24:27Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Well, if you had a map of tribes from 10000 BC and one from 1776, the tribes would be radically different. Doesn’t matter. The English didn’t exist in 10000 BC either. By “here first” I mean “When the colonists came, they were already living there” ---
**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 23, 2021, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/405 "2021-11-23T06:39:07Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > The act of oppression lacks positive moral value, in my opinion. Therefore an oppressor lacks positive moral value. I do not reject that and do not attempt to justify rejecting it. Yes, you are confused. My question was " how do you justify rejecting that one _not_ having a positive moral value" as a follow-on from _you_ saying “I don’t see the self-evident moral value” MY question is - if oppressors have negative moral value, what is _not_ self-evident in rejecting them? Hence my question as to what moral framework you’re using, since it’s clearly one where rejecting negative moral traits is not axiomatically good. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323.md?page=17)