Columbus Day v Indigenous People's Day v Leif Erikson Day

[Max_S]

@Miller

And this history of that state is the history of the people who form it.

That doesn’t follow at all, at least not by my intuition.

~Max

[iiandyiiii]

ISTM that you’re thinking a country is strictly a formal state entity, and nothing more. What others are saying is that a country is more than that, and includes the land, peoples, cultures, etc., that make it up and made it up. So American history is the history of the formal state of the USA, but also the history of the people that live within its borders, and the history of the people that lived on the land that eventually became part of the USA.

So it seems like a semantics discussion.

[Max_S]

@GreenWyvern

And indigenous culture didn’t?

Indigenous culture did and in some areas does influence the culture of the United States.

@GreenWyvern

You’ve bought into the myth of the ‘stupid savage’.

I have not, or at least I don’t think I have.

@GreenWyvern

See the compelling arguments in the book I mentioned above, that 18th century Enlightenment values arose as a result of the Native-American critique of European culture. And arose first in France due to the engagement of Jesuit priests in debates with Native-Americans.

I did read the reviews you linked, but not having read the book yet I have no formed opinion on the claims.

@GreenWyvern

Nor were indigenous Americans stupid.

I don’t believe indigenous Americans were stupid. I don’t even believe the concept of a nation or state is predicated on agriculture.

@GreenWyvern

The idea that indigenous societies and politics were simple or unsophisticated is similarly mistaken.

Agreed… but I don’t think I’ve claimed otherwise.

~Max

[Max_S]

And for my own part, my family has no ties to England or Angles or Saxons. One side is, I believe (would have to check), entirely descended from Russian Jews fleeing pogroms just over a century ago. The other side fled China in 1949, within living memory.

~Max

[Max_S]

@Yookeroo

WTF does “opposite of U.S. history” even mean?

I should have written, the side of history opposite the U.S. As in wars and such.

~Max

[Telemark]

@Max_S

That doesn’t follow at all, at least not by my intuition.

Then perhaps you should revisit your intuition.

[Max_S]

@thorny_locust

And the history of the United States is the history of all of us.

@Max_S

If a shared history is required for a national identity, but not all history is shared by the individuals who comprise the nation, it follows that some history is excluded.

No. It does not follow. What follows is that the shared history needs to include the history of all of us.

What are you trying to say here? I assume you made a counterargument, but I see this (by simple substitution)

the shared history needs to include the history of the United States

not this

no history is excluded

@thorny_locust

Attempting to include the history only of Europeans in the case of the United States is absurd.

I didn’t attempt to include the history only of Europeans, I would exclude history of any individual before they join the nation.

@thorny_locust

Columbus was long before anyone joined the nation.

That is true.

@thorny_locust

But for one hell of a lot of other people, also no U.S.

Will address this with MrDibble’s post later.

@thorny_locust

I was born in the USA and have lived here all my life and Max, you do not get to declare what the national identity of the USA is.

You don’t have to agree with me… but I do get to declare what the national identity of the USA is.

~Max

[Max_S]

@Telemark

This is an assertion of yours, but it’s not supported by anything. Our national identity isn’t some uniform story that everyone must incorporate into their narrative. There’s no reason that everyone must identify with every aspect of our history.

There is a reason behind my opinion, which you actually picked up on right here:

@Telemark

Our national identity isn’t singular

National identity is singular. It follows from semantics. Stop me where you disagree: “identity” is singular, therefore “national identity” is also singular.

~Max

[Max_S]

@MrDibble

Sophistry

If I was, not on purpose.

~Max

[Max_S]

@Max_S

The great famine in Ireland, for example, is properly Irish/British history and not U.S. history.

@MrDibble

Why is some Italian, who never set foot on it, part of US history, but thousands of Irish, who very much did, are not? That’s nonsensical.

@Max_S

But-for Columbus, no U.S.

@thorny_locust

But for one hell of a lot of other people, also no U.S.

And if Columbus hadn’t made that voyage, other people in Europe would have soon figured out there was a continent there – some of them already had found some of the actual continent, which is more than Columbus did.

What happened was that Europe at that point had developed the technology to make long ocean voyages that were out of sight of land for significant periods; and that Europe at that point had multiple nations with competitive expansionists natures.

@Tamerlane

Almost certainly not true. I mean butterfly wings and all, but really Columbus was just lucky to be the discoverer of record. Others probably preceded him in the north searching for fishing grounds and the Portuguese hit Brazil just a few years later. As noted above it is likely an inevitability the New World have been “discovered” in a matter of a few decades at the most, if not in just a few years (it is uncertain whether Cabral’s was an accidental discovery, but it is quite plausible - given their activity off Africa it was an easy reach). It wouldn’t have remained isolated until 1768 or whatever.

@MrDibble

Same-same for the Irish. […] Like, say, excluding from US identity any Caribbean, Italian and Spanish history circa 1492? Be consistent, man.

I have made a grievous mistake. By my own arguments the voyages of Columbus are not properly U.S. history. If you would allow me to revise my response,

@MrDibble

Why is some Italian, who never set foot on it, part of US history, but thousands of Irish, who very much did, are not? That’s nonsensical.

Neither would properly be part of U.S. history.

~Max

[thorny_locust]

nm, posted before I was ready

[Max_S]

@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.

I don’t see the self-evident moral value, so I guess that’s that.

~Max

[thorny_locust]

@Max_S

I have made a grievous mistake. By my own arguments the voyages of Columbus are not properly U.S. history.

OK. So we’re done here, right? You’ve agreed that the entire premise of your thread was wrong.

[Max_S]

@iiandyiiii

ISTM that you’re thinking a country is strictly a formal state entity, and nothing more. What others are saying is that a country is more than that, and includes the land, peoples, cultures, etc., that make it up and made it up. So American history is the history of the formal state of the USA, but also the history of the people that live within its borders, and the history of the people that lived on the land that eventually became part of the USA.

So it seems like a semantics discussion.

That may be the focus of the discussion, but aside from linguistics I do actually take a position - a weak one I admit, but as of yet still my opinion - and others actually disagree with it.

~Max

[Max_S]

@Telemark

Then perhaps you should revisit your intuition.

(If only it were so easy!)

~Max

[Max_S]

@thorny_locust

OK. So we’re done here, right? You’ve agreed that the entire premise of your thread was wrong.

No, unfortunately Columbus being part of U.S. history was not the premise. That was a tangent. :sad:

~Max

[Telemark]

@Max_S

National identity is singular.

No, it really isn’t. Are you saying that a national identity that includes descendants of slaves and descendants of slave-owners is singular? That the national identity of the DAR and those of the Japanese interned during WWII are singular?

Your premise doesn’t pass the smell test. You’re striving to support an idea that makes no sense, and you’re twisting yourself into knots trying to defend it. It’s a worthless definition since it doesn’t mean anything to vast number of Americans.

[GreenWyvern]

@Max_S

No, unfortunately Columbus being part of U.S. history was not the premise.

I’m still trying to understand your viewpoint and it still doesn’t seem to make sense.

According to your narrow legalistic view, are you saying that nothing that happened before 1776 was part of US history, because the US didn’t legally exist before that?

And that nothing that happened outside the formal borders of the US is part of US history if it didn’t involve US citizens?

[Telemark]

And what is a National Identity? Who does it apply to? What is it used for?

[thorny_locust]

@Max_S

unfortunately Columbus being part of U.S. history was not the premise.

um, I guess you’re right about that. We appear to have been arguing about that only since post 35 of a now roughly 280 post thread.

@Telemark

And what is a National Identity? Who does it apply to? What is it used for?

Or maybe that’s what we’ve been arguing about since post 35. It doesn’t seem to be getting any clearer, whatever it is.