Probably the best thing ever posted on blueoregon.com

And we all know how well that one worked out for some.

The American Indians had a liberal immigration policy and look what happened to them!

" Fences make for good neighbors" Nuff said.

Since the natives FAILED to write immigration laws, technically the europeans were not the original illegals.

The "native Americans" came over from the Bering Strait, didn't they? And we call them "native" because they've been here since migrating here. Well... my ancestors (the European mutts, i guess) have been here since migrating here, too.

If argueing the 'who was here first' message is all you take from this I feel for you. The next jobs held for illegals may be the only job your son/grandson may be qualified to do thanks to the wonderful education he received here in OR. A note to The Continental above, they are called 'native' due to the centuries of natualization that took place between their migration and the european invasions. Similar to the migrations of people taking place in Europe around the same time frame. Our mexican fence jumpers and night runners aren't looking to establish a home here for centuries to come. They work unskilled jobs, that are needed by Americans, and either send their earnings back to Mexico (to support that economy), or take it with them and vacation half the year (because the dollar is worth more there), before returning to work to pay for their next vacation. Any way you look at it they're still illegals and should be held to the same laws as immigrants from other countries. The "America for Americans" people are sounding more sane all the time!

I used to think that Native Americans overreated with complaints about Columbus Day. After all, every nation needs its heroes and creation myth. Now I am convinced that much of what is wrong with US government policy, and the citizens who support it, stems from our original sin.

Let's get the crime right first. Although illegal immigration is topical, Columbus and the other early explorers were actually about theft and genocide, a bit more serious than illegal immigration, to my mind.

If what the founding padres did was copacetic, then, by extension, our present imperialism and anti-humanitarianism are excusable as well. That's why the right whines so loudly about what they see as "revisionist history." If the record is corrected, many centuries of crimes lose their original justification.

Historical trends on immirgation aside, the biographical information I've seen about Columbus indicate he was a pretty horrible person. His behavior as a governor in the Caribbean would have made any Dauchau guard proud. It's such an embarrassment of a holiday that schools don't even celebrate it anymore.

I'd love to see our national celebration of this "hero" changed into something that encourages reflection, like "Contact Day," instead of celebrating someone who was extreme in his views and behavior even by the standards of his own era.

Replace Andrew "Trail of Tears" Jackson on the $20 with MLK while we're at it.

We can right the wrong by changing Columbus Day to Leif Erikson Day.

"Replace Andrew "Trail of Tears" Jackson on the $20 with MLK while we're at it."

Why stop there? George Washington was a (gasp) slaveowner! Do we really want his image on the ubiquitous $1 bill? Let alone a monument to the man in the nation’s capital?

If we start scrutinizing the accomplishments of figures from history through today’s prism of stifling political correctness with no consideration of the times in which they lived, they will all found to be lacking.

BR,

Yes, historical perspective is important, but there's a big difference between George Washington and Christopher Columbus. Owning slaves is a black mark, but George did a lot to redeem himself. Cristobal got lost on the way to Asia, then initiated the rip-off of 2 continents and the destruction of a people.

I mean, should il Duce be rehabilitated because he made the trains run on time and Fascism was an accepted politics of 1930's Europe? We are not excused from reexamining the past because we don't live there.

George Washing did a lot to redeem himself... so, basically, the moral equalizer is based on your personal point of view on how great GW's political and military campaigns were? I'm sure that there are at least a billion people in the world that aren't so keen on the idea that helping establish the United States is a redeeming act... or that attacking German soldiers in their sleep should be considered a brilliant military victory.

Clark (of Lewis and Clark) owned a slave... his expedition arguably paved the way for the casinoization of how many indian tribes? And he was doing all that under the orders of his government (like Columbus). But he still gets statues, schools, and places and crap named after him... because he was among the first to push the boundaries of human exploration, endurance, and adventure.

Sometimes you don't get holidays or statues based on how well you conform to one particular moral point of view (from any era) or what goods or evils your work spawned down the road. Columbus led a pretty ballsy expedition... not once, but four times. It's not for his sparkling personality that we named two state capitals and a pretty cool river after him.

Even though he was probably a dick.

Slavery is indefensible, and I won't do it. even less defensible is killing people because they're in your way, have something you want, or won't do what you want. That has been considered immoral by most religions for a couple thousand years, at least. Of course, it has always been easy to define some people as less than human to make their offing more palatable. It all looks like murder to me.

<h2>Lewis and Clark were intrepid explorers, but they are seldom discussed today without reference to the unhappy fate of the tribes they met on the way west. Columbus largely gets a pass, although he was personally involved in the killing of many American natives.</h2>