Columbus and the Treatment of the Native Population

2. Is it fair to blame Columbus for what happened after he "discovered" the Americas? Did something about how he acted, and inter-acted with the native population, set things off on a course that could have been avoided if he had acted differently?

Blaming Columbus is short sighted; he can’t be considered responsible for the treatment of the natives in the Americas. He set a bad precedent, clearly, by treating the natives as inferior, although any other explorer or settler could have reversed the pattern. Bringing back that idea to Europe of how the natives were not equal to the Europeans continued that viewpoint, but it is not Columbus’ fault that other people insisted on following his example.

I think Row made an excellent point in his blog about European identity being the reason that the natives were treated in a negative way. The Europeans, at the time, were an advanced culture, especially in their eyes, causing them to look down on anything they didn’t understand or didn’t seem equal (specifically encouraged through their religious beliefs and more advanced exploration technology and weaponry). With the Americans seemingly less developed, Europeans felt an obligation to force their beliefs to Christianize and modernize the natives. I would think it would have happened anyway; Columbus was simply an outpost of this identity superiority that the Europeans were ready to instill into others.

However, more specifically, looking at Spanish rule during that time gives a better idea of why Columbus, and by extent later explorers, acted the way that they did. The Spanish had a tendency (especially in comparison to the French, who established strong relationships with northern natives with the fur trade) to eliminate entire native cultures. Even if you look at the Spanish at home, with the Inquisition going on at the same time as the exploration of the Americas, those not considered equal in to the Spanish (see natives in America, Moors actually in Spain), were systematically eliminated. That mindset was carried over to the Americas, not just as a fancy or idealistic view of Columbus, but as a societal pattern at the time in Europe and in Spain itself.

1. Which representation of "Indians" here is more acceptable?

Clearly, the museum is more acceptable in a representation of Indians. It tells the real stories of the Native Americans, their history and culture, and everything they’ve suffered through, as well as what they’ve done, especially in modern times, to preserve their identities as individual, sovereign tribes in the United States. Besides, Redskins is a derogatory term in reference to Native Americans, making the team name probably one of the least acceptable ways to phrase it.

Additionally, after viewing the rich history of Native Americans, it’s clear that the Redskins don’t properly represent them. Yes, they’re 4-3 and beat Green Bay (slightly overrated this year, although honestly they’re in the NFC. Bit of a joke compared to the AFC), Philly (when Kolb started most of the game), Cowboys (Definition of a joke even after decimating the Giants, probably the best team in the NFC [at least they will be come playoff time, although Atlanta might be right now. I don’t have faith in Matty Ice even after his ridiculous game against the Ravens] Sorry Tom), and Chicago (who is not as good as their record appears and will get crushed in the playoffs if they manage to sneak in), but still. I think it makes sense that the more acceptable way to look at Native Americans is through the museum, not through the semi stereotypes represented by the name of the Redskins.