Why I do not celebrate Columbus Day

[Maimonides]

The following is a short blog I posted on myspace:


Saturday, October 08, 2005



Why I do not celebrate Columbus Day

As an aspiring historian it has often occured to me that "the winners write the history books." A wise friend once told me: "history is written by those who killed heroes." Well put... I'm especially reminded of this unequal treatment every year on Columbus Day.

The New World wasn't so new to the peoples who had called various parts of it home for thousands of years. From the Canadian Arctic to Tierra del Fuego, Native American and Alaska Native societies spanned a vast spectrum of diversity and variety, from egalitarian hunter-gatherer bands in the Great Basin of what is now the western United States to urban, literate civilizations with centralized empires in central Mexico. Within the lower 48 states the largest human societies were those of the Mississippian moundbuilders, a cultural florescence fueled by the rise of a strain of Mexican corn adapted to north-central North America's shorter growing seasons. Mississippian temple-mounds evocative of the stepped pyramids or ziggurats of Mesoamerica can still be seen in the southeastern United States today. Indeed, much archaeological evidence points to sustained trade contact between Mesoamerica and the southeast.

In the Andes, another civilization flourished from a source quite independent of Mesoamerica. Long before the Inka or Quechua people, who carved out one of the largest empires of the latter 15th-early 16th centuries, many earlier cultures flourished and left an extensive archaeological presence: Nazca, Tiwanaku, Wari, Moche, Chimu. The Andean societies lacked writing but possessed a skilled metal-working tradition that seems to have spread north to Mesoamerica, where Zapotec and later Mixtec craftsmen made fine objects of gold and silver. The Andes was also the only area in the western hemisphere prior to Columbus to possess a large, domestic animal: the llama/alpaca, two divergent breeds domesticated from the guanaco, a South American camelid.

In my own home state of California, only a few peoples practiced any form of horticulture. Almost all lived successfully as hunter-gatherers, harvesting the products of the land. These native Californians were not one but a myriad group of peoples from widely different language families, some found only in California. Their societies were enormously different, from the egalitarian band societies of the Washo, Paiute and Shoshoni in the Great Basin (eastern California eastward into Nevada and Arizona), to the stratified, sedentary chiefdoms of the Chumash in the Santa Barbara area and the northern Channel Islands. Central and north-central California was the domain of the Miwok, Maiduan peoples, Wintu, Wintun and others, often fairly mobile but with a measure of centralization into the so-called tribelet. These groups subsisted primarily on acorns, which they ground into meal and leached with water to remove the bitter tannins. The meal was cooked in water-tight woven baskets, with hot rocks placed inside for heat. Basketry is truly a justly-famed California tradition, and that of the Pomo famed above all: baskets were woven for a diverse array of purposes, from utilitarian to spiritual and artistic.

In all likelihood it will never be known exactly how many indigenous peoples called the Americas home at the time of contact. There were undoubtedly hundreds of thousands in California (perhaps 300,000 or more), probably no fewer than 100,000 in Hispaniola alone, and undoubtedly tens of millions in Mesoamerica as well as the Andes. What is more sure by far is that contact was disastrous.

Columbus and his Spanish successors brutally enslaved the native peoples, forcing them to labor as feudal slaves in Caribbean plantations, and to raise the edifices of European, Christian civilization everywhere they planted the flag. Indigenous cultures were supplanted and distorted and destroyed by the disastrous effects of the invasive European cultures and Christianity. Small wonder that in the famous Pueblo rebellion of 1680, the native rebels burned Christian churches and smashed icons. The well-known missions of my home state of California were built with Indian slave labor.

But worst of all were the diseases, against which indigenous peoples had no immunity. The indigenous peoples died at a prodigious rate, so much so that the Spaniards had to rely first on imported slaves from other islands in the Caribbean to fill the ranks in Hispaniola, and, by 1510, an astonishing eighteen years after Columbus's first voyage, African slaves who were more resistant to diseases and hard labor. Everywhere it was the same pattern: the population of central Mexico fell from ~25 million in 1519 (when Cortez arrived), to about one million three hundred thousand by 1600. In 1769 the first mission was founded in what is now the state of California by Franciscan friars. From 1769 until 1826, a string of missions was established along the western coast, leaving a trail of blood and oppression in the name of religious prosyletizing.

I was actually surprised to learn that the mission influence was felt as far inland as Nevada County (my home), adjacent to Nevada state. A leader from the indigenous Tsi-Akim, who spoke in a class I took, informed us that the missions raided inland, rounding up whoever they could find, cutting the throats of those too old or too young, and then marching the captives back toward the coast and a lifetime of oppressive labor.

By 1834, when the missions were secularized, it was (ironically, perhaps), a kind of reprieve for a regime that was faltering for one simple reason: they were running out of native Americans to enslave. The usual spectre of disease had been rampant, as well as the fact that remaining groups such as the Mohave were especially bellicose and recalcitrant toward the missions.

Much, much more could be said, of course: a topic so harrowing cannot be easily reduced to a short blog. The history of the United States of America was but a continuation in the devastation of Columbus, from Jamestown to Wounded Knee. The government placed a bounty on scalps, encouraging the destruction and displacement of the indigenous population at practically every turn. Missionaries sought to undermine indigenous culture and lifeways even as they facilitated European settlement by "pacifying" the natives. The great herds of bison were wantonly slaughtered as part of a program to displace the mounted warriors of the Great Plains. Natives everywhere were subjected to oppression, rape, massacre and disease. Forced removal in the 1820's, along the infamous Trail of Tears, uprooted many extant populations east of the Mississippi.

And so it is that I do not celebrate Columbus Day. Columbus began the exploitation of an entire hemisphere, and beyond to the Pacific. His legacy is not one that deserves to be commemorated as heroic, but rather eschewed. Civilized people everywhere abhor Adolf Hitler, Stalin, and Mao for the murder of innocents; so do I abhor Columbus and his successors. Columbus Day and Thanksgiving, the Euro-centric founder-hero and Pilgrims-and-Indians foundation- myths (respectively) of America are based on centuries of oppression, greed, wanton destruction, exploitation and cruelty. I would no more celebrate the Columbian displacement than I would the Nazi Holocaust. In summation, this my impassioned plea, for reasonable people everywhere to become aware of the facts of history. I am not seeking to place the burden of the blame on any one individual or group today for events that occured in the past. We are not to blame for the sins of our forefathers. I myself am descended from 17th-century English settlers, yet I do not eschew my ancestry, only the deeds that were wrongfully done in past times. The lessons of history are learned not by ignoring them but by realizing the way they have shaped our world today. By recognizing the mistakes of the past we can learn enough to enrich the present and the future.

[TheOneAndOnly]

I am not seeking to place the burden of the blame on any one individual or group today for events that occured in the past. We are not to blame for the sins of our forefathers. I myself am descended from 17th-century English settlers, yet I do not eschew my ancestry, only the deeds that were wrongfully done in past times.

You probably have a point, but I think you are being slightly melodramatic. All heros in history have dark sides.
Julius Caeser - often seen as the pinnacle of Roman generalship and a great leader - was a genocidal maniac. He slaughtered millions of Gauls. Still, we don't think any less of him in history lessons or in Hollywood movies.
Alexander the great was another nutcase. He may have been a great general but he was a petty and cruel man.
Winston Churchill was very racist, and thought it would be a good idea to gas Iraqis. Still, we love to invoke his name when thinking of great men and great leaders.
The Aztecs, one of those civilizations who were all but destroyed by the Spanish were in the middle of destroying their neighbours anyway. They were a bloodthirsty, savage civilization.
The British RAF in WW2 are to this day held in mythic status by Britain for their bravery in saving the British Isles. Britain likes to think it was some plucky little island defending itself against the mighty German onslaught. This is all ignoring the fact that for the past 200 years Britain had been colonizing, invading and attacking countries in every continent in the world. We weren't a plucky, gutsy little island, we were the one-time masters of the world going in steep decline. Still it doesn't stop the skewed history we are fed.
Every great civilization is accompanied by horrednous crimes committed against their neighbours. Maybe we should stop celebrating historical figures altogether?

[Maimonides]

You probably have a point, but I think you are being slightly melodramatic. All heros in history have dark sides.
Julius Caeser - often seen as the pinnacle of Roman generalship and a great leader - was a genocidal maniac. He slaughtered millions of Gauls. Still, we don't think any less of him in history lessons or in Hollywood movies.
Alexander the great was another nutcase. He may have been a great general but he was a petty and cruel man.
Winston Churchill was very racist, and thought it would be a good idea to gas Iraqis. Still, we love to invoke his name when thinking of great men and great leaders.
The Aztecs, one of those civilizations who were all but destroyed by the Spanish were in the middle of destroying their neighbours anyway. They were a bloodthirsty, savage civilization.
The British RAF in WW2 are to this day held in mythic status by Britain for their bravery in saving the British Isles. Britain likes to think it was some plucky little island defending itself against the mighty German onslaught. This is all ignoring the fact that for the past 200 years Britain had been colonizing, invading and attacking countries in every continent in the world. We weren't a plucky, gutsy little island, we were the one-time masters of the world going in steep decline. Still it doesn't stop the skewed history we are fed.
Every great civilization is accompanied by horrednous crimes committed against their neighbours. Maybe we should stop celebrating historical figures altogether?

Very astute about Britain during WWII, Caesar and Alexander, but I was already familiar with same. Yes, I acknowledge the weighty historical role Columbus enacted, but personally refuse to celebrate the beginning of one of the largest genocides in history. Sincerely, ~Maimonides

[MuggleOrSquib]

Good post!
I generally agree, but we should be wary of over-romanticising or sanitizing the indigenous peoples. Much of what the Europeans did was also done (on a smaller scale, due to circumstances) by various indigenous groups against other such groups.

I don't say this to justify it--my posts about the Assyrians are based on seeing another indigenous people subjected to much of the same stuff.

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

[Amazing Rando]

Good thread!

[Ryokan]

Genocide is perhaps a strong word. Columbus was interested in enslaviong the natives and sacking their resources, like past conquers. he had no idea their entire nation would die of small pox.

[Rubia Warren]

I dunno. I don't think that Columbus was such a horrible guy. Delusional at times, maybe. But definitely not half as bad as some who came after him. From reading his diary I think he did want fame, and he wanted to profit from the resources (or at least for spain), and he had this weird perception that the natives were converting to christianity, even though he really didn't have any good translators or ways of deeply communicating with them. He just outright imagined really wild stuff based on one little move a person would make. "Oh! See? They are our brothers in Christ now! It's so great. Everything's gonna be so great! We'll all serve the crown, we're all christians, spain is acquiring terretory all over, everything is hunky dory for everybody! Look! That guy scratched his eyebrow! *sheds tear* Ohhh....see? This means that we are all christians. *sigh* This is gonna be great." :ahem:
I don't think that he outright blatantly thought that the indigenas were scum or animals, but he was really flakey. I don't see Columbus as a big hero, or an outright villian. When I think of him, he is one person in history that I really truly pity. At times, my heart breaks for him and I can identify with him in some ways. But then other times- most of the time- I feel pity over his wild weird perceptions and his funky mental justifications for tricking people out of their gold and stuff.

[Maimonides]

Good post!
I generally agree, but we should be wary of over-romanticising or sanitizing the indigenous peoples. Much of what the Europeans did was also done (on a smaller scale, due to circumstances) by various indigenous groups against other such groups.

I don't say this to justify it--my posts about the Assyrians are based on seeing another indigenous people subjected to much of the same stuff.

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

Absolutely and thank you! You are, of course, correct, and it is not my intention to over-romanticize indigenous peoples. Certainly there were all kinds of wars in the Western Hemisphere between indigenous peoples long before Columbus. Both the Mexica or Aztecs and Quechua or Inka ruled large empires gained through conquest of neighboring groups. And hundreds of years before Columbus the Classic Maya civilization collapsed in a period of protracted drought and chronic warfare.

[Maimonides]

I dunno. I don't think that Columbus was such a horrible guy. Delusional at times, maybe. But definitely not half as bad as some who came after him. From reading his diary I think he did want fame, and he wanted to profit from the resources (or at least for spain), and he had this weird perception that the natives were converting to christianity, even though he really didn't have any good translators or ways of deeply communicating with them. He just outright imagined really wild stuff based on one little move a person would make. "Oh! See? They are our brothers in Christ now! It's so great. Everything's gonna be so great! We'll all serve the crown, we're all christians, spain is acquiring terretory all over, everything is hunky dory for everybody! Look! That guy scratched his eyebrow! *sheds tear* Ohhh....see? This means that we are all christians. *sigh* This is gonna be great." :ahem:
I don't think that he outright blatantly thought that the indigenas were scum or animals, but he was really flakey. I don't see Columbus as a big hero, or an outright villian. When I think of him, he is one person in history that I really truly pity. At times, my heart breaks for him and I can identify with him in some ways. But then other times- most of the time- I feel pity over his wild weird perceptions and his funky mental justifications for tricking people out of their gold and stuff.

I'm glad you don't see Columbus as a hero. And it bears repeating that I am not merely condemning the man but what his expedition started: the genocide and displacement of the peoples of the Americas. Incidentally, although Columbus and his immediate successors in the Caribbean were by no means trying to infect indigenous peoples, later 19th-century Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Australians did, with blankets taken from smallpox victims. Columbus also tried to import indigenous slaves to the market at Seville, but they fared poorly during the long voyage and were prone to disease. Soon it was all the Spaniards could do to procure labor for Hispaniola. And of course, as you alluded to they also requisitioned gold from the Caribbean's scanty supply.

In conclusion I rather more pity those whose lives were irrevocably altered by Columbus and his successors than I pity the man himself.

[Trout]

I wonder why there are no Colombus Day events scheduled here on the Rez?

[Maimonides]

Genocide is perhaps a strong word. Columbus was interested in enslaviong the natives and sacking their resources, like past conquers. he had no idea their entire nation would die of small pox.

Genocide and ethnocide. Both happened. Columbus and Co. were interested, as you mentioned, in subjugation and enslavement, and yes, at first they had no idea that the native peoples would die of smallpox. With time, however, some European conquerors realized the pervasive theme and celebrated it, acknowledging the possibility that their god's hand was in it. The Puritans who settled in Massachusetts in the 17th century were downright happy about it. During the 19th century anglos in both America and Australia gave their respective indigenous peoples blankets from victims of diseases to which the indigenous peoples had no resistance (i.e. tuberculosis, smallpox), thereby effecting their genocide. And of course, there were always the massacres. From Spanish depredations and wholesale slaughters (they would unleash war mastiffs, ferocious dogs the natives had never seen; the dogs bit through flesh quite easily), to the infamous Wounded Knee massacre of 1890 (not to mention the Alice Springs massacre of Australia in 1928, when about thirty-odd native Australians were killed), genocidal acts colored all too many of the European's encounters with native peoples.

And then of course there was ethnocide, the destruction of the culture of those that were left through various programs to Europeanize and Christianize them.

[Maimonides]

Good thread!

Thank you!

[Thomas More]

Genocide and ethnocide. Both happened. Columbus and Co. were interested, as you mentioned, in subjugation and enslavement, and yes, at first they had no idea that the native peoples would die of smallpox. With time, however, some European conquerors realized the pervasive theme and celebrated it, acknowledging the possibility that their god's hand was in it. The Puritans who settled in Massachusetts in the 17th century were downright happy about it. During the 19th century anglos in both America and Australia gave their respective indigenous peoples blankets from victims of diseases to which the indigenous peoples had no resistance (i.e. tuberculosis, smallpox), thereby effecting their genocide. And of course, there were always the massacres. From Spanish depredations and wholesale slaughters (they would unleash war mastiffs, ferocious dogs the natives had never seen; the dogs bit through flesh quite easily), to the infamous Wounded Knee massacre of 1890 (not to mention the Alice Springs massacre of Australia in 1928, when about thirty-odd native Australians were killed), genocidal acts colored all too many of the European's encounters with native peoples.

And then of course there was ethnocide, the destruction of the culture of those that were left through various programs to Europeanize and Christianize them.

Actually the only recorded case of this in North America was the British when they were at war with a tribe. Every other incident was incedental and was not intentional usually traced to single traders not governmental machinations.




I generally agree, but we should be wary of over-romanticising or sanitizing the indigenous peoples. Much of what the Europeans did was also done (on a smaller scale, due to circumstances) by various indigenous groups against other such groups.

I as a mixed native (Mexican/Choctaw) get angry with the assumption that for some reason natives are incapable of human vice and virtue. The fact is the natives used the Europeans to their own advantage against other tribes is well documented. To suggest that they all were respective sheep incapable of rational thought or self serving motivation who were slaughtered en masse by evil white people is insulting.

[Maimonides]

Actually the only recorded case of this in North America was the British when they were at war with a tribe. Every other incident was incedental and was not intentional usually traced to single traders not governmental machinations.

Interesting, I'll have to look into that. I do know that there were many massacres of indigenous peoples from Columbus's own time onward (and yes, there were incidents in which native peoples killed Euros as well). But the broader point still stands: Europeans did try to Europeanize (including Christianize), indigenous peoples, supplanting them and their culture. And granted, Columbus and his immediate contemps/successors in Caribbean didn't want the native peoples to die, they wanted them to live so they could be used for slave labor.



I as a mixed native (Mexican/Choctaw) get angry with the assumption that for some reason natives are incapable of human vice and virtue. The fact is the natives used the Europeans to their own advantage against other tribes is well documented. To suggest that they all were respective sheep incapable of rational thought or self serving motivation who were slaughtered en masse by evil white people is insulting.


Good, I'm glad you don't think that. I don't either: I hope you saw my reply to the one post about romanticizing indigenous peoples. I assure you that nothing of the sort is intended. I honestly think that if the tables had been turned some indigenous American, African, etc. civilization would have been the conquerors. Also very astute about the machination of whites by indigenous groups: witness the alliance of various Mesoamerican groups with Cortes against the Mexica, and of various Andean groups with Cortes' cousin Pizarro against the Quechua. And certainly there were many, many other examples of episodes in which some indigenous peoples allied with some Euros against other indigenous peoples.

The point of my OP here is really, and this bears reiterating, to condemn the wrongful actions that were done by Columbus and his successors, just as society already acknowledges the fact that Hitler's actions were also morally and ethically bankrupt. I maintain that is a travesty for the federal government to officially recognize this as a holiday.

Regards, ~Maimonides.

[David Hayward]

Britain likes to think it was some plucky little island defending itself against the mighty German onslaught. This is all ignoring the fact that for the past 200 years Britain had been colonizing, invading and attacking countries in every continent in the world."The sun never set on the British Empire because God would never trust an Englishman in the dark."
Quoted recently by George Galloway.

We Britons have mostly given that up, except for Iraq, and now settle for the World Bank, IMF and diplomacy -- "War by other means". Why invade when we can use financial bullying to impose an unequal trade agreement.

[TheOneAndOnly]

"The sun never set on the British Empire because God would never trust an Englishman in the dark."
Quoted recently by George Galloway.

The quote dates way further back than Galloway. I think it's a 19th century European joke. Anyway, I don't know why Galloway is saying it since Blair's little gang is stocked full of Scots, not English.

[Meh_Gerbil]

White men never did anything worth celebrating -- they are all criminals I tell you!

[Ebor]

White men never did anything worth celebrating -- they are all criminals I tell you!
I knew there was something wrong with me!

[Maimonides]

White men never did anything worth celebrating -- they are all criminals I tell you!

I wouldn't take it that far, although one might perhaps accuse me of parochialist reasons for so desisting (I'm descended from German, Scottish, Irish, English, and French, so there you have it). Certainly that's not at all what was intended in my short blog, nor can a short blog hope to render an adequate treatment to so harrowing a subject. I hope my point about not celebrating massacre, enslavement, pillage, rapine and subjugation is made.

[Daco]

I as a mixed native (Mexican/Choctaw) get angry with the assumption that for some reason natives are incapable of human vice and virtue. The fact is the natives used the Europeans to their own advantage against other tribes is well documented. To suggest that they all were respective sheep incapable of rational thought or self serving motivation who were slaughtered en masse by evil white people is insulting.

An interesting point from "a mixed native." I've read someplace that Columbus, himself, may have been Jewish. The fact that his fleet left for the open seas on the very day of the Spanish Inquisition may shift the light on him a bit. I don't know. Was he as much of a persecuting conquistador as he might also have been one who was also persecuted and in the minority? Just a question?

[Cynic Sage]

White men never did anything worth celebrating -- they are all criminals I tell you!

I don't celebrate Columbus day or the Fourth of July either.



































































Because I'm Canadian.

[Sparko]

Well as someone who is part native american (small part to be sure, great-great-grandmother was full Cherokee) I for one am glad that Columbus found America. I would much rather be sitting here in a nice house typing on my laptop computer on the internet than sitting in a teepee, eating bufalo jerky and debating whether deer poop has a nice aroma when burnt for heat or not.

Actually I guess I wouldn't even exist if columbus didnt discover america. My ancestors from europe and the cherokee tribe would never would have met.

you go Chris!

[quaist]

I don't celebrate Columbus day or the Fourth of July either.



































































Because I'm Canadian.

Well, I'm Austrian and I didn't even know that a Columbus Day exists.
But I think this day is really stupid, I mean, do Australians have a day for someone who found the continent? I hope not.
If not Columbus, then someone else would have disovered America...

[Cynic Sage]

Well, I'm Austrian and I didn't even know that a Columbus Day exists.
But I think this day is really stupid, I mean, do Australians have a day for someone who found the continent? I hope not.
If not Columbus, then someone else would have disovered America...

So the holiday would still exist, the name attached would differ though?

[quaist]

I'm afraid yes. :smile:

[Cynic Sage]

I'm afraid yes. :smile:
Heaven forbid a people celebrating an event and/or person that played a significant role in their nation's history. :ahem:

[jpholding]

Here's why I don't celebrate it...

[quaist]

That's a cool one, jb. But I think, if someone isn't really celebrating a day, he or she should go to work as usual. It's the same thing with atheists and christmas. I don't know any atheist who is going to work on 24th December, do you?

[Sparko]

That's a cool one, jb. But I think, if someone isn't really celebrating a day, he or she should go to work as usual. It's the same thing with atheists and christmas. I don't know any atheist who is going to work on 24th December, do you?

Well, most Americans don't really "celebrate" columbus day anyway. Its more of a banker's holiday. The only people who get off work are those who work in banks or for the Government (including schools). Us regular working stiffs still have to go to work on Columbus day.

[Maimonides]

Heaven forbid a people celebrating an event and/or person that played a significant role in their nation's history. :ahem:

Like Hitler? One can easily imagine a 'Hitler Day' for some alternate-history earth luckless enough to have a triumphant Axis in WWII. Columbus and successors were actually responsible for more deaths, all told. So before you roll your eyes at me for not celebrating the advent of an era of wholesale exploitation and mass murder you might want to consider that.

Actually, a good point has actually been brought up which I shall address. If Columbus didn't "discover" America (and he wasn't even the first European here), wouldn't someone else have? Yes, I presume so. Does that make Columbus's actions, and the actions of his successors, any less wrong? No. Basically this argument is that it was bound to happen, so get over it.

Let's try an analogy.

The Holocaust drew on a number of factors: Germany's defeat in WWI, the ignominious Treaty of Versailles which so angered many Germans, allowed Hitler to scapegoat the Jews (drawing on a long-standing European and Christian tradition of anti-Semitism in so doing, I might add). So if Hitler had never existed, and someone else did the awful deed in his stead, would we conclude that it was any less wrong? Would it be presented with as great a degree of moral neutrality as seems to be the case in elementary schools today with Columbus Day?

Food for thought, methinks.

[Cynic Sage]

Like Hitler? One can easily imagine a 'Hitler Day' for some alternate-history earth luckless enough to have a triumphant Axis in WWII. Columbus and successors were actually responsible for more deaths, all told. So before you roll your eyes at me for not celebrating the advent of an era of wholesale exploitation and mass murder you might want to consider that.

Actually, a good point has actually been brought up which I shall address. If Columbus didn't "discover" America (and he wasn't even the first European here), wouldn't someone else have? Yes, I presume so. Does that make Columbus's actions, and the actions of his successors, any less wrong? No. Basically this argument is that it was bound to happen, so get over it.

Let's try an analogy.

The Holocaust drew on a number of factors: Germany's defeat in WWI, the ignominious Treaty of Versailles which so angered many Germans, allowed Hitler to scapegoat the Jews (drawing on a long-standing European and Christian tradition of anti-Semitism in so doing, I might add). So if Hitler had never existed, and someone else did the awful deed in his stead, would we conclude that it was any less wrong? Would it be presented with as great a degree of moral neutrality as seems to be the case in elementary schools today with Columbus Day?

Food for thought, methinks.
I'd be interested in finding out your source on the numbers of those killed by Columbus.

[Bubbahotep]

It is the European conquest of the Americas that is ultimately responsible for the defeat of Nazi Germany in WWII. Allow me to explain.

The "Arsenal of Democracy" during WWII was the USA. The US produced an astounding percentage of the war material for the Allied side, including the Soviet Union. When the Russian forces drove into Berlin, they did so, to a large degree, on American trucks, whose supplies were transported in American planes etc. Same goes for the rest of the Allies. Lend Lease was vital to keep Britain going through the war years.

So why was the US able to produce such an incredible amount of war materiel? Because it was a large country, full of natural resources, whose homeland was never seriously threatened by the war. And because of the natural affinity most Americans had for Britain over Germany, Italy or Japan, all these resources went to the Allied cause. So why did a country descended from a rebellious British colony manage to find itself in such an envious position? Because their British ancestors had conquered that land from the French, the Spanish and most of all, and ultimately even behind the territory originally controled by the French and Spanish, the Indians.

So when you rest smug that your morally superior nation defeated the evil nation of Nazi Germany, remember that we only were able to defeat Nazi Germany because our ancestors had conquered and killed in ways far too reminiscent of the Nazis, many years earlier. Thank those Indians who died to make room for you and your ancestors for your being able to have a nice, comfortable house with a big yard while Europeans are crowded together and Third World countries languish in abject poverty.