Time to address this "Columbus Day" foolishness.

I lead an admittedly insular life. I spend my waking hours in the presence of the Marines I treat and one or two other Navy personnel, or if I get to go home, with my wife. I may exchange pleasantries with a neighbor or a shopkeeper now and again, but I'm rarely a part of the general hustle and bustle that defines the life of the modern man. If I read the news or hear about a story, it's almost always via the internet on a news website or a social networking site.

I say all of this to illustrate the point that if I come into contact with an idea, it's probably well established in the mainstream culture.

Thus, it was somewhat surprising when I encountered several articles and read multiple comments yesterday about the assorted evils of Christopher Columbus, including, but not limited to, his introduction of European "rape culture" to the Americas, his "looting" of the riches of the Caribbean, and his murder of "peaceful, innocent natives." The crux of the issue was the very existence of "Columbus Day," and the propriety (or impropriety) of our national holiday celebrating his voyages.

I'm not going to debate any of that. Much of history is a matter of perspective, and if your perspective is that Christopher Columbus was the leering, drooling, insatiable, lecherous, 15th century incarnation of Molech, then far be it from me to disabuse you of that notion. As one of my former co-workers would say, "whatever floats your boat and finds your lost remote."

Instead, I'd like to address the notion that the actions of Christopher Columbus, and indeed that the character of the man himself, are somehow significantly more detestable than the actions and character of any other scout or explorer in history.

In examining this premise, it helps to consider the history of humanity in terms of philosophy and migration.

Throughout human history, and in fact as far back as our earliest records, people have been divided into two groups.

"Us," and "Them."

"Us" is anyone with whom the individual or group identifies and associates. Historically, this has taken the form of family, clan, village, tribe, nation, or other cooperative collective. Sometimes, "Us" was just a small cluster of people. Rarely, it was an empire. Sometimes there were subgroups within "Us" that identified as "Us" on a more intimate and bonded level than the "Us" that defined the larger group. But in the end, everyone, sedentary or nomadic, tribal or familial, voluntarily or of necessity, self-identified as part of an "Us."

Of course, every "Us" had a "Them." "Them" was anyone who wasn't "Us." More significantly, throughout most of recorded history, "Them" represented a group that is very likely to kill, rape, and possibly eat "Us" if given the chance. Even in instances where trade and commerce happened between "Us" and "Them," it was out of the necessity born of the fact that neither "Us" nor "Them" had the power to take what one wanted from the other by force. "Them" was a group to be feared and mistrusted, and if possible, wiped out, to secure more space, more resources, and a better standard of living for "Us." Sometimes "a better standard of living" simply meant "taking away the shiny things that they have so that we can have them." So it has always been.

History is a great patchwork of groups that constantly shifted according to desire, need, and ability. Groups displaced and annihilated other groups, only to be displaced and annihilated by yet more groups over time. Groups grew and shrank, moved and settled, killed and gave birth, connived and schemed, and generally took whatever actions seemed to benefit the "Us" with which they self-identified.

It is an indisputable fact that if you are alive and reading this today, you come from a succession of groups of "Us" that out performed, outnumbered, outlived, and indeed wiped out an attendant succession of groups of "Them."

Furthermore, it is a folly beyond belief to think that any group in history had a unique genesis in a certain land and lived in peace and harmony with one another, forsaking all conflict and living in tranquility. People need resources to survive. Those with resources survived until those without resources or those with greater resources displaced them. Even acknowledging the occasional famine or outbreak of disease that eliminated a group and freed up some resources, the vast preponderance of historical evidence shows that the primary means of extinction for self-identifying groups of humans is the violent action of other groups of humans. In short, every group that had something worth having, obtained that something by wiping out another group.

Doubt this premise? Consider this. There is a reason why teachers like Ghandi and Mother Theresa stand out in history. The ideas that "we're all just people," and "everyone matters," and "we should always treat others with the love and respect that we normally reserve for ourselves" are revolutionary ideas. They are revolutionary because they contravene human nature. These ideas are revolutionary because people have not thought or lived according to these ideas in any statistically significant numbers or for any significant amount of time. They stand counter to the biological imperatives that undergird the "Us vs. Them" paradigm that defines human history. These ideas are not now, nor have they ever been, normal.

I'm not going to start throwing around arguments about "revisionist history," or "cultural sensitivity," or even "tradition," because all of that is at best tangential to the point. Those are inflammatory phrases that people like to use as an excuse to get all riled up and maybe bask in the warm glow of a little self-righteousness now and then.

The point is this: If you want to apply modern cultural mores or idealistic moral standards to one individual or group in one era of history, you need to apply those same standards to all individuals and groups throughout all eras of history. And when we start doing that, well...everyone ends up with a hefty share of skeletons in the historical and cultural closets.

So why not leave the high horses at home, put the indignation and self righteousness in the mothballs for a while, and just take the chance to enjoy another holiday? There's no point in arguing over who "discovered" what unless we're willing to discover a little something about ourselves in the process. Besides, I'm all in favor of anyone who discovers a reason not to go to work on a Monday.

The Renaissance of Ottership Down

Welcome, one and all.

This is my first entry since I joined the Navy, and it won't be much of an entry at that. In the months since my last entry, I've entered the Navy, trained a fair bit, gotten a promotion, moved to California, adopted a dog, fed many, many, many hummingbirds, made some new friends, joined facebook, and abandoned myspace.

Leaving myspace eliminated my previous venue for blogging, and the deletion of the account deleted a great number of blogs that were probably no great shakes to begin with. I cannot promise that future entries will be any more worthwhile and/or interesting than previous entries, but I can promise that you will continue to have access to the raw, unpolished rantings and musings of the Yankee you've come to know and...well, know.

I haven't reviewed the entries that were copied and pasted from myspace a couple of years back, but if you read them and should find reason to take offence, please let me know. I may not do anything about it, but I will at the least learn from the experience. Contrariwise, if you should in any way enjoy one or more of the previous entries, please let me know that as well. I may not do anything about that, either, but then again I may just take some pains to cater to the readership now and again.

Thank you for your time, and I do hope you enjoy reading these as much as I will enjoy writing them.

~seaotter

(whom you may also know as Matthew, Damn Yankee, or Billy Yank)