Colorado celebrates its inaugural Cabrini Day

[Steeleballz 7,550]

 

Colorado’s inaugural Frances Xavier Cabrini Day — the new state holiday to replace Columbus Day — is being celebrated virtually Monday.

Gov. Jared Polis signed a bill in March making the first Monday in October Cabrini Day, the result of three decades of attempts to repeal Columbus Day. Cabrini Day is the first paid state holiday in honor of a woman in the United States.

 

https://www.denverpost.com/2020/10/05/colorado-frances-xavier-cabrini-day-2020-repeal-columbus/

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

I suspect people will still call it Columbus. No way I'd say all that. 

[TBoneTX 45,303]

7 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

Frances Xavier Cabrini

Gesundheit, and better get your annual flu shot pretty soon.

[Dashinka 24,505]

This seems fine to me.  Colorado can do whatever they want, and Columbus never really was the first to discover America, so I was never sure why he was so elevated.  With the switch to St. Cabrini in this spot I would expect the Italians living in CO would be fine as well.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 hours ago, Dashinka said:

This seems fine to me.  Colorado can do whatever they want, and Columbus never really was the first to discover America, so I was never sure why he was so elevated.  With the switch to St. Cabrini in this spot I would expect the Italians living in CO would be fine as well.

 

  That was my take as well. It wasn't a snap decision. Columbus day has been an issue for a while now. Even without all the negative aspects, Columbus never actually set foot in North America so it's hard to see any reason to have a day in his honor, especially with so many reasons not to have one. 

 

  

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

20 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  That was my take as well. It wasn't a snap decision. Columbus day has been an issue for a while now. Even without all the negative aspects, Columbus never actually set foot in North America so it's hard to see any reason to have a day in his honor, especially with so many reasons not to have one. 

Then why were we told as children that he did?  What changed in the past 45 years?

[yuna628 9,676]

16 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

thtThen why were we told as children that he did?  What changed in the past 45 years?

Nothing changed really. I certainly wasn't told that, even with my extremely conservative education. I remember a whole chapter on the subject of who actually did the discovering first. October 9th is Leif Eriksson day for a reason. We can certainly say that Columbus enabled an interest in the reason for a wealthy trade European expansion and colonization, but in terms of discovering.. it wasn't him. Baltimore has a heavy Italian presence. Columbus Day is super important to them, but I think people should be honest here about what he actually did. "America" doesn't even come from anything Columbus did, Vespucci discovered his error, and that's how we get the name.

 

The honest most simplest explanation is the people who 'discovered' the land mass is the people who were here on this land mass first. That was neither Eriksson or Columbus.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

51 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Nothing changed really. I certainly wasn't told that, even with my extremely conservative education. I remember a whole chapter on the subject of who actually did the discovering first. October 9th is Leif Eriksson day for a reason. We can certainly say that Columbus enabled an interest in the reason for a wealthy trade European expansion and colonization, but in terms of discovering.. it wasn't him. Baltimore has a heavy Italian presence. Columbus Day is super important to them, but I think people should be honest here about what he actually did. "America" doesn't even come from anything Columbus did, Vespucci discovered his error, and that's how we get the name.

 

The honest most simplest explanation is the people who 'discovered' the land mass is the people who were here on this land mass first. That was neither Eriksson or Columbus.

I hear ya, but that's not what was taught in school in years past.  I have asked several people over the age of 50 lately who discovered America, and every single one of them said Columbus.  And every single one expresses surprise and disbelief when I tell them what is currently being taught.  I'm not arguing that the current narrative is wrong or right, just that it is different.

[yuna628 9,676]

2 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

I hear ya, but that's not what was taught in school in years past.  I have asked several people over the age of 50 lately who discovered America, and every single one of them said Columbus.  And every single one expresses surprise and disbelief when I tell them what is currently being taught.  I'm not arguing that the current narrative is wrong or right, just that it is different.

Well, it seems to me that we often tell yarns to our children on a regular basis. From the pure fantasy like the Easter Bunny or Santa, and probably tons of 'historical facts' generations before us learned that simply weren't true. It was the best suggestion had at the time, but eventually new science and findings come to light that disprove it (or prove it). In terms of Columbus though I don't ever know that it was a case that it was the 'best guess' at the time, because there was so much info to disprove it. I can find old texts from the 50s being so adamant about Columbus, but Eriksson Day began in 1969 (some honors started in 1925) so someone at least decided to try factual by then. A guy in the late 1800s posited the theory about Leif, and people finally took it seriously enough to prove it in the 60s when archaeological findings came to light. Now I guess people were just 'stuck in their ways' by then, too proud to admit the truth? I have no problem with anyone celebrating their heritage, but false claims are silly and it's only going to continue unless we stop perpetuating these myths. 

[Dashinka 24,505]

2 hours ago, yuna628 said:

Nothing changed really. I certainly wasn't told that, even with my extremely conservative education. I remember a whole chapter on the subject of who actually did the discovering first. October 9th is Leif Eriksson day for a reason. We can certainly say that Columbus enabled an interest in the reason for a wealthy trade European expansion and colonization, but in terms of discovering.. it wasn't him. Baltimore has a heavy Italian presence. Columbus Day is super important to them, but I think people should be honest here about what he actually did. "America" doesn't even come from anything Columbus did, Vespucci discovered his error, and that's how we get the name.

 

The honest most simplest explanation is the people who 'discovered' the land mass is the people who were here on this land mass first. That was neither Eriksson or Columbus.

A lot of theories is that it was the Siberians living in the Yenisei and Lena river basin that migrated across Beringia when they had that ability.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

46 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Well, it seems to me that we often tell yarns to our children on a regular basis. From the pure fantasy like the Easter Bunny or Santa, and probably tons of 'historical facts' generations before us learned that simply weren't true. It was the best suggestion had at the time, but eventually new science and findings come to light that disprove it (or prove it). In terms of Columbus though I don't ever know that it was a case that it was the 'best guess' at the time, because there was so much info to disprove it. I can find old texts from the 50s being so adamant about Columbus, but Eriksson Day began in 1969 (some honors started in 1925) so someone at least decided to try factual by then. A guy in the late 1800s posited the theory about Leif, and people finally took it seriously enough to prove it in the 60s when archaeological findings came to light. Now I guess people were just 'stuck in their ways' by then, too proud to admit the truth? I have no problem with anyone celebrating their heritage, but false claims are silly and it's only going to continue unless we stop perpetuating these myths. 

All of this is true, and I certainly agree, but....

 

How easy is it becoming to rewrite history with the Internet?  Already, we see former "hero" generals on both sides being turned into criminals.  And several things about slavery/racism being changed.  It's scary to think what our "history" will read like in 30 more years.

[Dashinka 24,505]

1 minute ago, Voice of Reason said:

All of this is true, and I certainly agree, but....

 

How easy is it becoming to rewrite history with the Internet?  Already, we see former "hero" generals on both sides being turned into criminals.  And several things about slavery/racism being changed.  It's scary to think what our "history" will read like in 30 more years.

Considering how little time, in the grand scheme of things, we have actually started to see written histories, I would expect revisions to be common.  That being said, we have to be very careful when re-writing history that it is based on actual facts.

[yuna628 9,676]

34 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

All of this is true, and I certainly agree, but....

 

How easy is it becoming to rewrite history with the Internet?  Already, we see former "hero" generals on both sides being turned into criminals.  And several things about slavery/racism being changed.  It's scary to think what our "history" will read like in 30 more years.

I find nothing scary about history, only that we are doomed to repeat the same stupid mistakes of our past. People grow and evolve I hope. Things that we did in the past may be looked upon with scorn. And that's okay. That doesn't 'change' history, only our thinking about what that history is and hopefully start a dialogue on it. Have to tell you, my history education was very 'pro southern' and even could be said to be 'pro slavery' in nature which often caused me to knock heads with the persons ultimately giving me a finishing grade on certain subjects. Instead of learning about northern generals, you know, the ones that actually represented the Union... it was very pro confederate generals. Their motivations and positions on slavery were glossed over or never mentioned in favor of a narrative that was never true. I would often be instructed to gather study materials and then write biographies and essays on these men. What I discovered, is that this rosy painted picture wasn't exactly true and in some cases outright lying. I wasn't one to be spoonfed on subjects, so a wide sampling of materials - each offering perspectives of both sides gave me a foundation to make up my own mind. It was easy to determine who was telling tall tales and I found it disturbing but it made sense to a degree. I've found there's a wide gap of those who believe certain things to be true about our history which are not true. It may have been a tradition handed down, but it may also be a straight out comforting denial passed from generations. There is nothing heroic about a Confederate general to me nor can I ever take a cavalier attitude about the clear wrongs of our history. There is nothing heroic about the slaveholders or confederates in my family tree, but that doesn't mean I don't make some attempt to understand the history and motivations. I used to get concerned that kids are only taught one side of the story out of the fear of recognizing that we as a people made some really stupid decisions and not given all the angles and tool to learn how to understand it, but I'm more concerned that kids have actually stopped learning anything at all these days... and maybe some older folks too.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

54 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

All of this is true, and I certainly agree, but....

 

How easy is it becoming to rewrite history with the Internet?  Already, we see former "hero" generals on both sides being turned into criminals.  And several things about slavery/racism being changed.  It's scary to think what our "history" will read like in 30 more years.

 

  It was easy to rewrite history before the internet too. James Loewen's book 'Lies My Teacher Told Me" details how school history textbooks have been manipulated for years to leave out anything controversial or disturbing. Kids have been getting a 'happy' version of history for a long time, and it doesn't always reconcile with the reality. If you take a history course in university, they don't pull any punches.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

What's the happy version? In elementary, middle, and high school I was taught about slavery, discrimination against women, against Asians (particularly Japanese), against Jews (in the US, on top of the Holocaust, where we had survivors of that speak at our school), against gays, further discrimination against blacks post-slavery (e.g. Jim Crow/segregation/etc). We were taught all the bad things we did, but the vast majority of things were good. If anything, this mimics humanity.. we can do bad things, but the few bad things don't comprehensively define us. Yet right now we're being told that everything about the US is trash.. basically trying to lead us backwards into the worst of racial and other conflict we were largely past. 

 

So, I don't give one fig about Columbus (even though this name has been used in my own lineage, very weird for New France settlers to use this given the guy was Spanish), but I figure, if people are trying this hard to undermine US history through this "outrage"/"offended" methodology, might as well keep it the useless guy. When people are being more rational (as seen by their reasoning), we can talk about changing it. Also, no one is going to say that name, try a less annoying one to say.. thankfully none of the existing days used full southern names where they have like 50 middle names. 

Edited October 6, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds