Columbus -- Discovery or Invasion?
The lens through which world events are viewed is pivotal to one's immediate perspective and to later interpretations of circumstance. The activities of Christopher Columbus have point and counterpoint points-of-view that naturally reflect both Native American and European (and American) perspectives. Inarguably, the first epic voyage accomplished by Columbus revealed territories and cultures that differed starkly from the European experience. Framed in this way, Columbus made a discovery, an event that people naturally tend to celebrate -- within the framework of their own society. However, implicit in the word discovery is that of a first encounter or an accomplishment, absent any previous or similar activity. Referring to Columbus' discovery of a new land is an absolute rejection of global context. Rather, when Columbus' activities are viewed from a global perspective, the consequences of Columbus' journey to new lands were the result of an invasion, not a discovery. A discovery can be thought of as a snapshot in time. An invasion necessarily involves action subsequent to discovery, or arrival, or landing, or any other term that portrays the imposition of one culture on another. Moreover, historical records reveal the actual and structural violence that occurred in the New World as a result of the encounter and clash with the Old World. The historical experience of the encounter between the Old and New Worlds -- and the conquest that followed this encounter -- underscores the critical contribution that mindset has to interaction and reactions to domestic or global events. The cultural disparity or culture class between people from the two hemispheres was acute -- and a seemingly endless stream of similar situations can be found throughout history. That the juxtaposition of cultures frequently has violent and destructive repercussions is evidence of what anthropologists refer to as the perception of the other. Anyone outside of the familiar bounds of a society or culture is viewed as foreign, in the least, and subhuman, in the extreme. Categorically, both labels permit treatment of the other in ways that are not acceptable with those who are considered the people -- the group of one's origin. Evidence of the rationalization for distinguishing between people in this way can be seen in the casta systems that institutionalized differentiation, resulting the establishment of whole classes of people as slaves.
