“It’s not your country any more”. Contested national narratives and the Columbus Day Parade protests in Denver

Sam Hitchmough, Canterbury Christ Church University

Abstract:

This paper explores long-standing American Indian opposition to Columbus Day in Denver. In 2007, Glenn Morris, a leading activist from the American Indian Movement Colorado stated that the rejection of the racistphilosophy behind Columbus Day “may be the most importantissue facing Indian country today.” Activism aimed at Columbus Day and the parades is a struggle over identity and historical memory and Denver forms a distinctive, complex and emotive stage. The ideological nature of American Indian opposition to the holiday Is examined anddiscussed as a blend of patriotic counter-narrative and nationalistic counter-memory. Opposition aims to highlight the historical actions of Columbus but this is ultimately less important than confronting the way in which a conservative, individualistic myth of Columbus infuses itself into American society and psyche; the cruxof activism revolves around the legacy of Columbus and the wider issues of decolonisation that this raises.

Key Words:

Columbus Day DenverAmerican Indian activismAmerican Indian Movement ColoradoGlenn MorrisNational narrative

1

Contested commemoration

Article:

“Over the past 18 years, we have learned a lot about Columbus Day - its origins, its true meanings and its importance to U.S. identity and persistent anti-Indian racism” Glenn Morris (Morris, 2007)

On Sunday October 11, 1992, the quincentennial Columbus

Day parade in Denver, due to commence at 10am, was called

off for fear of violence. Anti-parade activists,

including Russell Means, were triumphant: “We won. We

abolished the holiday.” (Edmunds, 2004: 163) The run up

to the 500th anniversary had, unsurprisingly, drawn

unprecedented attention to Columbus and his legacy and

saw many celebrations muted in the wake of sizeable

demonstrations that questioned the celebration of the

Italian explorer. Opposition in Denver hoped that 1992

would prove to be something of a watershed in the way in

2

which Columbus would be remembered in the national

historical imagination. The symbolic victory proved to be

temporal, and after heavy campaigning by the Sons of

Italy – New Generation, the parades resumed in 2000 and

continue to the present day. (Today the parade is

sponsored by the Denver Columbus Day Parade Committee).

Denver is ground zero in the struggle over Columbus Day

and leading activist Glenn Morris, from the Colorado

American Indian Movement, stated in 2007 that the

rejection of the racist philosophy behind Columbus Day

“may be the most important issue facing Indian country

today” (Morris, 2007)

Despite large Columbus Day parades in New York, San

Francisco and Columbus, Ohio, Denver became such a

significant space for both protesters and paraders due to

the confluence of a number of key factors. Firstly, after

the American Indian Movement ruptured into two factions

in 1993, Clyde and Vernon Bellecourt led the AIM-Grand

Governing Council from Minneapolis whilst the AIM –

Confederation of Autonomous Chapters operated out of

3

Denver. The Confederation issued the Edgewood Declaration

that cited ideological differences with the other group,

not least the idea that the Bellecourts had allowed AIM

to become authoritarian and overly centralised. The

Confederation believed in more autonomy for local

chapters that reflected and responded to local

constituencies and issues. Founded by 13 AIM chapters,

the Confederation has been based in the city since the

split and the most active, longest running campaign has

been its opposition to Columbus Day. In the same way that

American Indian groups engage with contested themes in

American memory such as holding a National Day of

Mourning on Thanksgiving Day, challenging the celebration

of the Lewis and Clark expedition and seeking to replace

George Custer place names and statues, Colorado AIM has

effectively utilised the symbolism of counter-memory as a

protest against Columbus Day and its parades in Denver.

Activism has evolved through educational activities,

media campaigns, physical blockades, symbolic protest and

counter-parades in an attempt to not only block the

parades but to transform the meaning of Columbus Day

4

itself. Efforts have ranged from attempting to persuade

organisers to rename the holiday for Italian-American

heritage to broader protests arguing that Columbus Day is

a manifestation of a colonial, settler mindset and

opposition must be seen as part of a wider struggle for

decolonisation in the Americas. Due to the high profile

campaign and the fact that Colorado AIM has become so

significant in leading contemporary activism the anti-

parade protests have, over the years, drawn regular

support from nationally known activists such as Russell

Means and Ward Churchill.

Secondly, Columbus Day began as a state holiday In

Colorado in 1907 (the first state to adopt it as an

official holiday) It was subsequently declared a national

holiday in 1937 by President Roosevelt (October 12th) and

finally became a federal holiday in 1971 (after lobbying

from the National Columbus Day Committee, and moved to

the second Monday of October)1 There was only one statue

of Columbus in America in 1792 when the country

celebrated the 300th anniversary of the ‘discovery’ of

5

America whilst now there are nearly 100 statues plus

another 50 or so assorted busts and plaques. Even though

he never set foot on land that would later become the

United States, he became a symbol and a metaphor, deeply

embedded in the American consciousness. He came to embody

American progress and discovery, particularly in the

context of nineteenth century Manifest Destiny, and this

is reflected, for example, in the naming of the 1893

Columbian Exposition. As Robert Hughes writes, “to

Europeans and white Americans in 1892, he was Manifest

Destiny in tights.” (Hughes, 1992) Presidential Columbus

Day addresses continually celebrate a man and his

characteristics that have become intimately intertwined

with the idea of nation and progress. Ronald Reagan

suggested in 1981 that “he personifies a view of the

world that many see as quintessentially American: not

merely optimistic, but scornful of the very notion of

despair.” (University of Texas) Bill Clinton strengthened

this connection when he remarked in 2000 that Columbus

was “brave, determined, open to new ideas and new

experiences, in many ways he foreshadowed the character

6

of the American people who honor him today”, whilst

George Bush in 2007 observed that “today, a new

generation of innovators and pioneers continues to uphold

the finest values of our country discipline, ingenuity,

and unity in the pursuit of great goals.” Barack Obama

echoed this in 2011 claiming that “his adventurous spirit

lives on among us…we renew our commitment to fostering

the same spirit of innovation and exploration that will

help future generations reach new horizons” (The White

House, 2000; 2007; 2011). Thus, although not relatively a

very large Italian-American community, a proportion of it

in Denver has become extraordinarily aggressive (and

paradoxically defensive, eg the Sons of Italy – New

Generation founded in 1995) about the right to celebrate

Columbus Day because of the historic nature of the

holiday in the state and because of the way in which this

symbolism and pride associates with a deep reservoir of

values that Columbus is still seen to represent at the

level of national narrative.

7

Finally, Denver is a particularly inflammatory site

regarding memorialisation, commemoration and the historic

treatment of Native Americans. Vital to understanding

this legacy is the November 29th 1864 Sand Creek Massacre.

Colonel John Chivington led the 1st and 3rd Colorado

Cavalry in the slaughter of between 150-200 men, women

and children at Black Kettle’s camp that flew both the

American flag and a white flag. Chivington then led a

victory parade through the crowded streets of Denver

displaying body parts from mutilated bodies. The city

becomes an important site in terms of memory, contested

commemoration, and recent explicit reference to the

massacre has inevitably exacerbated tensions. The

importance is further contextualised when the city chose

to add an ‘interpretive plaque’ to the Colorado Civil War

Memorial that confronted the legacy of Sand Creek. It

suggests that "the controversy surrounding this Civil War

Monument has become a symbol of Coloradans' struggle to

understand and take responsibility for our past” and

states that by “designating Sand Creek a battle, the

monument's designers mischaracterized the actual events.”

8

It ends by acknowledging that strength of protest has led

to “widespread recognition of the tragedy as the Sand

Creek Massacre.”(Colorado State Capitol, 2013)

Activism aimed at Columbus Day and the parades is a

struggle over identity and historical memory and Denver

forms a complex and emotive stage. This paper explores

American Indian opposition to the holiday and considers

ways in which activism might be characterised as a

patriotic counter-narrative or nationalistic counter-

memory. Opposition aims to highlight the historical

actions of Columbus but this is ultimately less important

than confronting the way in which a myth of Columbus

infuses itself into American society and psyche; the crux

of activism revolves around the legacy of Columbus and

the wider issues of decolonisation that this raises.

The city is a space within which an annual struggle for

meanings lodged within the national narrative is aired; a

physical and visual platform upon which other politically

charged issues such as immigration and militarism, all

9

linked to political interpretations of national values

are regularly played out. Often apparently distanced and

disconnected from Columbus the man, they nevertheless

subtly inscribe various power relations within American

culture and reflect what activists refer to as the

Columbian legacy. Although many parade-goers do not

appear to be consciously celebrating racism they seem

uncritical of the dominant narrative that is laced with

coded meanings and celebrate Columbus as a way of

reinforcing patriotism, albeit a particular

interpretation of it. In some senses, Denver thus becomes

a ‘memory site’. Pierre Nora’s seminal work on ‘lieux de

memoire’ suggests that Denver is a space in which there

is a struggle between the experience of the past (memory)

and the organisation of it (history). The construction of

a national narrative that obscures indigenous experiences

and becomes ritualised public history is challenged by

those with a fundamentally different experience and

memory of the past (Nora, 1989: 7-24) As Michael Kammen

observes, “societies in fact reconstruct their pasts

rather than faithfully record them, and…they do so with

10

the needs of contemporary culture clearly in mind –

manipulating the past in order to mold the

present.”(Kammen, 1991: 3)

The recent history of confrontation and protest in Denver

started in 1989 when Columbus Day parades were revived

after a hiatus of some forty years. Sponsored by the

Federation of Italian-American Organisations they

immediately became an issue of deep division within the

city. Supporters declared the event a celebration and

commemoration of Christopher Columbus’s discovery of the

New World and an opportunity to celebrate the

contribution Italians made to the country. In contrast to

this parade for the discovery of America, Indian

activists fiercely resisted what they dubbed a ‘convoy of

conquest’, a ‘parade of indoctrinated myth keepers’, a

celebration of racism, imperialism and ensuing genocide.

Russell Means said in 1992 that Columbus “made Hitler

look like a juvenile delinquent” (Means, 1992). After the

victorious protests of that year, parades resumed in 2000

11

and have been met with opposition every year, including

the creation of the Transform Columbus Day alliance, a

multi-racial and multi-cultural coalition of over 80

organisations as well as the Four Nations / All

Directions March sponsored by the Red Earth Women’s

Alliance that started in 2001 and continued on a four

year cycle to symbolically transform Columbus Day into a

celebration of All Nations.

It is clear that the parade has become critically

important in the construction of Italian-American

identity, a broader US identity, as well as Indian

identity within the US. It is the interplay and conflict

of these identities that raises interesting points about

the production and presentation of history and the

semiotics of what it means to be ‘American’ in the 21st

century. The events and protests surrounding Columbus Day

shed light on contrasting and contested notions of

patriotism and national values as well as the

construction, remembrance and celebration of the

country’s national story that includes an embedded

12

dialogue about white Americanness, invasion and conquest.

The parade visually projects Americanness as a

predominantly white construct through its very omission

of the pre-existing population at the defining moment of

European arrival and this deliberate invisibility of

indigenous peoples in the nation’s narrative is a focal

point of the anti-Columbus Day protesters.

For some Italian-American groups, the parade is a

societal measure of the contributions that those of

Italian heritage have made to America. To these groups,

Columbus becomes a metaphor for success. As Richard

SaBell, current President of the Columbus Day Parade

Committee points out, “the Celebration of Columbus Day

has served as a symbol to Italian immigrants that they

had been acknowledged and accepted in their new country.

As Italian Americans are very patriotic, Columbus Day

also serves as a symbol of events set in motion that lead

to the formation of the United States of America”

(SaBell, 2009). Columbus is a badge of acceptance, a

marker of contributions whilst more widely he is used as

13

a signifier for discovery, intrepid spirit, opportunity,

progress and the significance of individual acts.

Spirited individualism and the pursuit of progress have

become the celebrated abstract ideologies, the idea of

America that Columbus is credited with fostering. The

invitation to the 2008 parade encouraged people to

“celebrate the American National Holiday which

commemorates Columbus’ contribution to the formation of

this great nation. It will also remind each one of us of

the blood, sweat and tears our ancestors shed so that we

might live and enjoy our lives in the land of the

free”(Verlo, 2008). This reflects George HW Bush’s

declaration in 1989 that "Christopher Columbus not only

opened the door to a New World, but also set an example

for us all by showing what monumental feats can be

accomplished through perseverance and faith”(Jamail and

Coppola, 2010).

This ideology resonates with the predominant, popular

interpretation of American values and spirit. The

1 Various sources have frequently conflicting information on the dates of the first state wide commemoration as well as the year of Roosevelt’s declaration

14

parade’s importance to American identity and to American

whiteness becomes clear, that it is a celebration of the

national identity and patriotism that many white ethnic

groups embraced as part of the process of assimilating

into the country. To many Italian-Americans the

celebration of this spirit in America is a celebration of

their historical experience. Anyone who opposes the

parades slights not only the historical image of Columbus

but the parade organisers’ brand of patriotism and

American values as well. As SaBell suggests, the bond of

association has become so strong that “to be anti-

Columbus is to be anti-American.” He goes on to suggest

that “Italian immigrants faced many hardships, and like

Columbus, through determination and hard work they were

able to see success” (SaBell, 2009; 2010). This marrying

of the parade and Americanness predictably projects

connotations of un-Americanness onto the anti-Columbus

Day protesters. This perspective clearly doesn’t take

into account or wilfully ignores the idea that American

patriotism and values are contestable terms, and that

what is often perceived as anti-Americanism has regularly

15

been motivated by either a competing interpretation of

patriotism or a call to reconsider American values.

The charge of ‘indoctrinated myth keepers’ levelled at

participants by protesters not only refers to the

critique that paraders are perpetuating the idea and

legacy of Columbus as a great man, but it suggests that

the parade has become something else, a repository for a

patriotism that foregrounds and preserves a narrow and

perverse interpretation of American history, identity and

values (Robideau, 2006). As Nick Brown, spokesman for

RAIM-Denver (Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement,

which became involved in the anti-parade demonstrations

in 2009) suggests, “If you look at the symbolism of the

Kolumbus (sic.) Day parade, it has little to do with

Italy besides a few flags. Mostly it's flat-bed semi-

trucks, large SUV's, sportscars and motorcycles,” lots of

flags and overt support for the military with a lot of

uniforms and logos. “For the most part,” he observes,

“these people have a trivia-based understanding of Italy

and Italian culture” (Brown, 2009). Parade participants

16

appear to associate their American identity with a ‘work-

hard, play by the rules and you’ll make it’ attitude,

strong support for the military, individualism and

visible symbols of material success.

Activist Glenn Spagnuolo, an Italian-American and a

member of Progressive Italians Transforming the Columbus

Holiday (PITCH) agrees, observing that “some of the

members of the Sons of Italy who put this parade on are

really not supporting Italian values, but are really

trying instead to push an agenda. I mean, a lot of the

issues that you see today, dealing with immigration, for

instance, are connected directly to this parade. And the

Sons of Italy realize that. Many of the members of the

Sons of Italy are the same people who came out and

protested the immigration marches that took place here”

(Spagnuolo, 2006). Spagnuolo is referring to the May 1

2006 rally of Latino immigrants at which Columbus parades

organizers George Vendegnia and Barbara Palaze were

photographed by the Associated Press waving US flags and

gesturing with their thumbs down.

17

AIM’s Glenn Morris agrees, arguing that “as a national

holiday, Columbus Day has virtually nothing to do with

honoring Italian heritage or culture, and it is not about

celebrating mutually held values of decency, respect or

justice” (Morris, 2007). Activists contend, instead, that

the parades have become ritualistic manifestations of a

dominant, national, racist and conservative patriotism.

Morris suggests that as a ‘white’ group that was often

excluded on racial grounds in the past, Italian-Americans

have utilised Columbus and parades to seek inclusion into

the historical narrative of the U.S. and in doing so, the

price for being defined as ‘American’ included buying

into the underlying persistence of oppression of Native

peoples. The cost of admission was, as Jennifer Guglielmo

suggests, “learning to demonise and reject” (Guglielmo

and Salerno, 2003: 3).

Many Italians historically exploited the Columbus-hero

narrative to purchase an American identity: “we fought in

the wars, worked in the coal mines and took the jobs no

18

one wanted…they thought Columbus was a great hero…(and)

said you Italian people…should have this day” (Rouse,

2004). On another occasion George Vendegnia repeated that

"this holiday goes back to our ancestors… we celebrate

for them. They're the ones who had to come over, who had

to work in the coal mines, the laundries and the

factories. They went off to war when they weren't even

American citizens -- and this was given to them. And we

will not give it up" (Gallo, 2005). The association

between Columbus and identity, sacrifice and acceptance

is abundantly clear and the organisers maintain that the

parades are a hard-fought celebration of their heritage

and history, a sentiment that is only deepened by annual

opposition.

In an overview of literature on the relationship between

Italians and whiteness in the book Are Italians White,

Guglielmo and Salerno identify themes in the key works of

Robert Orsi and Jonathan Rieder noting that former’s work

reveals “a particular anxiety” amongst many Italian-

Americans “to assert white identity in order to

19

effectively distance themselves from their Brown and

Black neighbors, and receive the ample rewards that come

with being white” (Orsi, 1985 cited in Guglielmo and

Salerno, 2003: 4).

This was echoed in Rieder’s work when he suggests that

“Italians often distance themselves through a narrative

of self-righteousness about their own struggles in the

United States,” often blaming socioeconomic problems on

the supposedly deficient character of others,

particularly African Americans, rather than on “the

political institutions and methods of economic production

that preserve white upper-class power” (Rieder, 1987,

cited in Guglielmo and Salerno, 2003: 4). In other words,

“while whiteness has acted as a huge subsidy to working-

class whites, it has also severely limited their ability

to effectively dismantle the systems of inequality that

threaten their own lives” to the extent that “today,

Italian-Americans stand in for the very image of white

ethnic working-class right-wing conservatism” (Guglielmo

and Salerno, 2003: 4). Whilst this kind of experience and

20

the resultant perceived need to assert patriotism is

historically typical for many other immigrant groups,

SaBell and Vendegnia represent a highly active, vocal and

nationalistic element of the city’s Italian American

population who have a particularly heightened

consciousness and sense of responsibility concerning

their ethnicity given the historic significance of the

parade in Denver. They are fiercely wedded to the use of

the name Columbus and parade protesters argue that they

continue to utilise Columbus Day as a weapon.

Glenn Spagnuolo argues that this ‘buy-in’ to American

conservatism has led to the parade being “used as a tool

to support the white privilege that they get from the

oppression of Native Americans and the colonisation of

America,” and that the organisers have certainly “made

the connection between the celebration of the

colonization of this country and the oppression of the

minorities here” (Spagnuolo, 2006). Spagnuolo and others

identify an explicit process wherein the parades

construct a memorialisation of conquest and they annually

21

replicate a brand of national identity that celebrates

and affirms the underpinning history of colonisation.

It’s this affirmation, Huhndorf argues, that is key in

“defining and regenerating racial whiteness and a

racially inflected vision of Americanness” (Huhndorf,

2001: 5).

This narrative construction is picked up by Glenn Morris

when he argues that Columbus Day is being used as a

“hegemonic tool.” It makes “no historical sense to have a

national holiday to Columbus in a country that he never

visited, in a state that he never knew existed. And so,

we have to ask the very simple question: why does the

holiday even exist?” For Morris, it does so “in part to

advance a national ideology of celebrating invasion,

conquest and colonialism.” He goes on to observe that

parade supporters “make no bones about the fact that

they’re celebrating the colonization of the Americas and,

in fact, have told us on several occasions, “Look, we’re

going to have this celebration. We’re going to have these

parades to Columbus. And let’s get one thing straight,”

22

they say to us. “This is not your country anymore. This

is our country now. And you’d better get with the

program” (Morris, 2006). This astonishing statement made

by long-time parade organiser George Vendegnia to a group

of activists including Morris reveals a feeling that is

ferocious in its bluntness and is the very embodiment of

the idea that the parades celebrate conquest and

authenticate what subsequently happened to the indigenous

population in the formation of the modern nation state.

As Huhndorf writes, Celebrating Columbus Day “explains

history in an apparently self-justifying way… by

commemorating Columbus’ ‘discovery’ of the Americas in

1492 [paraders have] made imperial conquest the defining

moment in the nation’s past” (Huhndorf, 2001: 6; 53).

On another occasion Vendegnia suggested that “if it

wasn’t for us, the Native Americans and the Hispanics

wouldn’t be as educated as they are, they wouldn’t be

living in the most powerful country in the world…western

culture is what developed the country over here”

(Vendegnia, 2001). With this philosophy guiding the

23

organisation of Columbus Day for many years the explicit

and even conscious link between commemoration,

celebration and colonisation cannot be ignored and it is

difficult not to see aspects of this philosophy

manifested in the parades themselves.

In the main the parades comprise of floats (often

including, as in the other main parade in New York, a

representation of Columbus’ ships), the crowning of the

parade King and Queen, the unveiling of the Italian of

the Year, the Grand Marshall and the Parade Starter,

several bands, paraders in traditional dress and in

military uniforms, cars, humvees, motorcycles, fire

engines and military vehicles draped with American flags.

Various other groups and associations apply each year to

be included in the parade and this has, in the past,

included representatives from the Hell’s Angels

motorcycle gang. The after-parade is usually at a local

lodge with a full range of Italian food and drink with

various competitions and games.

24

However, the 2006 parade was led by several men on

horseback, dressed as the 3rd cavalry. The 3rd Colorado

Volunteers was the regiment led by Colonel John

Chivington and responsible for the 1864 Sand Creek

Massacre. The presence of an Indian war era cavalry re-

enactment contingent predictably provoked outrage amongst

parade protesters. The use of the soldiers, activists

argued, was as intimidating as the hangman’s nooses used

to intimidate African-American students in Jena,

Louisiana, in the same year. The link that parade

organisers used between Columbus’ arrival 500 years

earlier, and a cavalry that massacred Indians in the very

state in which the parade was being performed, is perhaps

the most obvious example of Columbus as a metaphor for

conquest and genocide. The cavalry contingent strengthens

the argument that the parade implicitly and often

explicitly celebrates invasion and the creation of the

modern white American nation state. In this visual

display American Indians are, by implication, a natural

or necessary sacrifice to the colonising project and it

appears to be a specific historical reference to the

25

subjugation of local indigenous peoples that had nothing

to do with Columbus directly but everything to do with

him as a lasting ideological legacy of conquest. The

cavalry contingent prompted the city-appointed Denver

American Indian Commission to observe that “the Columbus

Day parade has become “increasingly anti-Indian.” They

expressed concern that the cavalry evoked the ”historical

massacre of millions of Indians” and that the content was

“misplaced and unnecessary in a parade that is supposed

to celebrate an admirable European culture.” They further

recommended that the city of Denver distance itself from

“damaging observances or other events that celebrate the

domination, humiliation or marginalizing of indigenous

people” (Berry, 2008).

The 2006 cavalry unit remains the most inflammatory

incident in the parade’s history. The ways in which

protesters have resisted the annual displays are

important, often visually powerful and highly symbolic.

After some exploration here, the final section seeks to

26

analyse and position the philosophical character of

indigenous activism.

In 1989, Russell Means poured theatrical blood over the

statue of Columbus in Denver’s main Civic Center Park and

amid vibrant opposition the parade was ultimately

cancelled. In 1990, Colorado AIM requested that the

parade change its name and the parade organisers, the

Federation of Italian-American Organisations (FAIO)

refused. Just as the parade was about to begin, AIM

pleaded with the organisers to change the name but

instead, the FAIO extended an invitation for AIM to lead

the parade. AIM agreed, provided that the FAIO would

engage in good faith negotiations to discuss transforming

the holiday. The 1990 parade was then led by activists

with anti-Columbus banners and signs, and was peaceful

without any arrests.

The FAIO reneged on promises of discussions over future

changes. When the 1991 parade was being staged, AIM was

again invited to lead the parade but rejected the

27

invitation, citing the fact that the parade organisers

had failed to keep their word about negotiations. AIM

consequently blocked the 1991 parade and four AIM

activists - Ward Churchill, Glenn Morris, Russell Means

and Margaret Martinez - were arrested. Morris observed

that the 1991 invite was “tantamount to asking the Jews

to participate in a parade for Adolf Hitler” (Morris,

2009). AIM also wrote to Denver’s African American mayor,

Wellington Webb, a veteran of the 1960’s civil rights

movement, comparing the prominent downtown Columbus

statue to having a statue honouring slave traders or the

Ku Klux Klan (Morris, 2009).

The four activists were acquitted of the criminal charges

by a jury in June 1992, creating a tense atmosphere in

the ramp-up to the much anticipated quincentenary parade

in October 1992. AIM again requested that the name of the

parade be changed, but the FAIO refused, leading to seven

pre-parade mediation sessions, requested by AIM, but

facilitated by Mayor Webb, the Community Relations

Service (Dept. of Justice) and Senator Ben Nighthorse

28

Campbell. The talks collapsed in the final session, with

the infamous statement to the AIM delegation by the FAIO

representative that “This is not your country any more,

this is our country now” (Westword News, 2005). Morris

replied to the parade organisers, “AIM is simply the

wrong organisation to make such a racist statement to.

We’ll see you in the streets” (Morris, 2009).

Because of inflammatory media, the presence of over 1200

police (including riot police), the Columbus parade had a

much smaller number of organisational participants down

from 70 to 30, and with only approximately 120 marchers.

AIM and its allies significantly outnumbered the

paraders, with around 3,500 people. Citing the fear of

violence, the Denver Chief of Police, David Michaud,

advised the parade organisers to cancel the parade less

than an hour before it was due to start. Denver did not

witness another Columbus parade for eight years.

George Vendegnia founded the Colorado chapter of the Sons

of Italy - New Generation in 1995 specifically to

29

reanimate the idea of the parade in the city. Over the

next few years, he and others held ‘Columbus Day bazaars’

at a Disabled American Veterans building, while harboring

hopes that the parade could be revived, basing his case

on the First Amendment. Resuming in 2000, Vendegnia

declared the October 2000 march to be “the greatest day

of my life” but protest has met each one since (New York

Times, 2000). From 2000, the parades have become more

stridently defended than the 1990-1992 events, with

organisers adopting a hard line stance on the critical

issue of preserving the name Columbus in the parades and

the protection of- or for activists the appropriation of

- the First Amendment.

Several anti-parade groups stated that they would not

resist the event if it removed references to Columbus

himself. In an apparent breakthrough regarding the first

of the new round of parades, after Colorado AIM again

initiated negotiations, it was agreed in mid-September

2000 that the Columbus parade would be renamed “‘The

March for Italian-American Pride.’” The agreement to

30

rename the parade was signed by the parade organisers,

Colorado AIM, Escuela Tiatelolco, Barrio Warriors, the

City of Denver, the Colorado Civil Rights Division and

the Community Relations Service of the U.S. Justice

Department on the understanding that in return for

removing the name Columbus, activists would not protest.

AIM leader Russell Means even promised to join the parade

to honour Italian pride. A Justice Department official

called the agreement historic, and the city promised

peace would prevail. The parade organisers agreed that if

they changed the name of the parade back to ‘Columbus

Parade,’ their permit would be void. The City agreed that

they would not honour the parade permit. At the end of

the negotiations AIM gave gifts of good will to all of

the negotiators, to make the breakthrough. The parade

organisers reported to the local media that after the

talks they “threw their gifts in the trash” (Morris,

2009). Within twenty four hours, the parade organisers

renounced the agreement, and restored the Columbus Parade

name and the City of Denver honoured the parade permit.

The state and federal representatives refused to uphold

31

the agreement. On the day of the parade, AIM and its

allies kept their word, and blocked the Columbus Parade

and 147 protesters were arrested.

Columbus parade organiser Vendegnia claims that he only

signed the deal to prove that the city of Denver and the

federal government were prepared to trample on their

First Amendment rights. He took the document to the

American Civil Liberties Union, which held a press

conference the following day supporting the Italians'

right to hold a Columbus Day parade (Vendegnia, 2001).

Claiming that they would not compromise on the principle

of free speech, organiser Carlo Mangiaracina said “we

won’t be coerced anymore….Our free speech rights under

the First Amendment were violated by an agreement that we

were coerced into signing. We’re not abiding by it”

(United Native America, 2000). Vendegnia also questioned

the motivation behind parade opposition, suggesting that

“these people don’t care about Christopher Columbus,

don’t let them kid you…It’s a political thing for them…

They want political power, they want political clout, and

32

they want to get grants. The only way to get grants is to

cry real loud" (Vendegnia, 2001). Mayor Webb continued to

persevere with negotiations and managed to extract

assurances from both sides that they would do all they

could do discourage violent confrontations.2

This determination to preserve Columbus’ name is held

presently. As SaBell writes, “we have no interest in

sacrificing our tradition, our civil rights, or our

dignity in order to appease people whose historical

perspective is contradictory to ours…The revision and

skewing of historical events for some ambiguous political

agenda benefits no one. Who Italian Americans choose to

honor is really only a concern for Italian Americans”

(SaBell, 2009). This commitment to the name Columbus

rather than adapting the holiday to one celebrating

Italian-American heritage, and a defence mounted on a

reaction to ‘revisionism’ and distortion of history (and

the idea that this would represent a form of persecution)

2

? Of the activists arrested during the ensuing parade, sitting on theroute midway through, half of them were women, a reflection of the critical role women had played from the start in organising the protests.

33

is the hub of a process that attempts to maintain a

longstanding narrative that foregrounds the connection

between Columbus, national values, and the pre-eminence

of a white story of progress and civilisation.

Morris signalled in 1991 that he wanted AIM to engage in

an active and militant campaign to “demand that federal,

state, and local authorities begin the removal of anti-

Indian icons throughout the country.” Starting with

Columbus, “we are insisting on the removal of statues,

street names, public parks, and any other public object

that seeks to celebrate or honor devastators of Indian

peoples. We will take an active role of opposition to

public displays, parades, and celebrations that champion

Indian haters. We encourage others, in every community in

the land, to educate themselves and to take

responsibility for the removal of anti-Indian vestiges

among them” (Morris and Means, 2007b) There had been a

recent precedent: in 1988 Russell Means and AIM from

South Dakota, Montana and Colorado were involved in

lobbying to have the name of the Custer Battlefield

34

National Monument changed to the Little Bighorn

Battlefield National Monument. The legislation was,

coincidentally, signed in one month after Morris’

statement, in November 1991.

The opposition to ‘anti-Indian vestiges’ and the dominant

narrative has been effectively conducted over the years

by visual and symbolic challenges interwoven in the

parade protests. This includes fake blood being poured

over the statue of Columbus in Civic Center Park and

dismembered baby dolls being strewn over the parade route

(1989) as well as hundreds of banners and posters with

slogans such as “How can we celebrate murder, theft and

rape? Stop the lie!” In 2003 a group of protesters made

an official request to remove the name Columbus from the

parade. The most powerful part of this protest was that

the delegation that took the invitation for

reconciliation to the parade was led by an American

Indian elder, Wallace Black Elk, and an Italian-American

paralysed survivor of the Columbine massacre, Richard

Castaldo. Both were in wheelchairs, the Italian pushed by

35

a Lakota woman, the elder pushed by an Italian woman.

When they presented their invitation, the parade

organisers laughed and tore the paper to shreds. The

protesters then physically and symbolically turned their

backs on the parade and in turning, they faced over 1000

fellow protesters, who then, in turn, turned their backs

en masse and walked away (Morris, 2009).

From 2001, efforts centered around the All Nations/Four

Directions March, an event conceived by the Red Earth

Women’s Alliance as a healing ceremony in which marchers

converge on a central point from the north (red), east

(yellow), south (white) and west (black), accompanied by

drumming, singing and prayer.3 The March was a four-year

pledge to forge an alternative model to the Columbus Day

parade, representing inclusivity and harmony. The impetus

behind the formation of the Red Earth Women’s Alliance

had come the previous year as the first people to be

arrested were women who sat in the street to block the

3

? Four Directions healing marches have been held elsewhere, includingWounded Knee in South Dakota

36

parade. In the spring of 2001 “there was a strong

consensus that women wanted to address the issue of

racism in a new and different way” (White, 2003).

Spokeswoman for the Alliance Gail Bundy noted that "there

was just the sense of the women in the room that we

needed to develop something that would be a model for

people to look at" (White, 2003). The first march in 2001

attracted over 2000 people and over the next few years

drew similar numbers as well as individuals such as 1992

Nobel Peace Prize recipient Rigoberta Menchu, former

Black Panther Kathleen Cleaver and activist Fred Hampton,

Jr. The success of the Four Directions march spawned the

All Nations Alliance – “The All Nations Alliance really

evolved out of that march, it took its name from the

march” – a broad spectrum group dedicated to using

protests against Columbus Day as a springboard to

opposing racism and oppression on a much wider scale

(White, 2005 Consisting of approximately 100

organisations, including the American Friends Service

Committee, Colorado American Indian Movement, the

Colorado Anti-Violence Program and Escuela Tiatelolco,

37

the Alliance has subsequently become involved in

campaigns including lobbying Denver city council to pass

a resolution opposing the USA Patriot Act, protesting

against police brutality and opposing the Newmont Mining

Corporation.

Protests in 2004 included 250 arrests. At the ‘leadership

trial’ in January 2005, a jury acquitted all eight

defendants of all charges, leading to the city dropping

the charges against the remaining 242 arrestees, a

pattern that was often repeated in subsequent years. In

2007 there was a large, and very militant demonstration

against the parade, leading to 80 arrests, and the

aggressive arrest, booking and prosecution of protesters,

under the new mayoral administration of John

Hickenlooper. In a letter to Hickenlooper and the Denver

City Council, Colorado AIM demanded that celebrations of

Christopher Columbus end in Denver, asked for new talks

between Italian-American and Indian groups and called for

a curriculum review on how Columbus and the history of

38

U.S. expansion is taught in Denver Public Schools

(Westword News, 2005).

In 2008, the parade was temporarily halted outside the

state capitol as a group of thirteen indigenous women,

representing hundreds of others protesting the parade,

read out a ‘Treaty of Transformation’ that sought

reconciliation between the two opposing factions, and

then tried to hand it over to the parade participants. As

in 2003, the Treaty was torn up on the street by the

parade organisers. The symbolism lies in the meaning of

the number of women, as Columbus’s successors burned

indigenous groups in the Caribbean in groups of thirteen

to honour Jesus and his twelve disciples. The Delegation

of Thirteen Women’s gesture was symbolic evidence of the

fact that, as participant Mano Cockrum put it, “Columbus

and his men failed in their attempted conquest” and that

”the thirteen could not be killed; they still survive,

still dream, still struggle for justice and for freedom,

for ourselves and for our future generations, undefeated

in our homeland, forever” (Cockrum, 2008).

39

Later that day, a student group conducted a walk that

acted as a powerful counter memory, tracing part of the

route taken by nineteenth century US Cavalry soldiers who

had paraded through the streets replete with mutilated

body parts of victims from the recent Sand Creek Massacre

in 1864. The group ended near the state Capitol and

placed a statue of an Indian facing the setting sun to

symbolise tribes’ collective demise.

A large artistic challenge was mounted in the form of a

counter-memorial, constructed in Denver’s Civic Center

Park, the same park that houses the Columbus statue, in

1992. An outdoor installation, entitled EmPyre, created

by artists Scott Parsons and David Greenlund, consisted

of 100 freshly burned and charred tipi frames (the wood

was from a forest fire in the Black Hills of South

Dakota) representing a ‘burned out Indian camp’ that was

the Indian interpretation of first contact with

Europeans. Amongst the frames Parsons and Greenlund

erected a series of signs, imitating official National

40

Parks Service markers, that “offered, in official guise,

an oppositional perspective on Western history:

documenting massacres, presenting apologies of religious

leaders to indigenous people, and chastising the Denver

Art Museum (located across the street) for displaying

sacred Ghost Dance regalia.” As Pauline Turner Strong

went on to suggest, the art installation would “contest

the dominant tropes and exclusive ‘we’ of American

national history.” EmPyre “exemplifies the

transformative power of an aesthetically rich and

evocative enlargement of the collective ‘we’” (Strong,

1997: 53).

Work like EmPyre further challenges the way in which the

national narrative has been colonised by one set of

values that has become normalised, and in so doing became

racially and ethnically exclusive. This “enlargement of

the collective ‘we’’’ confronts the conventional history

that underpins and reinforces a dominant patriotism with

an oppositional, more collective and democratic narrative

(Strong, 1997: 53). The artists’ work actively engaged

41

this process, as did the symbolic acts of the parade

protesters over many years, seeking to unsettle the

annual re-presentation of American identity. Protests

thus act as both counter-history and counter-memory,

directly and symbolically contesting nationally received

narratives. They frequently challenge the emphasis on

individualism and racially inflected meanings of

Americanness, and confront the absence of indigenous

voices. What is offered instead is something far more

inclusive and collective.

How and where should the anti-parade protests in Denver

be positioned? On one hand, do the oppositional acts

attempt, through critique, to re-balance and correct

concepts of patriotism and national identity that have

become conservative and individualist, so that values of

multi-culturalism, diversity and collectivism are allowed

to find the fulfilment that is often implied within the

nation’s promise? (and in the process achieve a degree of

restorative justice) Or are the protests more deeply

oppositional, trying to directly confront and unsettle

42

white American history and celebrate indigenous values?

Do Indian activists seek to use what could be conceived

as a more progressive American patriotism as a corrective

tool to create a more genuinely inclusive society, or are

they more fundamentally divorced from the idea of

identifying with ‘America’ and should, therefore, be

considered to be essentially nationalist or

transnationalist in character?

Indian protests seek to challenge an existing national

narrative projected in the parades that is laced with

increasingly overt sets of political values (including

strong support for the military as well as a variety of

anti-gay, anti-abortion and anti-immigration beliefs).

As far back as 1991 Russell Means and Glenn Morris

declared that “we are advocating that the divisive

Columbus Day holiday should be replaced by a celebration

that is much more inclusive and more accurately

reflective of the cultural and racial richness of the

Americas” Morris and Means, 2007b). The parade would

still be an ideological space within which to discuss

43

notions of national identity and values (and, for Indian

groups, self-identity) and led to a specific movement

within the anti-parade collective called Transform

Columbus Day and, more recently (and externally), a

national campaign to ‘Reconsider Columbus Day’ So is

this liberation seeking a more inclusive philosophy

buried within the American creed or is it an advocacy of

a more transnational, indigenous philosophy?

Opposition to parades can firstly be viewed through the

lens of patriotism. When he spoke out against US foreign

policy in Vietnam in April 1967, Martin Luther King urged

the country not to confuse dissent with disloyalty,

arguing that his opposition to war was an act of

patriotism. The dominance of a patriotism that is often

pro-war, reinforced with a law and order agenda, based on

individual rights, has often been conflated with

nationalism. As Michael Eric Dyson observes, it is a

process that “confuses blind boosterism with a more

authentic, if sometimes questioning, loyalty. At their

best, black folk offer critical patriotism, an exacting

44

devotion that carries on a lover's quarrel with America

while they shed blood in its defense” (Dyson, 2008).

Anti-parade activists are confronting the way in which

Columbus Day supporters have fused together a strand of

patriotism with one of nationalism, and they do so with

what Dyson terms critical patriotism. This critical

approach questions the dominant narrative of national

origins and seeks to breathe life into a more inclusive

set of values underpinning America that celebrates the

racial and ethnic tapestry of the country’s construction.

This seeks to prize open the stranglehold that a more

individualistic and conservative set of values has on the

idea of patriotism in America and suggest that an

alternative vein of values lies lodged within the concept

of America that it more progressive and inclusive. This

would provide space for constructive national dialogue on

Indian-white history and contemporary relations.

In this sense, the definition of patriotism, integration

and equality shifts to one that does not mark the moment

of entry into the American mainstream, but a solidarity

45

with others who have been the disinherited, dispossessed

and oppressed as the concept of America is broadened to

represent a truer and more meaningful cultural pluralism.

The second interpretation of parade opposition is to view

it as mindfully unattached to notions of American

patriotism. The protesters point to a history of conquest

and colonisation of their land, request that the nature

of the march be altered and argue that ideological

opposition lies not in trying to tease open and present

an alternative or progressive interpretation of

patriotism to gain a more genuine equality, but in core

indigenous values. As Glenn Morris explains, “in Colorado

AIM, we tend to define patriotism as allegiance to

statist ideology and statist symbolism. Because our

allegiance is not to the U.S. state, we reject the term

patriotism as an explanation of our ideological

inspiration. Instead, we acknowledge that liberty,

freedom of conscience, and resistance to oppression, are

core indigenous values that were found in indigenous

societies long pre-dating the invasion of our homelands.”

46

He goes on to suggest that “whilst many TCD (Transform

Columbus Day) members may be partial to the ‘progressive

patriotism’ view, many of the indigenous protesters are

guided by an analysis and critique stemming from

‘indigenous nationalism’ and decolonisation theory”

(Morris, 2009, 2010). The US is not seen as a nation into

which Indian people can successfully integrate, but an

empire they need to oppose and many activists view

America not as a community of shared traditions and

egalitarian spirit, but a country with an ideological

undercarriage characterised by empire, conquest and

colonialism. Parade-goers and supporters clearly believe

that the event reflects their heritage and their ethnic

contribution to the United States, but it is a

commemorative version of the national narrative in which

they are primary actors and in many ways mirrors the way

in which they bought into the white mainstream. The

parade and its organisers project a conservative set of

social, political and national values, associated with

anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-immigration messages and

militarism and they are more broadly, as many anti-parade

47

protesters argue, reflective of a statist ideology that

has come to celebrate concepts of conquest and racial

marginalisation, a parade offering an insight into the

national racial-imperial imagination. Either way,

opposition is a protest against the hegemonic control of

‘national origins’, the idea that America was

‘discovered’ and then civilised, and that the meaning of

the country lies more in what was constructed rather than

any sense of what was destroyed and displaced. Morris

takes this to its limits when he states that Columbus Day

“has become the mask that allows America to pretend that

it can justify the taking of other people’s homelands.”

For him, the parades enable America to “rationalize its

historical crimes against indigenous peoples” (Morris,

2007).

The development of opposition to Columbus Day both in the

early 90s and since 2000 suggest a blend of action that

is informed by progressive patriotism, more likely to be

espoused by the various groups contributing to the

coalitions and alliances such as Transform Columbus Day

48

and All Nation’s Alliance. A critical counter-narrative

serves a binding function of solidarity with other often

oppressed groups and is a powerfully symbolic way of

staking an identity within America without being subsumed

by the national narrative, a means of cultural survival

and a distinct and equal place within America without

loss of identity. But it is also informed by, and at

times characterised by, an ideological inspiration drawn

more from an indigenous nationalism and transnationalism

revolving around issues of narrative, memory, control and

power, a competing indigenous narrative that confronts

and challenges the very meaning of America and seeks to

project alternative models and values that emphasise “the

importance of employing indigenous visions and models in

restoring environmental, social, cultural, economic and

political health to our homeland” (American Indian

Movement of Colorado, 2011).

In X-Marks, Scott Richard Lyons cites Ronald Neizen in a

broader discussion of Native nationalism that can be

usefully applied in the context of Columbus Day protest:

49

“Indigenous peoples are not engaged in a liberation

struggle that aspires primarily or exclusively toward

nationalist or racial equality,” and Lyons goes on to

suggest that “if not a secessionist movement seeking a

new state, or a civil rights movement demanding more

inclusion, then that something would appear to be

resistance against incorporation into the dominant

culture….more often than not, indigenous nationalism

links the goals of equality-of-differences and cultural

survival to the more conventional political goals that

one would expect from any nationalist movement, from land

rights to legal jurisdiction . Native nationalisms seek

both cultural survival and political power, that is, both

nationhood and nationality, and not just resistance to

the dominant culture.” (Lyons, 2010: 133).

This duality of protest and rhetoric, two strands that

run parallel, closely reflect ideological patterns found

in earlier protest of the Red Power era identified by the

likes of John Sanchez, Mary Stuckey and Randall Lake. In

their analysis of American Indian activist rhetoric in

50

the 1960s and 1970s, Sanchez and Stuckey identify an

implicit tension associated with its internal and

external functions. On the one hand, there was the need

to “educate non-American Indians about indigenous

cultures and traditions” as a prerequisite “to any

serious discussion of policy,” and yet at the same time

they had to construct discourses that “are consistent

with group interests” or “risk losing the support of

their own people” (Sanchez and Stuckey, 2000: 121). As

Kevin DeLuca puts it, they had to both build internal

community and “reconstitute the identity of the dominant

culture by challenging and transforming mainstream

societies’ key discourses” (DeLuca, 1999: 16). In

important ways, anti-Columbus Day protesters reflect this

same duality, echoing elements of earlier Red Power

philosophy with symbolic contestations of narrative

authorship and ownership - protests that cut to the very

heart of what traditions and concepts of Americanness

were being celebrated - whilst at the same time

strengthening a sense of pan-Indian unity. This is

clearly seen in high profile ‘image events’ such as the

51

proclamation issued by Indians of All Tribes at the

outset of the Alcatraz occupation in 1969, in the

Mayflower protest in 1970 when a group of activists led

by Russell Means occupied the replica Mayflower II at

Plymouth Rock on Thanksgiving day and later painted the

rock with red paint; in the occupation of Mount Rushmore

in 1970 and 1971, in the legal challenge presented by the

Trail of Broken Treaties in 1972 and at Wounded Knee in

1973. Anti-Columbus Day protest tips a hat to the

‘progressive patriotism’ of the civil rights movement,

critiquing, correcting and urging a reconsideration of

American identity and values, and is very much in the

tradition of Red Power protests that probed the national

sense of identity in relation to the indigenous

population through its attachment to patriotic and

national sites and holidays. As such, protests become

negotiations over values and concepts. Much Red Power

rhetoric simultaneously looked to strengthen the pan-

Indian oppositional voice through appeals to nationalism

and a focus on legal/historical injustices.

52

With this duality, or as some would argue tension,

activists in Denver have been keen to assert indigenous

nationalism and, increasingly, pan-Indian

transnationalism, a theme strengthened over the course of

the protests by developing a focus on the on-going

spectre of the Columbus legacy, through international

law, land rights, treaty rights, the Doctrine of

Discovery and broader national and international issues.

Columbus Day protests have evolved, especially since

2000, to become more legally focused on the Doctrine of

Discovery and treaty rights, as well as broadening out

the resistance agenda so as to include a variety of

protests linked under the ‘legacy of Columbus’. The TCD

Alliance states that “we repudiate the concept of

"discovery," which is not merely a rhetorical description

of Columbus' endeavor, but has been extended into

specific legal and political doctrines that have been,

and continue to be, used for the destruction of

indigenous peoples. Columbus is the source of the

discovery doctrine, and must be rejected.” In 2011, the

TCD observed that “in the U.S., indigenous nations were

53

the first targets of corporate/government oppression. The

landmark case of Johnson v. McIntosh (1823), which

institutionalized the “doctrine of discovery” in U.S.

law, and which justified the theft of 2 billion acres of

indigenous territory, established a framework of corrupt

political/legal/corporate collusion that continues

throughout indigenous America, to the present.” This

formed part of an extensive declaration that represents

the broadening out of protests (and was presented to the

‘Occupy’ movement for support when they started

protesting in Denver), including a call for “the right of

all indigenous peoples to the international right of

self-determination”, “the recognition, observance and

enforcement of all treaties and agreements”, that

“Indigenous people shall never be forcibly relocated from

their lands or territories” and “have the right to

practice and teach their spiritual and religious

traditions customs and ceremonies.” They also call for

“permanent control…of aboriginal-ancestral territories.

This includes surface and subsurface rights, inland and

coastal waters, renewable and non-renewable resources,

54

and the economies based on these resources.” In

particular, they express solidarity with the Cree

nations, “whose territories are located in occupied

northern Alberta, Canada, in their opposition to the Tar

Sands development, the largest industrial project on

earth” and the permit for Keystone XL Pipeline

construction from the tar sands in Canada into the United

States. In a clear reflection of an increasing

transnationalism, point 9 declares that “settler state

boundaries in the Americas are colonial fabrications that

should not limit or restrict the ability of indigenous

peoples to travel freely, without inhibition or

restriction, throughout the Americas. This is especially

true for indigenous nations whose people and territories

have been separated by the acts of settler states that

established international borders without the free, prior

and informed consent of the indigenous peoples affected”

(American Indian Movement of Colorado, 2011).

At the same time, there is the on-going focus on

education and awareness, symbolic and visual engagements

55

with the dominant narrative, and an active coalition with

groups that confronts consensus patriotism and values.

Activity surrounding a counter-narrative and the attempt

to have a nation revise and reconsider in order to

realise a more collective and genuinely egalitarian

society is also referred to by linking national progress

to a more truthful acknowledgement of American Indian

society: “Without addressing justice for indigenous

peoples, there can never be a genuine movement for

justice and equality in the United States” (AIM of

Colorado, 2011).

Reflecting on the development of anti-parade protests,

Robert Chanate, Kiowa, and former tactician for AIM noted

that “what we were really successful at was marginalizing

the parade in Denver. Very few people attend the parade

and it’s not a featured event like other city parades.” A

second key outcome that he identifies was the extent of

the alliances developed with other Indigenous Peoples and

organizations which meant that “we were able to use the

publicity of that day to call attention to various

56

indigenous struggles that are happening in the present,

not in 1492” (AIM Colorado, 2012). Collectively, the

Transform Columbus Day Alliance, the All Nations

Alliance, Red Earth Women’s Alliance, the influential

Colorado American Indian Movement, and the dozens of

organisations contributing to the alliances at various

points including the All African People’s Revolutionary

Party, the Colorado Medical Committee for Human Rights,

PITCH, the New Jewish Agenda, Muslims Intent on Learning

and Activism, Greater Denver Ministerial Alliance,

Zapatistas from Chiapas Mexico, indigenous peoples from

the Arctic to Amazonia, have challenged the dominant

national narrative and countered the dominance of certain

groups and values within that chronology in order to not

only rightfully include themselves in the record but to

ideologically recalibrate the concept of America so as to

more genuinely reflect a shared, multi-cultural and

collective past and present.

This ripples of this recalibration have spread to affect

the longstanding entrenchment of the Columbus myth in the

57

national mindset (Schwartz et al. 2005: 2-29), unsettled

by the strength of Colorado protests, the establishment

of the national Reconsider Columbus Day campaign, and the

decision by a growing number of universities, cities and

states not to honour Columbus and replace the day with a

celebration of American Indian history and culture.4 In

2012, for the first time since the creation of Columbus

Day, the President directed the flag be flown on Columbus

Day “in honor of our diverse history and all who have

contributed to shaping this Nation” rather than

4 Hawaii, Alaska and South Dakota do not recognise Columbus Day alongwith cities such as Berkeley and Santa Cruz in California

Author Biography

Sam Hitchmough is a senior lecturer in American Indian and African American History, and Programme Director for the American Studies degree programme at Canterbury Christ Church University. His most recent publication was ‘Missions of Patriotism: Joseph H.Jackson and Martin Luther King’ in the European Journal of American Studies. He is currently working on a history of the Red Power movement.

Institutional Affiliation

Department of History and American StudiesCanterbury Christ Church UniversityNorth Holmes RoadCanterbury Kent, CT1 1QUE-mail: sam.hitchmough@canterbury.ac.uk

58

explicitly in honour of Christopher Columbus (White

House, 2012).

Denver “is the birthplace of the celebration of Columbus

-- that's why we're [taking a stand] here. This parade is

all about Columbus, all about the conquering of

indigenous people. It's all about the subjugation of

Indian people now" (Spagnuolo, 2005).The city has acted

as a locus of struggle between those that ascribe

‘official’ and useable narratives onto the parade,

whether they act as a projection of a certain cluster of

national values or as a way of representing an historic

connectedness with mainstream America, and those who see

the annual parades as a tool of ideological and

conceptual oppression. Anti-parade protesters employ

protests in a two-pronged fashion with both an internal

and external function. Firstly, they seek to reinforce

what is becoming a clearly transnationalist agenda that

uses Columbus Day as a gateway into critiques of a

growing number of wider issues, which in itself mirrors

trends in indigenous activism that transcends national

59

boundaries and confronts vital concerns such as

patriarchy, labor and environmental exploitation, the

emergence of pan-Native urban communities, global

imperialism, and the commodification of indigenous

cultures. In parallel, they are strategically utilising

elements of a critical or progressive patriotism through

counter-narration and symbolism to confront the nation’s

attachment to a narrative and associated values that are

historically distorted, to educate, to defy the colonial

erasure of indigenous peoples and offer a model of future

progress based on genuine collectivism and equality

(Huhndorf, 2009:2). What is represented both by Columbus

Day and the Columbus legacy may well be ‘the most

important issue facing Indian country today’ and it

reveals much about a contemporary and complex struggle

for both ‘nationhood and nationality.’

60

61

References

American Indian Movement Colorado / Transform Columbus Day (2011) ‘AnIndigenous Platform Proposal for “Occupy Denver”’, October 9. Available at: http://colorado-aim.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/proposal-from-colorado-aim-to-occupy.html

American Indian Movement Colorado (2012) Available at: http://colorado-aim.blogspot.co.uk/2012_10_01_archive.html

Berry, Carol (2008), ‘Denver is asked to join objections to Columbus Day parade content’, Indian Country Today, October 10

Brown, Nick, E-mail correspondence with author, 2009

Bush, George (2007) Presidential Proclamation - Columbus Day, October4. Available at: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/10/20071004-1.html

Clinton, Bill (2000) Presidential Proclamation - Columbus Day, October 9. Available at: http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/new/html/Tue_Oct_10_115945_2000.html

Cockrum, Mano (2008), Treaty of Transformation: 13 Indigenous Women in Denver offer message of Hope, October 12. Available at http://bsnorrell.blogspot.com/2008/10/treaty-of- transformation-13-indigenous.html

Colorado State Capitol. Available at: http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/ColoradoCapitolArt/CBON/Page/1251611239592/1251596433456;

DeLuca, Kevin Michael (1999), Image Politics: The New Rhetoric of Environmental Activism. New York: Guilford

Denver Westword News, October 6, 2005

Dyson, Michael Eric (2008) ‘Understanding Black Patriotism’, Time, April 24Edmunds, R.David (2004) New Warriors: Native American Leaders Since 1900, Bison

Gallo, Bill (2005) ‘War of the Word: Denver's Columbus Day Parade rhetoric spells out the samebumpy route’, Denver West Word Press, October 6

Guglielmo, Jennifer and Salerno, Salvatore (eds) (2003) Are Italians White? How Race is made in America, Routledge.

62

Hughes,Robert (1992) ‘The Fraying of America’, Time, 3 February

Jamail, Dahr and Coppola, Jason (2010) Why We Believe in Columbus, September 10, 2010. Available at http://newspaperrock.bluecorncomics.com/2010/09/why-we-believe-in-columbus.html

Huhndorf, Shari (2001) Going Native: Indians in the American Cultural Imagination, Cornell University Press

Huhndorf, Shari (2009) Mapping the Americas: The Transnational Politics of Contemporary Native Culture, Cornell University Press

Kammen, Michael (1991) Mystic Chords of Memory: The Transformation of Tradition in American Culture New York: Alfred A. Knopf

Means, Russell (1992) Arizona Republic, October 6

Morris, Glenn (2007) Indian Country Today, October 4

Morris, Glenn and Means, Russell (2007b) ‘Why AIM Opposes Columbus Day’. Available at: http://www.indigenouspeople.net/russmean.htm

Morris, Glenn (2006) Goodman Radio Interview, Democracy Now. Available at: http://www.democracynow.org/2006/10/6/challenging_columbus_day_denver_organizers_discuss

Morris, Glenn (2009, 2010, 2011) correspondence with author

Nora, Pierre (1989) ‘Between History and Memory: Les Lieux de

Memoire’, Representations, 26

Obama, Barack (2011) Presidential Proclamation - Columbus Day, October 7. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/10/07/presidential-proclamation-columbus- day-2011

Obama, Barack (2012) Presidential Proclamation - Columbus Day, October 5. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/10/05/presidential-proclamation-columbus-day- 2012

63

Reagan, Ronald (1981) Presidential Proclamation - Columbus Day, October 9. Available at: http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1981/100981c.htm

Robideau, Robert (2006) ‘The Myth Keepers of Columbus’, Counterpunch,

October 10

Rouse, Karen (2004) ‘Columbus’ Story Getting Native Voices in Curriculum’, Denver Post, July 5

SaBell, Richard (2009, 2010) correspondence with author

Sanchez, John, and Mary E. Stuckey (2000) ‘The Rhetoric of American Indian Activism in the 1960s and 1970s”, Communication Quarterly 48

Schwartz, Barry, Schuman, Howard and D’Arcy, Hannah (2005) ‘Elite Revisionists and Popular Beliefs: Christopher Columbus, Hero or Villain?’ Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 69, No. 1

Spagnuolo, Glenn (2006) Amy Goodman interview, Democracy Now, October6. Available at: http://www.democracynow.org/2006/10/6/challenging_columbus_day_denver_organizers_discuss

Spagnuolo, Glenn (2005) Denver Westword News, October 6

Strong, Pauline Turner (1997) ‘Exclusive Labels: Indexing the National ‘We’ Commemorative and Oppositional Exhibitions’, Museum Anthropology 21 (1)

United Native America. Available at: http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/press/columbus1.html

Vendegnia, George (2000) New York Times, October 8

Vendegnia, George (2001) Z magazine, October

Verlo, Eric (2008) ‘Denver Columbus Day Parade wants to kick indigenous ass’, Not My Tribe. Available at: http://notmytribe.com/2008/denver-columbus-day-wants- to-kick-indigenous-ass-85050.html

White, Pamela (2003) ‘The Drums of Autumn’, Boulder Weekly, October 7-10

64

Endnotes

65