The Viking Leif Erickson landed in the Americas sometime about the year 1,000 AD, before Columbus did under the Spanish flag. In fact, Erickson landed on the North American mainland, whereas Columbus landed in the Bahamas. Somehow, via "political correctness," Columbus is in question, while Erickson is not. Why?
Even President Obama, himself a revisionist regarding European colonization, gave the following presidential proclamation regarding "Leif Erickson Day" in 2009. As you can clearly see in this proclamation, Obama continually praises Erickson. I don't think anyone would be going too far out on a limb to state that he absolutely would NOT say a single word of praise for Columbus. Why?
The annual "Leif Erickson Day" is held each and every year without protesters or controversy, while any Columbus Day celebration is marked with much unrest. Often, it's centered around racial unrest. Certainly the Vikings did as much raiding and plundering as the Conquistadors later did, but the Vikings almost always raided other Europeans, while the Conquistadors conquered the Amerindians. Also, the Vikings did not usually occupy conquered lands, while the Spanish did.
That last point brings up another series of questions. The overwhelming percentage of Columbus Day protesters seem to be of Mexican and Anglo-Saxon descent, the very descendants or partial-descendants of the supposed horrible oppressors themselves! Of course, European-Hispanics were the ones who conquered most of the land in the Americas, killed most of the Amerindians, imported most of the slaves from West Africa, and took most of the gold and resources. Okay, that could be a reason, since Columbus sailed under the flag of Spain, while the Vikings simply stayed for awhile and left. However, the protesters don't seem to be interested in acknowledging these facts at all... ?
To digress, although Christopher Columbus (Cristoforo Columbo) was specifically of our folk, we should also share in on Leif Erickson's voyage to North America. The Winnili (later the "Langobards") were originally from Scandinavia, although they had left six or seven hundred years before Erickson's landing in North America. It should also be mentioned that other ancient civilizations east of the Atlantic Ocean had reached the Americas, but the evidence has either been suppressed or is not entirely adequate.
I wish that there was a good way to end this posting, but there is not. Columbus is denigrated because his discovery led to the colonization of the Americas by Europeans, and to the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. The fact that those "Europeans" were mostly from Spain and Portugal (Hispanic) doesn't interest the Columbus Day protesters in the slightest. In other words, to be very blunt, a self-loathing Anglo-Saxon protester would never dream of criticizing Hispanic colonization and slavery; while Mexican protesters don't seem very interested in any "Hispanic-guilt" concept either. They appear to only motivated by a dislike for anything European or White. Even if that were not entirely true for many of them, then why the dismissal of the important underlying facts?? The mistreatment of the Amerindians, and the establishment of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, was predominantly a Hispanic-phenomenon, more-so than a European one.