Garibaldi—who was he?

 Dear Editor.

According to Martha Perkins (former editor of Bowen Island’s Undercurrent), Mt. Garibaldi is named after a man who had never done anything even remotely connected to this land, raising the question of why we should continue to call the mountain by that name, particularly when the Squamish First Nation people have a ready substitute for it. 
Both Ms. Perkins’ claim and the question raised by it deserve a brief comment. It is true that Garibaldi had never set foot in this province, but that is not quite the same thing as saying that he had done nothing related to this land. Ms. Perkins does note that Garibaldi was, and is, regarded as a hero by many Italians for his role in the unification of Italy some 150 years ago. But the history books also refer to Garibaldi as l'eroe dei due mondi (the hero of the two worlds) for having dedicated years of his life to fighting for the freedom of the Republic of Rio Grande against Brazil's imperial designs. First Nations people—of all people—will, I believe, go thumbs up on this kind of fighter. So, unless we want to be totally pedestrian, Garibaldi, at least symbolically, does deserve a place way up in our mountains.
Does this mean that the name dear the the First Nations people— Nch’ḵay̓—should be ignored? No; but neither should it replace the existing one. Why not—in the spirit of reconciliation—use both names: Mt. Garibaldi—Nch’ḵay̓?
The concern these days is with any name that carries the stigma of colonialism, and Garibaldi—really—is way down on that list. Other names loom larger: Vancouver...Vancouver Island...Vancouver Sun...Prince George...Prince Rupert...Fraser River...Victoria...and—horrors!—British Columbia itself. Every one of these is an endangered name. 
The latest to fall has been Powell River, for, driven by the historical nuances of the name Powell, PowellRiverites recently adopted the name Qathet for its district, and Qathet-ers are now on the verge of discarding the town’s own name in favour of an indigenous name.
The motivation for having these names changed is not hard to understand: the proponents want the past to be forgotten and, through these new names, to be able to tell a different aboriginal story. It is possible that the perceived evils of colonialism can be erased by the simple act of changing geographical names. But would that be a good thing? Would it not be better to retain these names (possibly in conjunction with new names), and through them, the memory of things we would never want to see happen again?
Ermes Culos