Everything You Know is Wrong (X): Cristóbal Colón

Or Christopher Columbus, if you prefer. Either way, it is hard to think of an historical figure about whom more wrong things have been said. And not just wrong, but truly perfidious, bordering on calumny. Or in more modern ways, he’s been dissed.

So as we come upon another celebration of Columbus Day–or Indigenous People’s Day if you prefer–let’s set the record straight.

Starting with the silly complaints, no, Columbus did not discover North America. He landed in the Caribbean and eventually on the South American coast, but never the North America mainland. And various others had come from Europe to the Western Hemisphere before him: none of them documented the travel in a verifiable way, nor left an explanation which could permit their trail to be followed. All of which makes this complaint entirely irrelevant. Before Columbus, explorers were unsure what lay west of Europe; after, they knew what was there, and how to get there and back. That was a tremendous achievement. Look, we knew what the moon was, where it was, and what we would find there long before Apollo 11 landed, but no one thought that “one small step for (a) man” was anything other than a “giant leap for mankind.”

Next, there is the question of motivation. Modern revisionist historians claim Columbus went west for money and glory. This is partly true. Constantinople had fallen just forty years earlier, so all trade with what Europe called the Orient had to pass though Muslim lands. Columbus believed he could detour by going west, and bring the riches home free of interference. But why? He wished to (1) spread the Catholic faith (he was third order Franciscan), and (2) he wanted to fund a crusade to recover Jerusalem. He already had a comfortable existence as a sea captain, but he did crave more fame, and he wanted to do something he thought would merit him Heaven. This is hard for moderns to believe, as I have pointed out before. He left money in his will for such a crusade.

Which leads us to his behavior. Columbus was a sea captain, with the power of life and death. He was not used to being a land Governor, but that was the deal he made with the Spanish Crown. He expected to be conducting trade negotiations with the Indians or Chinese, not supervising naked natives or suppressing human sacrifices. But that was what he had to do. He was alternately too lax and too cruel, and this was a real failing on his part. Many of the abuses cited against him happened under his watch, but not under his direct supervision, as he sailed around the Carib Sea or back and forth four times to Spain. He did direct an atrocity when one tribe revolted (and eliminated a Spanish garrison), killing many and enslaving the rest, but this was the standard of his time. The losing side in any battle or war was taken in slavery.

The idea Columbus went west looking for slaves to get rich is utterly ridiculous. There were tens of thousands of slaves available for sale in Africa. Anyone seeking to make a fortune in slave trading need only follow the well-worn sea lanes south to the African slave ports, where African tribes were quite ready to sell other (defeated) tribes into slavery. Remember, Columbus thought he was discovering a shortcut to China, so slavery was not his motivation. He did say that the native Taino people were easy to control and would “make great servants/slaves” (Note that you’ll only see that last quote rendered as “slaves” by many, but it translates correctly either way). Why were the Taino that way? The Taino Columbus met were pacific, and were preyed upon by the neighboring Carib tribes, who practiced cannibalism and kept the Taino as a food source! The Taino were eager to ingratiate themselves with the Spaniards, who were brutal but not looking for a Taino entree.

Many of the harshest accusations revisionist historians raise stem directly from the writings of Bartolomé de las Casas and Francisco de Bobadilla. The former was a Spanish priest who documented many of the worst acts committed by Spanish leaders in the New World. Yet on Columbus, he wrote “The admiral should have taken pains to bring love and peace and to avoid scandalous incidents, for not to perturb the innocent is a precept of the evangelical law who’s messenger he was. Instead, he inspired fear and displayed power, declared war and violated a jurisdiction that was not his but the Indians…” and also “Truely (sic), I would not dare blame the admiral’s intentions, for I knew him well and I know his intentions were good. But…the road he paved and the things he did of his own free will, as well as sometimes under constraint, stemmed from his ignorance of the law (editor’s note: i.e., the Gospel).” De las Casas presents no strong case against Columbus.

As to de Bobadilla, he authored an investigation that is the basis for most of the revisionist historian charges against Columbus. But he was scheming to replace Columbus from early on, and his account of charges must be viewed in that light. He succeeded in having Columbus recalled to Spain, but there Columbus was ultimately freed, although he lost his titles and lands in the New World (to de Bobadilla, among others). The Spanish Crown was more displeased at the disorder in its new colonies than in the inhumane (by current standards) behavior of its Governors.

What of the charge of genocide? Genocide is the intentional elimination of a nation or group. Columbus may have been violent by modern standards (although hardly by the standards of his time), he may have been unfair, but he never imagined his encounter with the natives peoples of the Americas would result in their demise. Diseases were misunderstood at the time, and he had no way of knowing or understanding the locals’ inability to deal with the endemic diseases his crew carried. He did nothing to prevent or further the spread, as he didn’t know how. If Columbus had bowed down to the native Gods, dropped off his armor and renounced Spain to become a Taino, nothing would have changed. All (over 95%) of the natives would have died in the next ten years. This is not genocide, as no one intended it.

Does Columbus deserve a national holiday and statues in parks? What we celebrate speaks to what we respect and honor. If we demand perfection in our heroes, we’d have only statues of Jesus and the Virgin Mary. But do his acknowledged faults disqualify him? Every historical figure must be judged against his or her times, and by their specific accomplishments. Woodrow Wilson brought freedom and self-determination to millions in Europe, but he was an avowed racist and supported eugenic policies. FDR was one of our greatest Presidents, a superb wartime political leader, who ordered both the round-up of Japanese Americans and denied the entry of Jewish refugees. Nelson Mandela proved stronger than the chains of apartheid, but he was once a member of the Communist Party and planned terrorist attacks. And so it goes.

What Columbus did would have been accomplished by someone, eventually. Yet he was the first, and many failed before he succeeded. His failures were real, too, but within the standards for his time. On balance, he merits his due.