The Iconic, Columbus
Christopher Columbus is an icon. And that is a problem. Here, I use the term icon in the sense that he is a symbol or emblem of something. However, to which ideological tribe one belongs more often determines what that icon represents than does any aspect of his life. On one end of the spectrum, Columbus is the source of all European atrocities in the Americas, even those that occurred hundreds of years after his death. There is no need to fact-check any account of his villainy. He is a symbol of evil. Therefore, he is summarily found guilty of any accusation. On the other extreme, many see him as the emblem of the Italian immigrant—any attack on Columbus they see as an attack on their cultural heritage. At least one book seemed to be laying the groundwork for his canonization.
Unfortunately, nearly all discussions of Columbus lack nuance. Viewing him as all good or all evil – or at least so corrupt that it counterbalances any virtue – is a dangerous distortion of history. Therefore, let us attempt to look past the social media memes and the scrubbers of history.
There are many different types of criticisms of Columbus. However, his treatment of the indigenous people is at the heart of the controversy. He reportedly attempted on his first voyage to return with many slaves; some claim hundreds, but only six survived. This is partially correct. He did return with six slaves but never attempted to bring back a large number, as claimed by his critics. Two months before his return, he wrote in his journal, “if it please our Lord, I intend at my return to carry home six of them [natives] to your Highnesses, that they may learn our language.” This is not to say that it is okay to enslave people, even if it is a few in number. Note, however, that his intent was not to take the six back to a life of servitude in Spain but to educate them. Why? In his journals, he writes, “it appears to me, that the people are genius and would be good servants and I am of opinion that they would very readily become Christians, as they appear to have no religion. They very quickly learn such words as are spoken to them.” This is important.
Columbus was a devout Catholic. He genuinely saw himself as following in the footsteps of the saint after whom he was named, Saint Christopher. He believed, like Saint Christopher, that he was to carry Christ across the water. Bear in mind that the Catholic Church, while accepting the enslavement of pagans, prohibited the taking of Christians. If he successfully converted the indigenous people, he would have been forbidden by the church from enslaving them. It does not make sense that a man who supposedly was bent on enslaving a group of people would be so interested in converting them.
The criticism of Columbus does not end with the taking of a half dozen slaves. While in the Americas, one of his ships was damaged, and he was forced to leave part of his crew behind[1]. When he returned, he found that the indigenous people had retaliated against the crew who had abused them. Columbus, in turn, wreaked a terrible vengeance for what was done to his crew. When he was governor, one could hardly call his rule magnanimous. He did undeniably brutal things, such as cutting off the hands and noses of the indigenous people. His critics quickly point out that he was such a horrible governor that he was sent back to Spain in chains[2]. How could there be any defense of such a person?
Judging Columbus according to twenty-first century morality, what he did was horrendous. Such behavior would land in the Hauge for crimes against humanity. But this is where we go wrong. People do this all the time, and not just with Columbus. If I had lived during Western expansion, I would have stood with the Native Americans. If I had lived when the nation was founded, I would have insisted that The Constitution abolish slavery. Whenever we look back, we see all moral choices clearly. We even see this foolishness in Biblical times. Jesus said, “Woe to you teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, “If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.” (Matthew 23:29-30) If we had lived in the past, we would have lived as all people did. Our clarity of vision only works in retrospect.
Look at this from the other direction. How can one know what will be considered moral and immoral five hundred years after death? According to the morality of the twenty-sixth century, for which of your sins should you be condemned? What do you do now that will someday be considered equally heinous? Are you a vegetarian? I am not, but in 500 years, will eating animal flesh be regarded as an evil equivalent to slavery? Do you drive a vehicle powered by fossil fuels? We buy electronics made in conditions unacceptable in the United States. How will those future generations judge us for that? This, of course, is just speculation. We have no idea what things we accept today will be seen as the epitome of evil 500 years from now, which is the very point. If we cannot do it today, how could we expect it from Columbus?
When the world practiced slavery, long before the first abolitionists, how was one man to know it was immoral? Even if we were to look at his behavior as governor, we see it consistent with men of that period.
His critics would argue that the men of his own period judged him, which is why he was sent back to Spain in chains. But they err when not telling the complete story. The people who sent him back in chains were his political rivals. It was not his treatment of the indigenous people that outraged them; it was his treatment of the Spanish. He did not just cut off the noses and hands of the indigenous people but any criminal, including Spanish colonists. In addition, he was exonerated. Six weeks after his return to Spain, he was released and his property restored. He was then sent on another exploratory trip to the Americas. So, he was judged by the people of his time and found not guilty.
If we remove the names of those who do not meet our moral standards from history, who else deserves to be discredited? Helen Keller was an advocate of eugenics. Alexander Graham Bell believed that deaf people shouldn’t be allowed to marry one another. In addition to being unfaithful to his wife, Pablo Picasso frequently beat women. When fourteen Italian Americans were lynched in New Orleans, Teddy Roosevelt, who reportedly was a white nationalist, said he thought it was a good thing.
The one that really takes the cake is The Women’s Rights Pioneers Monument in Central Park featuring Sojourner Truth, Susan B. Anthony, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. The statue glosses over Stanton and Anthony’s beliefs on race, depicting an alliance of the three that never occurred. Black suffragists dealt with racism within the movement. No black women attended the Seneca Falls convention. Both Anthony and Stanton argued that the enfranchisement of white women should take precedence over black men. They also refused to support the 15th Amendment that prevents the denial or abridgment of the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. This is the rankest of hypocrisy.
Why are the faults of these others, who lived in a time when these things were considered immoral, acceptable, but Columbus is vilified. While they tear down the statues of Columbus, who lived according to the morals of his time, they erect statues of racists who should have known better. It is nothing more than fashionable to condemn Columbus while we venerate these others.
While much more is to be said on this subject, let me conclude on this thought. In the Netflix documentary Who We Are, Jeffery Robinson makes the point that we know that Washington, Jefferson, and many of the other founders had slaves. Despite this fact, we celebrate them. We do this not for the evil they did but for the good. As far as Columbus is concerned when thinking of him as an icon of good or evil, we forget that he was a man. A man who was a product of his time. Columbus had his successes and failures, vices and virtues, just like any other man. Today, those who celebrate him, do so not for the evil he did but for the good which was monumental.
For more on Italian and Italian-American culture, read my book Italianità, The Essence of Being Italian. And don’t forget to sign up for our newsletter.
[1] This also argues against the idea he would have attempted to bring back a large number of slaves. He was down one ship and forced to leave part of his crew behind. He was enough of a seaman to know that he could not bring back a large number of slaves.
[2] When I hear people say this, they especially seem to enjoy emphasizing the in chains part.