The readings for this week were quite interesting, while proving just how much of a prick Columbus was, taking us back over 500 years ago to a time when genocide, by the white man, had yet to occur across the hills of the New World. It was interesting to note how he frequently addressed the King and Queen, Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, during his documentations. Acknowledging that he was “taking possession of this island for the Lord and Lady the King and Queen” (94), led us to the fact that his intentions for the Natives were to convert them from their barbarous ways to that of His Majesty, whom Columbus served. He even went about saying that “they [the Natives] were people who would be more easily converted to our Holy Faith by love than by coercion” (95), which struck me as quite ‘un-Columbusy’, if you don’t mind my slang.

However, if you look at the video by Matthew Landberg and Brette Harrington on Columbus and Bartolomé de Las Casas, a new character is brought into play: Juan Gines de Sepúlveda, arguing for the justification of the Spanish, contradicting La Casas’ fight for the lives of the Natives. The video labeled La Casas as having a transculturation view of the Natives, accrediting La Casas for his “acknowledgment” and “acceptance” of the differences of the indigenous peoples, and of being willing to protect them against the Christian abuse, ehich contradicted Columbus’s “utilitarian view of the land” (The Meeting of Two Worlds, Harrington). Sepúlveda, on the other hand, viewed the natives through the idea of Aristotle’s natural law, stating that “natives are natural slaves to the Christians, who are civilized people” (The Meeting of Two Worlds, Harrington). I found it quite disturbing to hear the justifications provided justifying Sepúlveda’s twisted ways of thinking, but really he didn’t know how to think any other way. He didn’t understand that differences don’t make inequalities, because that is what had been, and unfortunately still is, drilled into societies minds for centuries. It’s important now to be able to look back and recognize that Columbus’s voyage is only one side of what really happened. As is with all history text books, one shouldn’t be fooled into thinking that it’s even remotely close to what really happened.

 

  • Is there any documentation by natives of that time that has been found?
  • When is it safe to assume the Natives had realized that they were going to have everything taken from them?
  • Why would Columbus write down his lies to his men? (the money and the distance travelled/to travel)