Whenever Christopher Columbus is mentioned, much of the time the discussion goes in one of two directions, either painting him as a hero or villain (I use these terms loosely). But this week’s material has caused me to think deeper about the narratives that we share, specifically the fact that the character of Christopher Columbus cannot be neatly categorized into either good or bad. He had no intention of discovering America, it was an accident; just as it would have been impossible for him to fully know the ramifications (such as the disease, and assimilation attempt of the indigenous peoples) of his unintentional discovery as well as the long lasting effects of it even to this day.
I find that the narratives of Christopher Columbus in popular media can be ambiguous at times in that no one really knows (or can know) what our world would be right now had Columbus not found land. I also found it interesting to deliberate the idea that the only reason 1492 has significance is because we give it significance – and yet even as our narratives praise or scorn Columbus, if he had not found America when he did, someone else probably would have sooner or later. While that would have dramatically changed the world that we live in today, I personally believe that many of the hardships that the indigenous peoples faced from European influence as a result of Columbus’ discovery would not have changed because at the end of the day, Columbus was really nothing but one of many factors in the process of globalization. I think this idea of uncertainty parallels what we are trying to learn about Latin America within this course: the notion of referring to Latin America as merely an idea rather than a physical place already places doubts on the preconceptions and stereotypes that I held about Latin America.
Another thing I wanted to touch on within this blog post is Columbus’ attitudes towards the indigenous people, which I think again touches on the theme of how there isn’t necessarily a clear cut black and white of good and bad – and that if we merely see the world within those terms, we are limiting our perspective because there are countless factors to account for. Columbus’ enslavement and allowance of his men to rape many of the indigenous population is abhorrent and despicable behaviour. Yet knowing the culture of the time, as well as the strong focus on ‘God, Glory, and Gold’ along with the ethnocentric worldview that most Europeans held, I am attempting to understand Columbus’ precarious position (for example, had he forbid his crew from raping the women, they probably would not have obeyed) even as I condemn his actions.
To end this post, a question that I think would be interesting to discuss collectively is why there are generally significantly fewer accounts of Columbus’ discovery from indigenous perspectives and how that influences the way in which the narratives of Columbus are presented.
Thank you for reading!
I find your viewpoint that Columbus is neither good or bad very interesting, To some extent, I do agree; we all have good and bad in us. However, I do think some people lean more to one side than the other. Sure Columbus was a product of his time and him thinking he was superior because of his background was pretty standard. But, if he was truly the Good-Christian man he seemed to believe he was, why would he let these things happen. Even if him standing against it wouldn’t have stoped his men from raping and pillaging, it still would have made some difference.
To answer your question, I believe there are multiple reasons why most of the accounts of Columbus’ journey’s are told from the European perspective. Firstly, it is usually the victor who gets to write history; we get to hear more from whoever won the conflict because they get to control what infrmation gets out. Moreover, I’m not 100% sure but I think most of the natives had oral histories, as in they would pass on their stories through generations in speech. Not writing things down of course, makes it hard to know how they experienced the arrival of Europeans. Lastly, many of them were, as you said,were enslaved and raped. In those circumstances, it’s understandable as to why they were not able to tell their stories
I also agree that your blog brings up an interesting topic in the discussion on how Colombus is portrayed- hero/villain- and whether or not he falls under one or both of those descriptions. One part that I do disagree with (which my response may make him sound more like a villain) is that even though his discovery was “unintentional” he had some idea that his presence would impact the people. He starts to plan Spain’s colonization as soon as he gets to the Americas and takes some indigenous peoples back with him to Spain to learn Spanish (already starting assimilation?). As you mentioned- different time period, different views, but he was sent out with a purpose which was to find a trade route and essentially new land and resources for Spain. So perhaps he could not know the full effects of his actions hundreds of years later, but his intentions and that of Spain’s were not entirely innocent.