Savage Columbus
By Karolina Kiwak, with comments by Carina Meleca and Brian Cohen
(1) Ridley Scott’s portrayal of Columbus in contrast to the depiction of natives in the scene entitled “War†(1:47:33) in his movie 1492: Conquest of Paradise is reflective of the common Western conception of native savagery. In this scene, the typically docile Columbus is driven to his breaking point by the savage acts of the natives. His acts of revenge turn him into the primitive, violent being that he has been trying to avoid becoming. Throughout the movie, Columbus is shown as a good-hearted human led to savage actions by circumstance, as opposed to the primitive natives who are portrayed and stereotypically perceived as savage.
(2) Columbus is shown as a very benign, sympathetic conqueror throughout the movie. He fights for the rights of the natives and consistently tries to inculcate humane treatment of them. He is especially angelic in comparison to the movie’s “villain,†Moxica, whose actions are genuinely savage. The conflict between the two men is demonstrated several times. When Columbus returns to Navidad, he is greeted by the fact that the men he had left behind had all been slaughtered. Moxica wants revenge, and the rest of the men cheer at this idea. Columbus goes against them, however, and tells them there will be no revenge, that they have not come to start a war. Moxica once again revisits the idea of revenge when Columbus confronts the Natives about the death of his men. Moxica urges Columbus to kill them, and he once again ignores Moxica’s prods and goes the way of peace.
(3) In the “War†scene, however, Columbus is driven to his breaking point. He feels pressure from the other Spaniards, Moxica in particular, to discipline the natives and enslave them further. Columbus has an internal struggle: should he do the moral thing, treating the natives humanely, or should he do the practical thing, disregarding their plight and working them harder for the gold. (see comment by Carina Meleca) Columbus needs to justify his trip to the New World. He needs to deliver on his promise of finding gold. It is one of the main motivations of the Crown financing his voyages. Columbus is, understandably, under a lot of pressure. On the other hand, the natives naturally do not want to be enslaved and no longer feel the need to provide the Spaniards with the gold of the land. Columbus tries to do the right thing by the Natives, but after they continuously sabotage his work and threaten to tarnish his reputation as a sturdy leader, he becomes fed up. His men are already questioning his leadership skills, and this can undermine future expeditions for Columbus.
(4) The natives continuously try to sabotage all the work they have done because they too are fed up with the situation. They are tired of being mistreated. They are beaten and maimed for no reason. In an earlier part of the movie, Moxica cuts the hand off of a Native because he suspects him of lying. He does this not under the command of Columbus, but to the natives it is all the same. The attacks against the work places are not personal attacks on Columbus but, instead, a way for the Natives to fight back against the enslavement system, a way for them to gain some power back. Columbus, ignorant of the mistreatment, still allows them to be enslaved, which is the root problem for the natives. In his eyes, however, he is doing is best to appease each side. Therefore, he becomes more frustrated with the situation with each attack.
(5) In the scene entitled “Another Ravaged Spanish City†(1:46:43), the Natives have literally ravaged a workstation. They have killed all the workers there, binding them to the structure they are building, and even hanging up one of the men in a manner resembling a crucifixion. The ugly tone of the scene is highlighted when a native says the white men did the same thing to their God. In doing so, he demonstrates the savagery of the white men as well and foreshadows Columbus’s actions. Columbus looks disturbed at the scene before him and is confronted by one of his men, who tells him Moxica’s methods are more effective than his in disciplining the natives. For that one moment, Columbus buckles on his stance of peace. He actually believes his way is ineffective and that Moxica’s policy of revenge is indeed better. Columbus snaps. He reverts back to his primal instincts: to kill. Here Scott uses justifiable anger to draw a parallel line between the natives and the conquerors. The savages are angry at being enslaved and mistreated, and rightly so. They lash out at the Spaniards in various ways, such as sabotaging work places, or refusing to aid in the search for gold. Columbus also experiences justifiable anger. This scene portrays that. He lashes out at the natives in a moment of rage because of the ruined work stations, the brutal torture and murder of his men, and the uncooperativeness of the natives. His frustrations boil over into destructive anger.
(6) The idea of Columbus and the Spaniards as more a developed, superior race is soon shattered as they savagely attack the natives. The natives’ camp is portrayed as animalistic. There is the putrid odor of rotting meat, decaying flesh—flies are everywhere—the natives are living like animals. The aboriginal nature of the natives is portrayed even more when they actually emerge. They come out from nowhere, materializing from the earth, demonstrating further their primitive wildness. They barbarically attack the Spaniards. They make animalistic and wild noises. When the natives get stabbed, they foam at the mouth. This once again portrays the natives as animals, as lowly, rabid creatures. They are naked, masked, inhuman -- the audience can only see their violent and animalistic actions, and thus they lose the sympathy of the audience. On the other hand, Columbus and the other Spaniards are openly exposed. When Natives stab the white men, the white men bleed. The audience can see their reactions. Their visible emotions automatically bond the audience to the cause of Spanish victory, despite the fact that the Spaniards were the instigators of the basic conflict.
(7) In this way, this scene creates the image that the Spaniards at their worst are still better and more humane than the natives, especially the heroic Columbus, who stoops down to this primal level, only to realize in the end the savagery of his actions. During this scene Columbus gets flashes of his family. This once again highlights Columbus’s humanity and his vulnerability. He has a heart. He has a family. He needs to kill the native that is attacking him or he himself will be killed. And thus the movie is giving Columbus a sentimental motive for these atrocious acts. He is killing for survival and for his family. In fact, the native he is killing has just killed one of his men. Therefore he is not just saving himself, but he is avenging a friend. It makes the audience forget that Columbus led the conquerors here to kill for revenge. It does not matter if they kill these natives because they are savage, animalistic man-eaters who will kill them without any remorse. It is no different than, in fact, killing some crazed, wild animal.
(8) The very end of the scene once again highlights Columbus’s supposed heroism. In the midst of killing the native that was about to kill him, Columbus realizes the savagery of his murderous, vengeful rampage. He screams for them to stop, seemingly heart-broken and shocked at allowing himself to fall to this barbaric level. Was Columbus indeed as remorseful about killing one native, for supposedly justifiable reasons, as he is portrayed here? This scene attaches a noble cause to the slaughter of people who were trying to live their lives and defending themselves against intruders. It is easy to sympathize with Columbus and the Spaniards, who are portrayed as people with families, trying to do something for their country, especially when they are put against something seemingly so savage and so unappealing. However, weren’t the natives attempting to do what Columbus did, trying to do something for their tribes? They were trying to protect themselves against an encroaching culture trying to wipe them out. They were trying to drive away intruders attempting to enslave them.
(9) The natives are portrayed as savages in this scene, ruthlessly killing the Spaniards. This image of them is pitted against the noble, dignified Columbus and his group of men, trying to do the right thing, a group of men who inadvertently fall from grace in a momentary lapse of judgment. A moment in which Columbus gives in to his primal emotions but quickly realizes the error of his ways. It is easy to believe Columbus was a grand hero when he is portrayed in this light. However, one has to question how noble he actually was when he allowed these people to be enslaved and failed to actually protect their rights. (see comment by Brian Cohen) One also has to question what the real Natives he was slaughtering were like, especially since his own personal journal descriptions are so drastically different from the natives portrayed in this scene.
Comments
It’s interesting that the producers and director of this film make the assumption that Columbus viewed morality and practicality in similar ways to how modern Westerners might view both notions today. Obviously historical documents and statistics suggest that Columbus was certainly not as conflicted about native treatment as the film makes him out to be, but common logic suggests this as well. In what pre-contact context have whites ever treated a different race with equal respect either morally or ethically? Granted I may have a small amount of historical knowledge, but I cannot think of one instance in which whites (pre-contact and even through modern centuries) have peacefully coexisted with an opposing race. The fact that the filmmakers suggest that Columbus had a more finely tuned sense of morality than any other white man at the time is not only inaccurate, but also entirely far-fetched. My guess is that Columbus observed and treated the natives like hostile animals; perhaps this is why Ridley Scott deliberately portrays them as such. However, in the film, the natives were always hostile, which begs me to wonder about the authenticity of this representation. Is it possible that Columbus produced a self-fulfilling prophecy? By treating the natives as hostile animals to be tamed and civilized, did he in turn provoke hostility? I not only think this is possible, but, truthfully, highly probable.
Although I fully understand and appreciate the argument that Karolina is trying to make here, I feel that this is also rather unfair to Columbus. Yes, he is portrayed as noble in the film, but there is a distinct difference between nobility and the ideal. Columbus can be noble (and evidently was, according to the film), but it is also essential to remember Columbus's position. He had to petition to get the right to travel to the New World, battle adversity, the elements, hunger, even his own shipmates -- all as a representative of Spain. He was there to accomplish a job. He wasn't there as some idealistic being, he was there because Spanish royalty afforded him the right to go to spread God and find gold. The fact that he was at least more civil than expected doesn't mean that his nobility should be questioned because he didn't act as a savior to these people. Yes, as a person perhaps Columbus should have protected the native race more, but he wasn't there as solely a person, he was there for specific reasons.
If anything, taking into account that people are basically products of their environments (and considering the aggressiveness of Spanish imperialistic culture), Columbus was portrayed as much more noble than he should have been. His peers, like Moxica, are people who do indeed cut off the hands of others, who engage in war when barely provoked, who attempt to steal land when it is obviously inhabited. This is not to say that the Spanish are to blame -- rather, society as a whole has bred them to act in such a way. But, on the other hand, it is certainly and blatantly unfair then to say that Columbus is at fault for not going above and beyond to protect every right of the native people.
