Columbus: Criminal or Conqueror?
By Rachael Hansen and John Marlow, with comments by Timothy Guida, Tanya Saleh, Megan Snyder, Dana Shakked, Eric Edgerton, Andrea Espinoza, Andrew Wright, and Olga Zhakova
[1] Why would a person in 1992 make a historical film about Christopher Columbus' discovery that completely ignores the then current debates that question whether or not it precipitated genocide? Director Ridley Scott set out to produce the be-all-end-all depiction of Columbus, yet he blatantly neglected to address the most heated issue: Native American genocide (comment by Timothy Guida). In Scott's film, the native voice is unheard, their identity is muted, and their culture is disregarded. The quincentennial celebration of Columbus's voyage triggered a proliferation of literary criticisms addressing the controversy over the traditional Columbus myth. 1492: Conquest of Paradise, however, is silent about these issues. Having full knowledge of this multi-faceted debate, did Scott simply take the easy way out by providing another typical Columbus story? Under the pretense of a historical film, did Scott sacrifice historical truth and intellectual integrity for mass appeal at the box office? In his silence, Scott decides to avoid the genocide debate. Whether or not the discovery of the New World indeed precipitated genocide is still under debate, but it is an important one and should not be ignored. We still have a lot to learn from our heritage and need to address the important issues in order to better learn and evolve. The two strong arguments below represent the two sides of a heated debate that was not represented in the film 1492. They contain harsh truths which aren't marketable to the American public but are vital to the understanding of the moral implications of cultural conquest.
Pulling The Fleece Away From Our Eyes
[2] Columbus is a mainstay of American patriotism. He is the patron saint who planted the seeds of our nation. Our culture has been lulled into his heroic myth for hundreds of years and has celebrated this man with much pomp and circumstance. Columbus's worthiness has been the subject of much controversy and is now being linked to such un-heroic terms as mass murder, holocaust, and genocide.
[3] Fueled by hundreds of years of Western propaganda, our nation created the American Dream from the realities of an American Holocaust. By refusing to recognize the desecration of the native population, an atrocity is ignored: a crime doesn't exist without a victim. Failure to recognize and address the genocidal killing supports the notion that this crime deserves no confrontation and can be ignored and glossed over. Scott's film fits into this category by failing to bring any evidence of the existence of the genocidal nature of Columbus' discovery to the silver screen (comment by Megan Snyder).
[4] Columbus was familiar with persecution and murder before arriving in the New World. Gripped by the horrors of the Inquisition in 1480, Spain was cleansing its own nation of alleged heretics and also expelling thousands of Jewish people in 1492 (Koning 49). Isabella and Ferdinand, the very people who instituted these murderous policies, supported Columbus' journey. His journey, from its very inception, was tainted by death and murder.
"Historical Truth and Onscreen Portrayal"
[5] Discrepancies between historical truth and Scott's depiction fill the scene of first contact between the Spanish sailors and the Taino Indians. According to Columbus's own journal, the natives were kind, curious, and not aggressive as they waded into the sea to the Spaniards. Columbus wrote, "They do not bear arms, and do not know them for I showed them a sword â€" they took it by the edge and cut themselves." According to Scott's version, the natives lurked in the forest and surprised the Spaniards with spears and bows poised to shoot. In 1492, the natives are bold and forward, while the Spanish are passive and submissive. This early scene, by setting up the stereotype of civilized Spaniard versus savage and aggressive Indian, is a crucial starting point in Scott's failure to include a hint of the murderous crimes committed by Columbus.
[6] Fully documented by correspondence between Columbus and Spain, and the writings by Bartolome de Las Casas, is the requerimiento, a statement the Spanish read to the Indians, demanding they accept Christianity and swear allegiance to the Pope and the Spanish crown. If the Indians did not immediately accept the requerimiento, it continued:
I certify that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter into your country and shall make way against you in all the ways and manners that we can, and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church and Their Highnesses. We shall take you and your wives and children, and shall make slaves of them, and as such shall sell and dispose of them as Their Highnesses command. And we shall take your goods, and shall do you all the mischief and damage that we can, as to vassals who do not obey and refuse to receive their lord and resist and contradict him. (Stannard 66) (comment by Olga Zhakova)
[7] This statement was a precursor to the genocidal crimes as well as "merely a legalistic rationale for a fanatically religious and fanatically juridical and fanatically brutal people to justify a holocaust" (Stannard 66). Scott's 1492 sanitized version of communing Spaniards and Indians lacks any allusion to the use of this aggressive statement and therefore contributes to his glossy and pleasant depiction of Columbus' colonization.
[8] Columbus's first voyage to the New World was placid and pale in comparison to the destructive forces that arose after Columbus' second voyage in 1494. Two years after the initial contact, diseases such as malaria, dysentery, small pox, and influenza had begun the destruction of the Indian population. These viruses wreaked havoc on a native population not previously exposed to them. "So many Indians died they could not be counted" (Stannard 69). Columbus himself fell ill at this time. Consequently, the little control he had over his men faded fast, triggering a rampage of indiscriminate torture, killing, and looting by the Spanish. 50,000 were killed during Columbus' sickness. His health, however, offered the natives no relief. "Columbus' response to his men's unorganized depredations was to organize them" (Stannard 69). (see comment by Andrew Wright)
[9] Indian massacres reached monstrous proportions in March of 1495 as Columbus gathered hundreds of armed troops and a group of attack dogs. Together, this lethal combination tore through the New World, killing the native people by the thousands. According to Stannard, these raiding parties became the typical method of Spanish destruction for the next decade and beyond. As Las Casas wrote:
Once the Indians were in the woods, the next step was to form squadrons and pursue them, and whenever the Spanish found them, they pitilessly slaughtered everyone like sheep in a corral. . . . So they would cut an Indian's hands and leave them dangling by a shred of skin and they would send him on saying, "Go now, spread the news to your chiefs." They would test their swords and their manly strength on captured Indians and place bets on the slicing off of heads or cutting of bodies in half with one blow. They burned and hung captured chiefs. (Stannard 70)
[10] This systematic organization of barbaric killing committed by the Spaniards is never acknowledged in Scott's 1492. Despite documentation that proves it as true, Scott left out references to any of the Spanish methodical killing. Instead, the only account of mass murder in the film is committed by the natives in 1492. Upon Columbus' return to the New World, he finds the Spanish who were left behind decapitated, mangled, and burned. His suspicions immediately turn to the Indians, who quickly blame it upon Indians from another tribe. This unbalanced portrayal of the Indians as the only ones to commit mass murder is far from the truth. Scott's choice to ignore this and alter it completely illustrates how 1492 cowardly aligns itself with the accepted view of Columbus as benevolent hero and discoverer.
[11] When Columbus and his crew landed on Hispaniola in 1492, the estimated native population was eight million people. Disease, murder, slavery, and torture brought by the Spanish lead to a rapid population decline, reducing the number of native people to four or five million by 1496. By 1508, numbers dipped to less than one hundred thousand, and ten years later they were estimated at twenty thousand natives (Stannard 72). Columbus's devastating presence went beyond the island of Hispaniola, reaching the Bahamas and the rest of the Caribbean. Trying to replace the dying slave population, Columbus imported slaves from the Bahamas, who followed the same fate. Consequently, half a million people were eliminated from the Bahamas, while millions of Caribbean natives were eradicated within twenty-five years of Columbus' first landing in the New World (Stannard 73).
[12] The downward spiral of the native population lead to the near disappearance of a culture and the extinction of a population in less than a person's lifetime. Barbara Harff, author of Genocide and the Modern Age: Etiology and Case Studies of Mass Death, claims Indians in the New World were victims of the most prolific genocide of the twentieth century. "None has come close to destroying this many â€" or this great a proportion -- of wholly innocent people," says Harff (Stannard 75).
"Scott Joined the Bandwagon"
[13] 1492 falls in step with the hustle and bustle of the glossy quincentennial celebration. Scott didn't oppose the 1992 ban levied by the National Endowment for the Humanities and the United States Senate that refused to fund any film which proposed to use, or even whisper, the word "genocide." Additionally, Scott produced his film without resisting the limits put forth by Secretary of Education William Bennett, who claimed "the popularization of such distortions of history would signify an undermining of the Western cultural tradition which made this great nation what it is today" (Churchill 5). By and large, Scott and 1492 are witnesses to the refusal to address the fact that an American Holocaust did occur, led by the man who, thus far, is the foundation of the American Dream.
[14] The terms holocaust and genocide are mainly associated with the Jewish victimization by the Nazis. Columbus, however, can be considered as cut from the same cloth as Nazi general Heinrich Himmler. Disease killed thousands in German death camps as European viruses destroyed large portions of the native population. Jewish people were forced to wear yellow stars and concentration camp prisoners were tattooed with numbers. Similarly, Taino slaves were branded on their face and body with their owner's name. According to Ward Churchill, Himmler and Columbus fulfilled the same function, for the same reasons. The difference, he says, "is that while the specific enterprise Himmler represented ultimately failed and is now universally condemned, that represented by Columbus did not and is not" (156). (see comment by Dana Shakked)
[15] 1492 satisfies American mainstream thinking by providing the main audience, white middle-class Americans, with the traditional Columbus story that stems from the mythology of Columbus as hero. Scott's Columbus is a friend to the natives who protects them from the villainous Moxica. This, however, is wholly untrue, for the real Columbus is closer to the dark and evil Moxica. Essentially, by remaining silent about the genocidal and devastating events surrounding Columbus, Scott fails to confront the truth in his film that is packaged as a truthful historical account. 1492, therefore, remains safely within the bounds of what Hollywood would consider acceptable by maintaining our jaded knowledge of American discovery and the great hero Christopher Columbus. (comment by Eric Edgerton)
[16] Adolf Hitler said, "The bigger the lie, the greater the likelihood that it will be believed" (Churchill 1). Ironically, the man who led the horrific Jewish Holocaust is absolutely right and Americans have fallen into this belief.
[17] The motivating force of this debate is not necessarily a matter of fact versus fiction but one of perceptions and opinions. The second half of this essay addresses a different point of view.
Taming Paradise
[18] In his film 1492, Ridley Scott focused on the opposition and struggle Columbus confronted in order make his dream of sailing for his fabled "New World" a reality. Columbus's critics argue that the glories of his accomplishments are overshadowed by the devastation he brought to the Indian peoples. Many claim Columbus had no right to invade the seemingly Edenic New World and settle what was already occupied by the Indians. The question that drives the Columbus debate is a moral one: does a more advanced culture, such as the Spanish, have an "obligation" to take over lands that are inhabited by primitive indigenous peoples? Opponents of the Spanish conquest claim the conquistadors who set out for America had no respect or understanding of the cultures they were trying to subvert. These opponents are completely right: the Spanish couldn't make heads or tails of the Indian cultures. These cultures were completely alien to anything they had ever seen. As a result, the Spanish had no basis for comparison. For this reason critics believe the Spanish had no right to claim their culture as superior. How could the Spanish determine their culture to be better when they didn't comprehend the most basic concepts of the Indian lifestyle?
[19] To answer this harsh question we must first answer another question: did the Spanish have a moral obligation to understand the Indians before colonizing America? First of all, the Spanish did not come across the ocean to eliminate these Indian tribes but to open a new trade route. Through interactive trade, the Spanish got to know the Indians and declared them to be uncivilized. The Indians practiced the pagan religions that western civilization had long since outgrown. Additionally, the natives lacked unification among tribes. Unlike Spain, the people in the New World lacked any type of overarching system of government or unification. Tribal divisions led to a constant state of agitation with their neighbors within the native population.
"Two Sides To A Story"
[20] To get any idea of what the Indians were really like, consider how they treated whites when they were in power. For instance, Christian missionaries called "Black Robes" investigated the New World through pilgrimages throughout Northern America, attempting to peacefully convert the Indians to Christianity. Risking their own lives, these martyrs traveled with Indian groups to spread "the word of God." The Black Robes traveled to the heart of the wilderness where their lack of survival skills left them completely dependent on the natives. Occasionally, Indian "guides" would abandon the missionaries among the wilderness, without any rational reason, or any concern for their welfare. Due to this threat of abandonment, a Black Robe was forced to be extremely cautious of his behavior among the Indians. According to James Axtell, "if they took dislike to him for any reason â€" and ‘a word or a dream or a fancy' was sufficient â€" they could jettison his precious altar kit or books, ‘borrow' his broad-brimmed felt hat and cloak, or abandon him altogether" (Axtell, Invasion 73). The Black Robes suffered great hardships just for the opportunity to save these heathens souls. In the hope of saving the Indians, the missionaries placed themselves in an environment where they couldn't survive without the people who disliked their presence. It is unfair to blame the Spanish for genocide when documentation proves from such examples as this that most Indians were hostile toward the missionaries and refused to regard them as equals. The Black Robes were told by their native hosts that "they had no ‘sense' because they did not think or act like Indians" (Axtell, Invasion 71).
[21] Typically, those critical of Columbus focus upon the Spanish ignorance of Indian traditions and cultures. Very seldom, however, do people recognize that Indian tribes were equally guilty of this same crime. The Indians couldn't stand the appearance of the Black Robes; they thought the bearded Black Robes looked inherently unintelligent. Axtell says the Indians viewed their short facial hair as "a mark of weak intelligence and limited sex appeal" (Axtell, Invasion 78). Upon closer evaluation of the facts, it is fair to say the Indians are also guilty of labeling their opponents with quickly determined stereotypes. It is human nature to sympathize with the loser and demonize the victor. Therefore, the Indians have been cast in the victim's role. This is a dangerous tendency that distorts our view on history.
"Horror Within"
[22] These were not the only acts of brutality witnessed first-hand by the Black Robes. Along with their utter disregard for foreigners, Indian tribes had no regard for members of other tribes. Their methods of torture were horrific but justified by the necessity to maintain a strong image to dispel any perceptions of weakness that may lead to an attack. Is this the rich Indian culture which anti-Columbus critics are upset about losing? Surely this isn't the sort of practice that any culture should want to preserve. The difference between the Indian culture and the Spanish is this: the Spanish culture had advanced to the point where violence was no longer necessary to maintain peace on a large scale. There were no warring tribes in Spain because they had unified. (comment by Andrea Espinoza)
[23] People tend to see the Indians as victims, but what these critics overlook is the brutality that existed within the native people. Indian tribes were constantly trying to increase their power and defeat their rivals. This is a basic fundamental of conquest and colonization. The Spanish had it as well; it drove them to expand into new settlements. To explain and rationalize their actions in the New World, the Spanish conquerors thought as follows:
We men of Castile and Aragon (they might have said) were the first to discover the New World and to incorporate most of it into the Spanish empire, an empire greater than Rome's, an empire upon which the sun literally never set. And we did so according to the laws of God and of nations. As loyal soldiers of Christ, we sought to extend God's earthly kingdom, first, over our own peninsula and its Muslim invaders in the glorious 800-year Reconquista, and then over the millions of pagan inhabitants of the Americas. Our voyages to the New World were little more than extensions of the Crusades to free Jerusalem from the scimitared hand of the Infidel. Moreover, His Excellency Pope Alexander VI gave us exclusive right to bring the New World into Christ's fold in a papal bull issued immediately after Columbus's return in 1493. (Axtell, Beyond 245)
[24] These were the rules of the time that the Spanish conquistadors followed. There was no question if what they did was right or wrong. Questions of morality were not discussed. People today demonize the Spanish for violating moral issues that had yet to be created. To blame the Spanish in 1492 for lacking respect for native populations and failing to preserve Indian culture is as ridiculous as asking the Indians to end sexism. The conquistadors focused on expanding the Spanish nation's empire and wanted to spread the word of Christ all over the globe. The speaker of the above passage clearly has no interest in genocide or enslavement. He embodies the conquistadors' purpose of spreading their influence across the globe. During the Spanish colonization, it was not their interest to engage in war with Indians or eliminate an entire tribe. If genocide were at the heart of the Spanish intent in the New World, each attempt at colonization would have failed. The Spanish settlers recognized their need for cooperation with the Indians in order to efficiently live off the land. Consequently, any attempt to wipe out the native population would also harm their own well-being.
[25] Documented proof and testimony confirm brutal practices and atrocities committed by tribes against other natives. Indians lived in a culture that valued strength and preyed on weakness. If a tribe displayed weakness, they would become vulnerable to another's tribe aggression. In this violent culture, it was not uncommon for one tribe to eliminate another. Consequently, the Indians themselves designed their own method of mutual destruction. Therefore, it seems irrational to blame the Europeans for the elimination of Indian nations. It was rather an issue of survival of the fittest.
[26] Had the Indian tribes united, they could have prevented the small colonial groups from invading "their" land. The basic fact, however, is that the Indians had nearly as much claim to the lands as any other wild creature did. The rules of conquest are harsh and unyielding. The Indians understood these rules well because they were guilty of engaging in the same practice. If their culture had truly been one close to rivaling the Spanish, then they would have unified their tribes and would still be around today. People often fault Columbus for being responsible for destroying the Indian culture. The ironic reality of this situation is that "lacking writing, most natives would now not even be acquainted with their own past" (Royal 138). People get so worked up about laying blame that they lose sight of reality.
[27] Author Robert Royal makes an interesting point about the twisted nature in which we tend to approach evaluating the Indian cultures. He remarks at our tendency to withhold judgment over the Indian tribes, which makes it easier to criticize the Spanish. "While for some people the disparity between the average incomes of men and of women in the United States is an abomination, and calling attention to the deep structures that perpetuate it is a duty, pointing out the low position of women, incessant tribal warfare, torture of captives, and enslavement that existed in most pre-colonial North American Indian cultures is disrespectful" (Royal 140). By failing to point out the evils inherent within the Indian tribes, we make it impossible to have a fair debate on the subject. Because of an overwhelming tendency towards political correctness at the latter part of the 20th century, we have allowed ourselves to distort the reality of the colonization of America. We created a controversy where there shouldn't have been one. The Indians were indeed victims ultimately, but they were victims because of unfair treatment by the US government.
"Difficult To Resolve"
[28] George Orwell wrote, "Who controls the past controls the future. And who controls the present controls the past." Orwell strikes at the heart of the Columbus debate by recognizing the importance of accurately recounting history. He acknowledges that those who dominate society have the power to write history and consequently decide our future (Zinn 97).
[29] The multi-dimensional nature of the Columbus story offers weighty opposing sides. Both are based not only on historical fact but rely upon an individual's own morals and beliefs, thus making this a continual bone of contention in our nation. "Inevitably, this global encounter of people and cultures raised a host of moral questions for contemporaries," writes James Axtell (Beyond 244). The way we answer these questions reflects upon how we view our history, our future, and ourselves. Ridley Scott's 1492: Conquest of Paradise follows the typical heroic Columbus myth and fails to recognize or challenge the information that lies beyond the sanitized discovery myth.
[30] In the quincentennial year of Columbus's voyage, is it acceptable to passively accept Scott's bland and conventional depiction of this significant event that is steeped in controversy? "We also judge the past to advance our own moral education, to learn from and, in effect, to be judged by the past" (Axtell, Beyond 264). The truth behind Columbus' colonization disrupts our comfortably accepted version of "the man who sailed the ocean blue." We are wary to expose and confront the harsh realities that our nation stemmed from genocide and subjugation. Scott's 1492 remained within his audience's comfort zone by providing a pleasant depiction of the discovery. While this may have sold tickets at the box office, Scott's failure to acknowledge the truth certainly didn't remove the fleece from the viewer's eyes.
Comments
[1] Axtell's "Moral Reflections on the Columbian Legacy" supports the position that much of the damage done to the native populations during the time following Columbus's arrival was unintended. Using evidence such as financial impracticality, he claims that the Spanish, generally, did not intend to be genocidal towards the Native American populations. Churchill has a different perspective in his article "Bringing the Law Home." He uses a multi-faceted definition of genocide to illustrate that this word does indeed describe the fate of Native Americans.
[2] Taking both of these opinions into account reveals certain truths in the midst of a mysterious past. One of these truths that we cannot ignore is that the invading Europeans were not all heartless and one-dimensional killers. In the midst of these evils are real people, some of whom never intended to cause the damage they did. Another truth we cannot ignore, though, is that whether intentional or not there was a devastating death toll among the native populations during this settlement period. Atrocities were committed, massacres did take place, and slaves were taken. The ecological perspective, as Axtell points out, is a good case in point. The dramatic changes in exotic species of plants and animals in the American landscape were unintentionally caused, often through simple ignorance. Each incident may or may not be understandable or forgivable, but in the modern world what really matters is what we are to learn from history.
[3] Churchill has a valid point that something as tragically deadly as the invasion of Europe into North America should not be celebrated. Axtell is equally as valid, however, when he says that it is not that we should stop observing days like Columbus Day. Rather, he proposes we observe them differently, by avoiding the simplified and packaged "holiday" and examining the complicated details and moral implications of the event. He proposes that a change of verb helps matters, making the day an "observance" and not a "celebration."
[1] It is time, as a nation, that we stop creating false images of history in such movies as Ridley Scott's 1492: Conquest of Paradise. Superficially, the title looks convincing; however, when one truly looks at the facts and the attempts made at acknowledging the wrongs committed in the past, it is a pitiful attempt. Much suffering occurred then and continues now by those who hold their ancestry in the palm of their hand wondering where the truth lies. Western filmmakers such as Scott create their re-imagined view of history in half-truths, thus skewing the true identity of historical figures such as Columbus. By doing so, these filmmakers are leaving false impressions on viewing minds. Let's take one moment to think hypothetically. On a personal level, for example, how would we (the United States) feel if the British made a national holiday of their attempt to annex us to the throne? If this point is not convincing, that's ok, the point to remember is that we citizens of the free world left the British to escape exactly the persecutions that the Spaniards imposed on the Natives, and now we celebrate these atrocities as nation -- calling it: Columbus Day.
[2] What exactly are we celebrating? We think we know, right? It's about Columbus's discovery of a new world, where he comes on these gallant ships and makes a successful thriving culture. Sure, that seems viable, but American history books and movies such as Scott's have fogged our vision of the complete account of his "discovery."
[3] From my own personal, childhood experiences, I have to say that I thought that Columbus set foot on the soil we as United States citizens now call America. When in fact he never did so. Why, then, is he such an important figure to us today? That question is one I am not sure I can find the answer to, however it is clear there is some information out there that has led us to believe he is a figure to be memorialized. Having a national holiday to commemorate a person is no small matter. That person must have done something spectacular to be honored in such a way. However, what hero-like attributes Columbus models for American society baffles me.
[4] The day that we celebrate should be one that we mourn. Historically speaking, these natives whom Columbus "explored" were often times "enslaved in just wars and sent to mines or to the chain gangs, where they perished in appalling numbers from hunger and cold or extreme heat" (Axtell, "Moral Reflections on the Columbian Legacy" 248), as graphically described in Bartolome de Las Casas' Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies. Scott does make an attempt at showing the massive gold mining expedition, however it's quite a sardonic experience when you watch it. The natives just seem to be walking the catwalks of the mines in a rather peaceful manner; you do not get a sense that they are being tortured, as Axtell and Las Casas explain it.
[5] United States citizens tend to mix up the facts and tend to believe that what they see on television or in a movie is real and factual. Hollywood creates stories just as publishers of smutty novels create books. Often they take real events and transform them on the reel to something of a facade of truth. Sometimes this aspect of movie making is overlooked. The film industry and Ridley Scott are not solely to blame for this grossly inaccurate portrayal of Columbus; our teachers, law makers, and American history text book makers have a hand in this too.
[6] Our own lawmakers tend to mask things or smooth things over just as Scott did in his movie. In current years the United States has tried to loop-hole itself out of an international treaty to condemn genocide. It was created in 1948; various nation-states signed it in order to further prevent such a catastrophe as the Holocaust. The US declined ratification of this treaty for 40 years until it could find a way to exempt itself from the canons of international law (Churchill 17). The United States feared that it could be looked upon by other nations as supporting certain potential members for genocide, like the Ku Klux Klan (Churchill, "Bringing the Law Home" 16).
[7] My question then becomes: Is it for fear of being seen as a society that tolerates atrocities such as this that we create images of our history to make ourselves look better to our international community? Perhaps there is some validity to this statement. We, as the single most powerful nation in the world, set an example for the other nations of the global community. It would look rather bad if the truth be told and Scott published a truthful account of Columbus's discovery. Such a film might cause international uproar as well as intranational conflict. Within the United States, many people would feel as if they had been "lied to" by their elementary school texts books and the film industry. Externally, the international community may rekindle their belief that the United States is tolerant of genocidally-acting groups or people.
[8] This is a very difficult topic to consider, however I think it's necessary for history to be told truthfully so that one can see a movie like Ridley Scott's and discern fact from fiction.
To me this is the most powerful piece of the essay. It would certainly be an easy task to point out the many instances in 1492 in which Ridley Scott misrepresents Columbus’s actions; the real intrigue lies within trying to answer “why.†It must be remembered that Scott was not always the accomplished auteur when it comes to historical films that the public knows today. At this juncture in his career his biggest historical work was The Duelists, a 1977 drama with a budget under $1 million. All his other major productions had been works of science fiction. While this is only speculation, it seems very likely to me that as a director entering the realm of historical film for the first time, Scott may have been afraid to stray too far from the “p.c†depiction of this event. While he has since shown no fear of negatively portraying beloved historical figures in later films (Kingdom of Heaven certainly leaps to mind), he opts to stick directly to the school book depiction of Columbus. Perhaps further still, one must speculate as to whether his nationality had any bearing on this depiction. For an Englishman to cross the pond only to trash one of the most beloved figures of American history would require a great deal of gall. It would be the cinematic equivalent of an American filmmaker creating a film in which the Knights of the Round Table were murderous savages. Combine these two concerns Scott most certainly must have felt going into production of 1492, and it is no wonder he stuck to the image the public wanted to see.
Okay. I'm going to work backwards here. To Ms. Hanson and Mr. Marlow, your history is backwards. The country of Spain as we now know it was not the Spain that Columbus lived in 1492 when he sailed the ocean blue. In fact, Espana was built up of little tiny kingdoms that would not be unified (albeit, bloodily) until the reign of Fernando and Isabel. There was Granada, which had been held by the Moors for hundreds upon hundreds of years; Castilla y Leon, the actual territory which was ruled by Isabel's family; Aragon and Sicily, which was ruled originally by the family of King Fernando; Navarre in the north, the Canary Islands, and Valencia. These were tiny kingdoms that took a great long time to unify in the Perfidious Spain of 1492. The Indian culture, which is an aspect that I believe Ridley Scott does capture, is more about concentrating on day-to-day life. They were more about what was happening in their time and place. Therefore, I don't think that you can judge the two equally. They were on two different levels. The Indians crafted methods that worked for their lifestyle and so did the Spaniards. As for the Spaniards no longer needing violence, that is a lie. If that was true, then the horrors of the Inquisition never would have happened. The Indian tribes were not perfect, but Ridley Scott portrays them as people who just needed to be killed so that they (the Spaniards) could do what they needed to do, and to glorify that is to pull the wool over the eyes of not only Americans, but also history. (see comment by Tanya Saleh)
This official statement fully proves that Columbus wasn't just a separate man trying to conquer/discover/find America; he was a man in service of the Spanish crown. I think Columbus was a man of his time, fulfilling the task that Europe was ready to fulfill. In this regard, it seems to me inaccurate to discuss whether Columbus was a criminal or a conqueror. He was acting according to his time, so it is more appropriate to discuss whether the Spanish and European policy was moral or immoral. And this discussion is crucial to nowadays, as the answer to this question will determine how countries and people treat each other in the modern world. So while it is crucially important to uncover the true events happening at that time, it seems to me that it is not quite right to accuse Columbus of doing what he did. I think Columbus was a man of his time, and what he did was normal for that time and for the civilization he lived in. We definitely need these debates nowadays so not to misinterpret the real events that took place in 1492; however, I find these debates too narrow when they are held within the framework of one person -- Columbus. For me he represents his time, European civilization, the way the world developed. Yes, the significance and role of Columbus should definitely be reviewed, but he should be judged along with the civilization he lived in, not as a separate man, as I’m sure that if it hadn’t been Columbus it would have been someone else, but with more or less the same consequences, as it was the way these people of European civilization thought and lived at that time.
Claiming that the actions of the Nazis are comparable to that of Columbus is completely ludicrous and wrong. The key difference between Columbus and his followers and the Nazis is the ignorance with which the two groups acted. The Nazis intended to eliminate the Jewish race entirely, stemming from malice and hate. The Europeans came to the West with the intention of spreading religion and finding wealth, not to commit mass genocide. Perhaps the Taino slaves can be compared to the Jews solely on the physical branding, but the actual treatment of the Jews is on a whole other scale. I am not saying that Columbus and his men did not cause the mass murder of millions of natives, but to compare him to Himmler of the Nazis is simply outrageous.
My trouble with the argument here is with the proportions of Indians killed by diseases such as influenza and small pox, for which the Native American has almost no natural immunities, versus the number killed by Columbus’s men. Stannard states the population of Hispanola fell from 8 million in 1492 to under half that four short years later. Stannard says that Columbus’s men killed 50,000 Indians. That means the 99% of the deaths occurred because of diseases, not murder. Churchill and Stannard try to demonize Columbus as a vicious murderer and apparently worse than Hitler. In reality, the Native Americans were destined for decimation not because of the malicious imperialistic Europeans but rather because they lacked the antibodies required to fight off infections. No matter who the first Old World explorers to make contact with Native Americans were, or under what conditions, the Indians were doomed. Even if Churchill himself were the first European to make contact with Indians, he would have transferred nearly the same levels of death and destruction as Columbus’s men. I am not condoning the murder of innocent defenseless people, but I feel Hansen and Marlow intentionally argue that Columbus was much worse than he really was and the Indians much more innocent than they were.
I fully agree that there are several historical mistakes in this essay. In addition, there are also some flaws in the counterargument presented in paragraph 21. I personally don't understand how one can view the actions of the natives towards the conquistadors on the same plane and with the same criteria as the actions of the conquistadors to the natives. For clarification, I disagree with the argument that the "Indians were equally guilty of the same crime [of being ignorant of Spanish culture and traditions]." They did not invade anyone's territory, they did not invite the Spaniards to invade theirs, and by principle the "New World" was their home first. Therefore they bore no responsibility of learning about the Spaniards' traditions and culture. Doing so might have made them more impenetrable to genocide and overthrow, but not doing so does not make them guilty of any crime whatsoever.
Axtell, James. "The Moral Dimensions of 1492." Historian 56.1 (1993): 17-28.
Axtell, James. Beyond 1492: Encounters in Colonial North America. New York: Oxford UP, 1992.
Churchill, Ward. Indians Are Us? Culture and Genocide in Native North America. Maine: Common Courage, 1994.
Koning, Hans. “The Second Voyage.†Confronting Columbus: An Anthology. Ed. John Yewell, Chris Dodge, and Jan DeSirey. Jefferson: MacFarland, 1992.
Royal, Robert. 1492 And All That: Political Manipulations of History. Baltimore: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1992.
Stannard, David E. American Holocaust: Columbus and the Conquest of the New World. New York: Oxford UP, 1992.
Zinn, Howard. "Columbus and Western Civilization." Howard Zinn on History. New York: Seven Stories P., 2001. 97-120.
