Momaday Represents Columbus
By Faith Roncoroni, with comments by Erin Thorn and Margaret Watters
[1] As the five-hundredth anniversary of Columbus Day approached, the renowned author, artist, and activist N. Scott Momaday gave a modern Native American interpretation of Columbus’s first contact with the New World through a triptych of paintings. His twelve-foot-long collection of acrylic-on-canvas paintings were individually entitled Palos, Admiral of the Sea, and San Salvador. Upon their release, Momaday publicly described the third painting in the series, San Salvador, as “a depiction of Columbus in a full figure adjacent to an Indian child; Columbus is an emaciated, death-like figure, and the child is pure innocent, small and naked. It’s a confrontation of the old world and the new world.†Although Momaday provides his audience with a brief synopsis of San Salvador, to this day (October 2008) there is very little published data on any of these paintings that comprise the Columbian Triad. The purpose of this essay is to raise questions concerning the portrayal of the indigenous child versus that of Columbus; I will analyze the interaction between the two figures and examine how the indigenous child’s depiction is a projection of indigenous American peoples and the new world, while Columbus represents Spaniards and the old world. More specifically, I want to provide an alternate analysis of San Salvador by questioning the depth of Momaday’s public statement; while he verbally describes the indigenous child as “pure innocent, small and naked,†he fails to acknowledge the vulnerability, dehumanization, and aggression of the child as shown in his painting.
[2] One of the most striking details in Momaday’s painting is the comparison of the “nakedness†of the indigenous child versus the “clothed†portrayal of Columbus. In his description of San Salvador, Momaday acknowledges the nakedness of the indigenous child within a positive context of purity and innocence, but he ignores the dark connotations of nudity. He also fails to comment on Columbus’s clothing or discuss the significance of comparing a naked child to a clothed man. While the Spaniards primarily viewed the Native American’s nudity as a detriment to their social and moral character, Momaday’s painting forces his audience to examine the paradoxical nature of the indigenous child’s nakedness. A child symbolizes purity and innocence, while nudity conveys natural beauty and honesty; both of these seemingly positive concepts, however, represent vulnerability. (see comment by Erin Thorn) By combining these notions into the idea of a naked child, Momaday emphasizes the defenselessness of the Native Americans who were exposed and completely vulnerable. Even more disturbing is the sexual vulnerability that accompanies the image of the small, exposed, and easily overpowered indigenous child next to the large, hulking figure of Columbus. Although the indigenous child’s exposure, because of nakedness, carries dark undertones, it should be acknowledged that the child’s exposure in this natural, naked state allows the child to touch the earth with his bare feet. Sharply contrasting this notion of being in close, physical contact with nature, Columbus is dressed from head to toe, depicting the old world’s need for protection, constrained contact, and lack of involvement with nature. The notion of the differences in how the Native Americans and Spaniards view and treat the land is exaggerated in the colors and tones. The indigenous child has green specks on his body, which in itself is a natural, light brown earth tone, signifying his connection with the land, how he is a part of nature and not separate from it, juxtaposing the black and white shades of Columbus’s skin color and clothing.
[3] Clothing acts as an indication of an individual’s identity, wealth, status, and social position; it can also be misleading and act as a form of concealment or, in a more literal context, clothing functions as a form of protection against nature’s elements. The bulkiness of Columbus’s clothing allows him to hide his ulterior motives and true intentions by literally concealing his motions and body language. Coinciding with this notion of deceitfulness, being “clothed†can also refer to assuming an appearance or embodying a particular form. The historical figure of Columbus symbolizes the old world, being the embodiment of the cultural hero who brings the Native Americans salvation, Christianity, and civilization, when in reality, beneath his cloak, he brings deceit, disease, and slavery. In contrast, when examining the appearance of the indigenous child against this interpretation of Columbus, his lack of clothing, i.e. nakedness, implies poverty, low level of status and social position, openness, and exposure to nature. Not only does the nudity of the child signify these negative perceptions, but it contributes to the lack of identifying features, making his gender, age, and tribe ambiguous. The indigenous child’s lack of distinctive characteristics, such as clothing and anatomical parts, allows him to be seen as a universal symbol of all indigenous American peoples. Since he is depicted without clothing, Native American people, on a whole, appear to be uncivilized, animalistic brutes that belong to a lower social class than the Spaniards. Other negative conceptions of nakedness associated with this indigenous child figure, and, as a result, projected upon the indigenous peoples of America, include deficiency of resources, destitution of means, expression of poverty, lack of a quality or skill, and inadequacy. Ironically, this negative, debased view of “nakedness†is how the Spaniards viewed the indigenous peoples and what they clung to in an attempt to justify their genocide of the native peoples and the deicide of the native peoples’ religions. Contrary to this cookie-cutter perception, the meaning of Momaday’s painting goes deeper than the surface of how we, as a society, view the history of first contact.
[4] Underneath Columbus’s hat, stockinged legs, and fancy shoes is a man whose face is stark white, with protruding cheek bones, black holes as eyes, and a fake, unsettling smile. After examining his hands closely, it appears as though his flesh is falling off, while remaining thinly stretched across his boney fingers. It is hard to discern the positioning of his hands. Columbus can be interpreted as clapping or cupping his hands together, but despite this discrepancy in hand gesture, he does so at an uncomfortable height and position: by his waist and against his side. Both hand gestures universally signify a reaction of great pleasure or admiration at a thought or sight, but the act of cupping ones hands creates a hollowed out shape that could literally be used in hiding a weapon or figuratively used in concealing his intentions. Either way, Columbus’s discomfort results from an inconsistency between the response of his private thoughts and his public actions. For instance, while he is smiling and cupping [or clapping] his hands together, he literally appears to be giving the indigenous child the cold shoulder, focusing his attention away from and beyond the child who is standing inches away from him. (see comment by Margaret Watters) At the same time his toes are pointed, and he is walking on the balls of his feet as though he is tip toeing or quietly sneaking around. Although his body is facing forward, past the child, his feet are pointed diagonally, distorting the positioning of his body; while at first it may appear as though Columbus does not notice the indigenous child, his body language and movement allow the viewer to question if Columbus is purposefully ignoring and avoiding the native, the native’s “nakedness,†and the native’s body language.
[5] By examining the indigenous child’s body language through the positioning of his feet and legs, the viewer can see the dichotomy of fear and wonder that the indigenous peoples must have felt when seeing the Spaniards for the first time. The Indian child’s feet are pointed in opposite directions, portraying his uncertainty in whether he should approach the dark figure or whether he should turn away. Part of the Indian child is immobile, signified by his straight left leg, but his knee and elbows are bent as though he is in mid-movement, approaching the dark figure in front of him. Since more of the Indian child’s body is facing Columbus and is bent in moving towards him, it can be assumed that Momaday is showing how the indigenous peoples’ inquisitive desire overpowered their sense of discomfort, fear, and uncertainty that they felt towards the Spaniards. Not only does the child appear hesitant to move towards the dark, unknown figure, but he is alert, defensive, and ready to fight, as shown through his posture; his head is lowered, his shoulders are raised, and his arms are in a tense position so that he can defend himself if he needs to fight. This notion of non-passive defense is strengthened by the indigenous child’s facial expression: he has a look of uncertainty, displeasure, and aggression, implied by his narrowed eyes, scrunched up nose, and somber frown. In defiance and disgust, the Native American child avoids eye contact with the dark, deathly looking figure, while Columbus looks past the indigenous child, ignoring him. By refusing to acknowledge the indigenous child who is in a ready position to protect himself and fight, Columbus symbolically ignores the negative impact that he has made on the indigenous peoples and his oblivion to the Native American’s hatred of him. Momaday uses this interaction to portray the way in which the Spaniards ruined the natural beauty of the Native Americans and their lifestyle by transforming the most pure, innocent, and trusting of people into sexualized, defensive, and aggressive animals.
[6] In all of Momaday’s art, whether novels or paintings, his purpose is to tell the truth, “another facet of the truth which maybe you haven’t seen before.†As the 1992 celebration of Columbus Day neared, Momaday felt compelled to expose the horrors of Columbus’s first contact with the indigenous peoples, the American history that is still exempt from text books five-hundred years later. The power of his painting lies in its honesty to accurately portray the Native American against Columbus and show the interaction between the new world and the old world. After careful analysis of Momaday’s San Salvador, it becomes apparent that the traditional conceptions of Columbus’s contact with Native Americans are one sided (Spanish sided) and false. While Native Americans are typically viewed as uncivilized, impoverished, sexualized, and animalized, Momaday’s public statement on his interpretation of the indigenous child in San Salvador emphasizes the positive notions of indigenous peoples: purity, innocence, and a natural, naked state. Although Momaday optimistically describes his depiction of the indigenous child, it should be acknowledged that his visual representation delves deeper, carrying dark undertones of weakness and hostility. This contradiction of what Momaday says and what he shows forces his audience to examine the paradoxical nature of the child, making them ask who or what caused the transformation of an untainted, innocent child into an angry, defensive, and aggressive fighter. His audience does not have to look far. At a glance it is clear that Momaday strays from the typical elementary school version of Columbus -- a man of good intentions, high social status, and power -- by portraying him as a dark, unsettling figure. Columbus takes on the appearance of a ghostly figure with a white, gaunt face, haunting eyes, withering body, distorted posture, and fake display of emotion. He does not just unassumingly pass by the native child, but he slyly avoids acknowledging the child’s presence, calling for the audience to question Columbus’s motives, actions, and historical portrayal.
[7] If you are interested in a deeper, richer analysis of Momaday’s San Salvador painting, here are several thought provoking questions to consider:
1) In my analysis, I claim that Columbus is avoiding the indigenous child, but why would Columbus want to ignore the child? What might he be focusing on? What does this reveal about Columbus and his motivations?
2) Colors are very important in Native American traditions, so why does Momaday choose these specific colors and shades in his painting? What historical or personal message is he trying to convey to his audience, both Native American and non-Native American, through his use of color?
3) The indigenous child’s nudity can be interpreted as a representation of the sexual exploitation of the Native Americans by the Spaniards; what does this pornographic portrayal of the Native Americans say about the Spaniards and the indigenous peoples? How is Momaday’s use of nakedness similar and different than other pieces of art which depict Native Americans as nude? (It may be helpful to look at the indigenous child’s commanding stance as compared to a more traditional depiction of Native Americans in a passive position.)
4) What does the lack of distinguishing characteristics and anatomical parts say about the indigenous child? How is this image different if the child is interpreted as a boy or as a girl? What does this ambiguous depiction of a “universal†Native American imply about the gender roles of indigenous people?
5) Columbus is not explicitly illustrated as a conqueror in the military sense because he lacks visible armor or weapons, so what type of conqueror is he? How does the sexuality of the indigenous child and Columbus play a role in this view?
6) Columbus’ disturbing facial expression and gestures, along with his oversized, baggy clothes may be interpreted as resembling a flasher’s; how does this image of Columbus influence the interpretation of power roles and sexual roles in this painting?
Comments
If Momaday's purpose was to portray a Native person in this painting to symbolize purity and innocence, I wonder if the use of a child to do so is the most effective. While it is certainly true that children can symbolize purity and innocence, there are other, less than positive ways to interpret the use of a child in this image -- whether it is intentional or not. When compared to Columbus, portrayed as a grown man, towering over the child, there is no question who would be the more dominant party. Thinking of the negative connotations of calling someone a "child" or "childlike," I think that it could be easy to interpret this image, with no connection to its origin or its artist, as a commentary on these two civilizations as they met: the Natives' immature and vulnerable; Columbus's towering over the other, fully matured and capable of caring for itself. To me, the use of the child, looking up in wonder at this "older," "wiser" culture can be counterproductive to its purpose.
In 1492, Columbus implies that the “old world†is a disaster. In Momaday’s work Columbus, it seems, is meant to represent that disaster. He is descending upon the “new world†with his withering body and withering morals. His sickly appearance and distorted posture may be interpreted as the disease that was soon to ravage the Americas following European discovery. In the third painting of the series, Columbus appears to look down at the child condescendingly, while at the same time seemingly reaching for something at his waist, whether it is a weapon or something less menacing. It may be that Momaday wished to leave this strange gesture at Columbus’s waist for interpretation, as it is not clear whether his hands are cupped around the heel of sword he is about to expose or he is simply in a guarded position. Either way, this position does not appear to imply something positive. His positioning is not by any means welcoming to the child just feet from him. However, I don’t think that Momaday’s Columbus is “giving the child the cold shoulder†but, instead, is giving the child his full attention with a look of disgust that could probably be interpreted in any culture as unenthusiastic and off-putting. This may be why the child looks hesitant to step any closer toward Columbus.
