Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Columbus - Getting A Bad Rap?


Recommended Posts

Do you really believe that?  He cut off hands, fed hacked up children to dogs and more.

 

He was removed from his post for his cruelty.  So I don't think we can just wave our hands and say he was simply a product of his time.  Most Europeans, as I understand it, were not chopping up human beings as punishment for not gathering enough gold.

 

I do believe that.  Though in retrospect i should not have said that he was just a product of his time.  I think that makes it sound less wrong or something.

 

I don't say it as any kind of justification for his actions (which were atrocious).  But they were not unheard of from other men either.  Long after Columbus was gone, European men were doing horrible things to the Native Americans in South and Central America.  I come from a state where one of our claim's to infamous fame was a battle where American soldiers cut unborn babies out of their mothers wombs and then wore their uteruses on their heads like hats.  While many good people recoiled in horror that men would do such a thing, by other standards they were a product of the society they lived in (which does not justify it!).  

 

And even though Columbus was arrested for cruelty, he was pardoned by the King and Queen of Spain and sent on his way a wealthy free man.  The heads of state of Spain did not have a problem with his actions.  He was allowed to trade African slaves when there were no more native slaves to sell.

 

The whole chapter in history is horrible.  It was one of the worst semesters of my academic life getting my history degree when i had to study the conquest of South and Central America at the same time i was studying the Holocaust.  I don't understand how people can be so depraved.

Link to comment

Indeed. the account of De Las Casas leaves little doubt that it's not presentism that makes him seem cruel. His contemporaries thought so, too, such that he and his two brothers were removed from their posts and imprisoned based on complaints of their cruelty.

 

It is worth noting though that he was acquitted of cruelty charges by the king and queen.  I don't point that out to suggest that Columbus might not have been guilty (I'm sure he was) but to show that not all of his contemporaries believed he had crossed a line.  

Edited by bluebell
Link to comment

It is worth noting though that he was acquitted of cruelty charges by the king and queen.  I don't point that out to suggest that Columbus might not have been guilty (I'm sure he was) but to show that not all of his contemporaries believed he had crossed a line.  

 

Sure, it's obvious that Fernando didn't think Columbus' behavior merited imprisonment, but then the king may not have wanted the embarrassment of his most successful and famous explorer (one who had brought him great wealth and power) becoming known as a cruel tyrant. 

Link to comment

Sure, it's obvious that Fernando didn't think Columbus' behavior merited imprisonment, but then the king may not have wanted the embarrassment of his most successful and famous explorer (one who had brought him great wealth and power) becoming known as a cruel tyrant. 

 

He was already known as that though, so i'm not sure that's what the King was concerned about.  From my perspective, the king and queen were simply greedy.  They were willing to look the other way at horrible cruelty as long as the money kept flowing in.  If Columbus was accused of treated European Christians like that, I don't think they would have allowed it. Native American lives and suffering meant little to them.  They saw them as the equivalent of animals.

Link to comment

He was already known as that though, so i'm not sure that's what the King was concerned about.  From my perspective, the king and queen were simply greedy.  They were willing to look the other way at horrible cruelty as long as the money kept flowing in.  If Columbus was accused of treated European Christians like that, I don't think they would have allowed it. Native American lives and suffering meant little to them.  They saw them as the equivalent of animals.

 

That's pretty much how I see it. I do think, however, that it was important for the Spanish king to promote the illusion that the conquest was about Christianizing heathens. De Las Casas, for example, was accused of treason for writing his Confesionario, which chronicled Spanish abuses in the Americas, and all copies were ordered burned. Greed was the driving factor, but even kings want good PR.

Link to comment

Interesting fact about Columbus.  He reports seeing a UFO in his journal.

 

Read more here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1492_light_sighting

 

There's nothing particularly UFO-ish in the account:

 

 

 

After sunset he steered on his former course to the west. They made about 12 miles each hour and, until two hours after midnight, made about 90 miles, which is twenty-two leagues and a half. And because the caravel Pinta was a better sailor and went ahead of the Admiral it found land and made the signals that the Admiral had ordered. A sailor named Rodrigo de Triana saw this land first, although the Admiral, at the tenth hour of the night, while he was on the sterncastle saw a light, although it was something so faint that he did not wish to affirm that it was land. But he called Pero Gutierrez, the steward of the king's dais, and told him that there seemed to be a light, and for him to look: and thus he did and saw it. He also told Rodrigo Sanchez de Segovia, whom the king and queen were sending as veedor of the fleet, who saw nothing because he was not in a place where he could see it. After the Admiral said it, it was seen once or twice; and it was like a small wax candle that rose and lifted up, which to few seemed to be an indication of land. But the Admiral was certain that they were near land, because of which when they recited the salve, which sailors in their own way are accustomed to recite and sing, all being present, the Admiral entreated and admonished them to keep a good lookout on the forecastle and to watch carefully for land; and that to the man who first told him that he saw land he would later give a silk jacket in addition to the other rewards that the sovereigns had promised, which were ten thousand maravedis as an annuity to whoever should see it first. At two hours after midnight the land appeared, from which they were about two leagues distant. They hauled down all the sails and kept only the treo, which is the mainsail without bonnets, and jogged on and off, passing time until daylight Friday, when they reached an islet of the Lucayas, which was called Guanaham in the language of the Indians. Soon they saw naked people; and the Admiral went ashore in the armed launch, and Martin Alonso Pinzon and his brother Vicente Anes, who was captain of the Nina The Admiral brought out the royal banner and the captains two flags with the green cross, which the Admiral carried on all the ships as a standard, with an F and a Y, and over each letter a crown, one on one side and the other on the other. Thus put ashore they saw very green trees and many ponds and fruits of various kinds. The Admiral called to the two captains and to the others who had jumped ashore and to Rodrigo Descobedo, the escrivano of the whole fleet, and to Rodrigo Sanchez de Segovia; and he said that they should be witnesses that, in the presence of all, he would take, as in fact he did take, possession of the said island for the king and for the queen his lords, making the declarations that were required, and which at more length are contained in the testimonials made there in writing. Soon many people of the island gathered there.

 

In short, they saw a faint light, and they assumed that meant they were near land, and lo and behold, they were. De Las Casas notes that it was probably a fire or a torch of native origin. 

 

Just out of curiosity, what leads you to believe this was a UFO? 

 

ETA: These are Columbus' words. Apparently, he often wrote in the third person.

Edited by jkwilliams
Link to comment

...If Columbus was accused of treated European Christians like that, I don't think they would have allowed it. Native American lives and suffering meant little to them.  They saw them as the equivalent of animals.

History suggests the pattern is somewhat common.  People allow themselves to be convinced that others are brute savages or animals. Then, they use that paradigm as justification for warfare, and/or any other kind of inflicted suffering.

 

It has even happened often enough with Europeans against fellow Europeans, Christian or not didn't make much difference.

Edited by hagoth7
Link to comment

For what it's worth, here's the entry in Encyclopedia of Mormonism on Christopher Columbus:

 

Latter-day Saints generally regard Columbus as having fulfilled a prophecy contained early in the Book of Mormon. Nephi 1 recorded a vision of the future of his father's descendants. After foreseeing the destruction of his own seed, Nephi beheld a gentile "separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters," and saw that the Spirit of God "came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the Promised Land" (1 Ne. 13:12).

Nephi appears to give an accurate account of Columbus's motives. Even though he was well-acquainted with the sciences of his day and his voyages have been viewed by some historians as primarily an economic triumph of Spain over Portugal, Columbus apparently had bigger motives for his voyage and felt himself spiritually driven to discover new lands. Newly acknowledged documents show that medieval eschatology, the scriptures, and divine inspiration were the main forces compelling him to sail. His notes in the works of Pierre d'Ailly and his own unfinished Book of Prophecies substantiate his apocalyptic view of the world and his feelings about his own prophetic role.

Among the themes of this book was the conversion of the heathen. Columbus quoted Seneca, "The years will come…when the Ocean will loose the bonds by which we have been confined, when an immense land shall lie revealed" (Watts, p. 94). He believed himself chosen by God to find that land and deliver the light of Christianity to the natives there. He was called Christoferens (the Christ-bearer). A map contemporaneous with his voyages depicts him bearing the Christ child on his shoulders across the waters. He believed that he was to help usher in the age of "one fold, and one shepherd," citing John 10:16(cf. 3 Ne. 15:21), and spoke of finding "the new heaven and new earth."

Writing to King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella to gain financial support, Columbus testified that a voice had told him he had been watched over from infancy to prepare him for discovering the Indies. He felt that he was given divine keys to ocean barriers that only he could unlock (Merrill, p. 135). In a second letter, he emphasized his prophetic role: "Reason, mathematics, and maps of the world were of no use to me in the execution of the enterprise of the Indies. What Isaiah said [e.g., Isa. 24:15] was completely fulfilled" (Watts, p. 96). Unknowingly, Columbus also fulfilled Nephi's prophecy.

 

 

Link to comment

I'd say his hand chopping and infant killing probably detracted from this goal.

 

Columbus' assertions of religious belief are best understood when you know that Isabel had carefully cultivated an image of piety as queen. Those who wished to get into her good graces often emphasized their faith, much in the same way politicians and businesspeople emphasize their religiosity to build public trust. It's hard to say whether Columbus was motivated by religious faith, but it is quite obvious that his main goals were financial.

Link to comment

Columbus' assertions of religious belief are best understood when you know that Isabel had carefully cultivated an image of piety as queen. Those who wished to get into her good graces often emphasized their faith, much in the same way politicians and businesspeople emphasize their religiosity to build public trust. It's hard to say whether Columbus was motivated by religious faith, but it is quite obvious that his main goals were financial.

 

Well, he certainly gained a lot of gold and nearly all potential converts ended up dead.

 

With all of that treasure being shipped back to Spain I'm sure the whole "called of God" thing was quickly forgotten.

Link to comment

What is so hard to understand about inflicting genocide upon an innocent people as punishment for what their ancestors did 1200 years prior?

How do you explain that passage, sethpayne? I presume you still hold the Book of Mormon to be scripture?

 

Edited to add:

 

Never mind. You answered the question just before I posted this.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment

For what it's worth, here's the entry in Encyclopedia of Mormonism on Christopher Columbus:

"

...Columbus quoted Seneca, "The years will come…when the Ocean will loose the bonds by which we have been confined, when an immense land shall lie revealed"...

The more interesting question then becomes, who gave Seneca that idea? :acute:

Link to comment

The passage of scripture said that the Spirit "wrought upon the man" (i.e. Columbus). It didn't say the man was perfect, or even saintly.

While you're right that the scripture doesn't say the man was perfect, for what it's worth, it also doesn't say the man foretold was Columbus. :search:

Edited by hagoth7
Link to comment

Personally I'm not convinced that the character referred to by Nephi is Columbus. Every time I have read it it just never sits well with me. I remember once reading that there are alternative candidates.

On a wider note, I believe Columbus knew where he was going (though he wasn't planning to land in the West Indies). When I was on my mission I visited Roslyn Chapel, just south of Edinburgh, Scotland. It is famous for it's connection with the Knights Templar, though I didn't know that at the time (1980 - long before the Di Vinci Code). The chapel dates to before the "discovery" of America, but maize is clearly depicted in the stone work. Maize is American and was supposedly unknown in the old world prior to Columbus.

If therefore, America was already known of (it is known that the Vikings and others beat Columbus by centuries) and Columbus had another purpose for his trip, it is possible Nephi was referring to the original discoverer, a man now lost to history - much like Nephi himself.

Link to comment

Personally I'm not convinced that the character referred to by Nephi is Columbus. Every time I have read it it just never sits well with me. I remember once reading that there are alternative candidates.

On a wider note, I believe Columbus knew where he was going (though he wasn't planning to land in the West Indies). When I was on my mission I visited Roslyn Chapel, just south of Edinburgh, Scotland. It is famous for it's connection with the Knights Templar, though I didn't know that at the time (1980 - long before the Di Vinci Code). The chapel dates to before the "discovery" of America, but maize is clearly depicted in the stone work. Maize is American and was supposedly unknown in the old world prior to Columbus.

If therefore, America was already known of (it is known that the Vikings and others beat Columbus by centuries) and Columbus had another purpose for his trip, it is possible Nephi was referring to the original discoverer, a man now lost to history - much like Nephi himself.

I don't think "a man now lost to history" fits the context of the prophecy. According to the sequence of prophesied events, the Spirit "wrought upon the man," he sailed forth, and his experiences opened the way for other Gentiles to come.

Link to comment

How do you explain that passage, sethpayne? I presume you still hold the Book of Mormon to be scripture?

 

Edited to add:

 

Never mind. You answered the question just before I posted this.

 

Hey Scott -- just to elaborate a bit.

 

I see the BoM verses that refer to generational punishment as being similar those in the OT.  IMO, the OT authors would often use hyperbole to reinforce their main point: worship YHWH and follow the law and you will be blessed.  I was just reading about some Mesopotamian scriptures from around that same time and noticed that they too described generational punishment or the complete destruction/slaughter or massacre of a city.  

 

At the end of the day I just don't believe that the loving Father described by Jesus as commanding the wholesale slaughter of little children -- no matter what their *ancestors* did.  And, while the 2nd article of faith answers a theological question, I think the underlying principle can be applied more broadly.  To punish someone for the sins of another seems to run counter to much of the Gospel.

Edited by sethpayne
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...