In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue...

Of Española, Paria, and the other lands, I never think without weeping. I believed that their example would have been to the profit of others; on the contrary, they are in an exhausted state; although they are not dead, the infirmity is incurable or very extensive; let him who brought them to this state come now with the remedy if he can or if he knows it; in destruction, everyone is an adept.

-Christopher Columbus, from Letter to Ferdinand and Isabella Regarding the Fourth Voyage [Jamaica, July 7, 1503]

So Columbus said, somebody show me the sunset and somebody did and he set sail for it,
And he discovered America and they put him in jail for it,
And the fetters gave him welts,
And they named America after somebody else.

~Ogden Nash, Columbus

I find myself at something of a loss as to what to write about Christopher Columbus. He is such a controversial figure. When I was a child, we learned that he believed that the earth was round when everyone else thought it was flat (because he saw a butterfly on an orange), and that he discovered America (but thought it was India). There was very little mention of the Natives, other than as almost "extras" in a play. I think it would be fair to say that's a very simplistic presentation.

Today, it seems that children are taught more cultural context from both the European side and the Native American side. All in all, I think that's a good thing. However, I remain morbidly fascinated by the negative reactions I see to teaching the greater historical context of Columbus (and many other historical figures). It's as if they take it personally - any attempt to provide context is seen as an attack on America, and thus on them.

Take this blog post as an example. The author is commenting on a news story:

Kolowith’s students learn about the explorer’s significance, but they also come away with a more nuanced picture of Columbus than the noble discoverer often portrayed in pop culture and legend.

["Nuanced," you say? Is that what we are calling it today? Back in my day, they called it, "Libtard-Commie agenda-driven indoctrination of the youth in order to destroy America and her culture." But, I guess that was too many words for the kids coming out of such institutes of lower learning and had to be condensed to "nuanced."]

Why such vitriol?!? How does presenting more historical context "destroy America and her culture"?!? Why does the author seem to feel so threatened??

Our reading this week was two excerpts from letters written by Christopher Columbus, one from his first voyage and one from his fourth (and last). What struck me as most interesting was the change in tone between the two letters.


The first letter has a much more positive "feel" to it with Columbus doing his best to put the expedition in the best light possible. He was writing to the people who had financed the voyage - Ferdinand & Isabella of Spain - and wanted to make sure they felt like they had gotten a good return on their investment. He has to admit that they didn't find any big cities or spices or gold, but manages to convey a sense of wonder with the new (to him) land.

The second letter, written in Jamaica in 1503, during his fourth and final voyage, has a much more somber tone. Columbus has seen all his work be either destroyed or turned against him -- colonies he set up have failed, or have rebelled against his authority. He was sent back to Spain in chains, disgraced and full of despair. Norton says that his "woes were accompanied by nearly delusional periods as [he] underwent a virtual breakdown."

I can easily believe that when I read his words: "Weep for me, whoever has charity, truth, and justice."

ADDENDUM: During class today, Dr. Scott mentioned that he was peeved with Norton because of how it presented the biographical material for Columbus, completely ignoring any of the current controversies & uncertainties surrounding his birth and his role in the slave trade. I said, "Join the club; I've been peeved at Norton for weeks!"

.