Debunking Vox's Arguments Against Columbus

 

(Please, read Vox's article right here before you read my response): 

9 reasons Christopher Columbus was a murderer, tyrant, and scoundrel by Vox

In this article, Vox uses the claims from non-primary sources, or selected quotes from the primary ones, with the same result of misdirection. This is no different than an atheist activist misquoting the Bible to Christians in order to "prove" there is no God. As usual, one of their “sources” is Howard Zinn, but this time they upgraded to include people like Laurence Bergreen, Benjamin Keen, and websites like the Oatmeal and Jacobin. Still, none of them are primary sources.

Vox's first point, Columbus kidnapped a Carib woman and gave her to a crew member to rape, is one I already addressed before right here: Did Columbus Rape Anyone? The Michele de Cuneo's Letter Blog Link

Vox’s second point (On Hispaniola, a member of Columbus's crew publicly cut off an Indian's ears to shock others into submission) is totally distorted. First of all, the “attack by more than 2,000 Indians” is vague and false. Second, though Columbus initially sentenced three natives to death, he gave them a pardon instead. Funny how that was omitted. Also, the reason why Ojeda cut the ear of one of them was not because he, or the other two, refused to help them “fording a stream,” but because they stole some items, refused to return them, and their chief refused to punish them and kept the stolen items to himself. Primary source: The Life of the Admiral by Ferdinand Columbus, Ch. 53.

Cutting ears was the way theft was punished back then in different cultures. In the case of this Taino tribe, they punished theft, even petty theft, by impaling the thief. Another detail omitted by Vox.

Primary source: Historia General by Oviedo, Lib. V, Cap. III, p. 139.

Point number 3 (Columbus kidnapped and enslaved more than a thousand people on Hispaniola) is false and convoluted. Columbus did not kidnap natives to enslave them. Enslaving people for no reason (as Vox is implying) was unlawful. Columbus made a treaty with a chief named Guacanagari in Hispaniola to protect him from his enemies, including the Caribs. The Caribs were a tribe of cannibals who were terrorizing the Caribbean, enslaving, killing, raping, and sometimes wiping out entire islands of its inhabitants. See primary source: The Life of the Admiral, Chapter 24.

The Caribs and the enemies of his ally chief were the only ones Columbus was allowed to enslaved. All this was temporary and later suspended, at the end of Columbus' third voyage. Not to mention that slavery was common and universal during this era and the natives were no exception to the rule.

Point number 4 goes together with the above. The payment of gold was a tribute, and paying tribute during this era was common as well. The “token” they were to wear was not a “symbol of shame” either, but rather their receipt that proved they paid the tribute. Fray Las Casas, who was the defender of the natives' rights, said the punishment for not paying the tribute was a “moderate” one. If the punishment was death, he would have not called it “moderate.” Primary source: Historia de las Indias by Las Casas, Tomo II, Lib. I, Cap. CV, p. 102.

Point number 5 (About 50,000 Indians committed mass suicide rather than comply with the Spanish) is false. Some of the enemies of chief Guacanagari, Columbus’ ally, destroyed the fields of Hispaniola so they could kill the Spaniards with starvation. As primary source Peter Martyr says, this was “foolish” because though it killed many Spaniards, it also killed many natives. Martyr is the primary source, and not Bergreen. Primary source: De Orbe Novo by Martyr, p. 108.

Vox’s point number 6 is titled: 56 years after Columbus's first voyage, only 500 out of 300,000 Indians remained on Hispaniola. That is ridiculous. Notice how Vox magically increased the number of death in their article, from 50,000 in point 5 above, to 100,000 in point 6. In addition, Columbus was out of office in Hispaniola in 1500, and he died 14 years after his discovery in 1492. The part that is true is that some Spaniards abused many natives behind the backs of their Majesties in Spain AFTER Columbus was out of office. As long as Columbus lived, he was able to punish those who would abuse the natives in any way, as ordered by the queen herself. This goes together with Vox’s next point, number 7: Columbus was also horrible to the Spanish under his rule.

That accusation was made up by Columbus’ political enemies in order to remove him from office. Charges like Columbus torturing the Spaniards or punishing them for no reason were false. No one believed the charges. Not the king, or the queen. In fact, Columbus was never tried on any of these charges and his accusers were arrested for mutiny. Fray Las Casas even said that if the accusations were true (that Columbus was mistreating the Spaniards) they deserved those punishments since they were the ones mistreating the natives, and not the other way around. Primary source: Historia de las Indias by Las Casas, Tomo II, Lib. I, Cap. CLXXXIII, pp. 513-514. 

Not only that, but Vox's reference (from Bergreen’s book) is incorrect. Bergreen’s quote is not from pages 315-316, but pages 284-285.
  
Point number 8 (Settlers under Columbus sold 9- and 10-year-old girls into sexual slavery) is debunked right here: Debunking Snopes and the Imaginary Child Sex Slave Ring Blog Link

Point number 9 (Indian slaves were beheaded when their Spanish captors couldn't be bothered to untie them) have absolutely nothing to do with Columbus. Assuming the Spaniards did such a thing, it doesn't compare to the atrocities natives committed against each other. Even Bergreen's book (page 214), used by Vox in the article, acknowledged the natives were not that innocent. They were slaveholders long before European contact, and they branded their slaves or broke their teeth as a mark of ownership. Columbus himself witnessed the natives carrying their naked slaves with ropes around their necks. Vox is silent about all this. Primary source: De Orbe Novo by Peter Martyr, The Third Decade, Book IV, p. 317.

Indigenous peoples like the Aztecs, Incas, Mayans, Caribs, and many others, mutilated, tortured, dismembered, killed, and ate their slaves for human sacrifices to their gods.

Though Vox “upgraded” themselves by using (mostly) Bergreen as a “source” for this article, they still keep doing what revisionists often do: That is, to accuse Columbus of things he never committed, sometimes in places and timelines of history he did not live, or distorting the facts, or omitting important details and historical context with the intention to create false narratives. 

If you want to learn the real story of Columbus, I will suggest to read primary sources and skip the modern-day revisions. The book The Life of the Admiral Christopher Columbus by his son Ferdinand is a good start.

#Vox #Debunking