"Christopher Columbus, Saint or Sinner "
by Shep Lenchek
October 1992

      Five hundred years ago, on October 12, 1492, a man of somewhat mysterious ancestry named Christoforo Colombo landed somewhere in what we now call the West Indies. Sailing under the flag of Spain and financed by Los Reyes Católicos, Ferdinand ard Isabella, he sailed west, seeking a shorter route to the spices and gems of the East Indies. For almost two hundred years, school children were taught that Columbus had "discovered" America. They were also presented with a picture of a visionary, determined to prove that the world was round. It was also part of the Columbus legend that he expected to sail westward to India or China, never even suspecting that any land lay between Europe and Asia.

      In fact, in 1492, Columbus never set foot on either North or South America. It was not until his third voyage in 1498 that he "discovered" South America. Never did he set foot on North America and no evidence exists to suggest that he even suspected that land lay north of his landfalls. With the rise of the "debunking" school of historical scholarship, a new picture of Columbus began to emerge, and now, in 1992, rumblings from various "native groups" seem to indictate that this October 12, the tradicional day for honoring Columbus as a discoverer, may be marked by protests seeking to brand him a destroyer.

      There can of course be no doubt that the ancestors of the various and varied people whom we have chosen to call Indians, did indeed come to North, Central and South America many thousands of years before Columbus. It is almost indisputable that the Norsemen not only sailed to North America, but also established colonies in parts of Canada and perhaps as far west as Minnesota. There is also some evidence that Irish monks, seeking new fields for missionary enterprise or even hoping to set up religious retreats may well have visited parts of this new world, and of coarse Thor Hyerdahl sailed his raft, Kon-Tiki, from the Polynesian Archipelago to the West coast of South America, establishing the possibilities of discovery and colonization from that area.

      What then are we to make of this Christopher Columbus, whose very place of birth and antecedants are somewhat in dispute, with some scholars claiming converted Jewish ancestry and still others theorizing that he was of Greek or Arabic descent. Was he only a hired adventurer seeking wealth, or was he indeed and explorer seeking to expand the current view of the world? Again, there is mixed evidence. Some scholars believe that although the church still officially clung to the the theory of the flat earth, there is the distinct possibility that Columbus, while serving the Portuguese, might well have heard the theory of a round world or even seen charts prepared in the non-Christian world which dispelled the flat world notion. There are also some scholars who claim that Portuguese seamen, blown off course while heading south along the African coast, may have reported sighting land to their west. If this was indeed the case, then we must revise and reject the picture of a Columbus as a bold explorer, determined to test a unique "world is round" theory. However, this does not in itself make him a villain. Personal ambition, desire for wealth, even the seeking of power are all part of the heritage of Western civilization and the capitalistic system that we so fervently defend. To put things into the proper perspective, the first voyage was made at a time of great ferment in the Western world. Columbus had already served as a ships captain under the Portuguese, had appealed to the kings of Portugal, England and France for financial aid, with no success, and had turned to the fanatical Ferdinand and Isabella, as a last resort. Once he raised the flag of Spain he had no choice but to accept all the social theories of his sponsors who at the very same time were fanning the fires of the Inquisition and expelling the Jews and Moors from Spain. It is against this background that we must evaluate the admiral. Accepting as a fact that he was not the first discoverer of what we now call the Americas, should he not be honored as the last discoverer? It was his voyages that brought the existence of a new continent into focus in the Western world, and it was he, who for better or worse, established a power base for Spain from which Western civilization spread throughout the continent. It is unfair to blarne the well- founded grievances of the native populations on Columbus. Had the King of England financed his voyages, there can be little doubt that the history of the southern part of the American Continent would be much different, with British law, language and traditions in place. Protestantism rather than Catholicisrn would flourish, and an entirely different social system would probably have evolved. Different but not necessarily better.

      In surnmary, Christopher Columbus, Christoforo Colombo or Cristóbal Colón, call him what you will, was nought but a man of his times, shaped by the ideas of his times and carrying with him both the good and the evil of his times. Neither saint nor sinner, his contribution to the westward march of European civilization cannot and should not be denied. To blame the excesses that followed the arrival of Europeans in the new world on the man who blazed the trail, is like killing the messenger who brings bad news. Columbus, may you rest in peace.