Was Columbus a hero or a special kind of evil monster? Neither one

By David McElroy · October 14, 2013

There are basically two competing narratives about Christopher Columbus. As we observe another Columbus Day — along with the annual arguments over him — I’d like to suggest a third way of looking at the man.

When I was a kid, Columbus was a hero. He was a brave explorer who discovered America while looking for a shorter trade route to India. His discovery led to people from European countries braving terrible danger to come to the New World and start the colonies that would eventually form the United States and give us the country we have today.

Today, the view is entirely different. Columbus was a greedy, murdering villain who is responsible for the destruction of the peaceful Native American societies that existed before he showed up. The natives were universally peace-loving and kind people who had their way of life destroyed by Columbus. If it hadn’t been for Columbus, the natives would have continued living in peace and harmony while the Europeans fought among themselves elsewhere.

Neither view is especially honest or nuanced. I’d like to suggest a third possibility.

Columbus was just another in a very long line of men of every race who have gone off in search of fame and fortune. There was nothing especially great about him or especially evil about him. Human beings have a long history of killing each other — in sometimes cruel ways — especially when they meet groups or tribes of others who are weaker than they are in some way. Look at history and see how every group of people has played the role of oppressor and the role of villain at some point.

Today, we remember — and feel bad for — the groups who lost such struggles for power, but there’s little reason to believe that those losing groups wouldn’t have done the same to the winning groups if they had had the technological means to do so.

Human beings are greedy. They’re murderers. They want what isn’t theirs — and they’re willing to do whatever they need to do in order to have what they want. Anyone who believes that one group or another is morally superior to the rest of us — or who believes that one group wouldn’t do terrible things to conquer another — is fooling himself.

The idea that it’s wrong to kill those of other groups and take their land and possessions is a fairly modern idea. For most of human history, it was accepted that groups competed and took what they could take from the others. Sometimes, groups invented grievances to “explain” their genocides, but more commonly, it was simply accepted that this was the way of the world. (Look at the Old Testament stories of the Hebrews conquering and slaughtering the people of Canaan to establish Israel in “the promised land.” But it was OK to slaughter all those people, we’re told, because God said to do it.)

This was true among Europeans. It was true among Asians. It was true among Africans. And it was true among the Native American tribes before the Europeans showed up to conquer and kill them. (The idea of the peace-loving natives living a hippie lifestyle is a modern movie invention. The tribes were happy to kill each other in battles over territory or access to game.)

Everything that the revisionists say about Columbus is true. He was a monster by our standards. He was a product of his day and he acted in accordance with what they believed was right. That doesn’t justify what he did or what anybody of any nation or tribe did to conquer or kill someone else. It’s just to acknowledge that what they were and what they believed — almost all of them — were very foreign to our modern ways of thinking. In historical terms, we humans are monsters.

What Columbus did was historically significant, because it was a key point in the Europeans’ conquering of the western hemisphere. But it’s not something to be celebrated as some romantic event. On the other hand, it’s a misunderstanding of history to pretend that if the Native Americans had had the technology to reach Europe — and the Europeans were technologically backwards when they got there — that they wouldn’t have done pretty much the same things in reverse.

Human beings can be monsters to one another. Much of what Columbus did was monstrous. (The Oatmeal has an interesting litany of the facts, if you’re interested.) But the real lesson is to see what barbarity used to be widely accepted among human beings, not to pretend that Columbus and Co. were especially evil. In some ways, we’ve made progress since his day. We’re still monsters at times. It’s just not as accepted as it was then.

I don’t think this narrative makes either side of the debate happy, but I think it’s a fair way to look at the truth.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts