Columbus Now: Villain or Hero?

Burlington County Times ^ | October 13, 2002 | Jason Bodnar

[Tancred]

Ten years ago, in conjunction with the 500th anniversary of the first voyage by Christopher Columbus to the New World, the "is-Columbus-a-hero-or-villain?" controversy - one that had been debated in academic circles for decades - started to sizzle in mainstream America.

With a violent Native American protest to a Columbus Day parade in Denver, things appeared to come to a boiling point.

What now? Have either Columbus the villain, or Columbus the hero, died?

Chief Roy Crazy Horse of the Powhatan Renape nation in Westampton doesn't think so.

"Christopher Columbus was a bum. He instituted slavery into this continent," Crazy Horse said.

Bob Scussel has strong feeelings about the issue, too.

"He was like the astronaut of today who was taking a chance," said Scussel, acting president of the Columbus branch of UNICO, the largest Italian-American service organization in the country.

More than a dozen Columbus books have been published this year alone. The topic became part of a September episode of HBO series, "The Sopranos." There are still many people who have plenty to say about Columbus. Some love Columbus, some hate him.

Burlington County College students in history professor Ronald Covil's classes get a new perspective on Columbus.

Covil starts his discussion of Columbus by telling students what they probably already know. Columbus was probably born in Italy. He convinced Spain's Queen Isabella to help fund his voyage west to reach the East. He reached North America on Oct. 12, 1492.

Then Covil moves to the Native American perspective of Columbus. Native Americans don't think Columbus discovered anything, since they were already here. They deem Columbus a murderer and his arrival a disaster, claiming the explorer brought disease and enslaved natives.

Then there's the African-American point of view. Covil teaches the theories of Rutgers professor Ivan Van Sertima, who claims to have anthropological evidence that Africans were in America as early as 800 B.C.

So what do students think, especially those who equate Columbus with the children's rhyme, "In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue?"

"They're annoyed no one else has ever taught them this," Covil said.

Why hasn't anyone taught them that?

"I can't answer that," Covil said. "People only teach what they know."

Southampton resident Joseph Laufer knows more about Columbus than most. He edited and published an international newsletter on the 500th anniversary of Columbus' discovery of America. He was featured in "National Geographic" and The Wall Street Journal for his knowledge of the subject.

Laufer has done his share of teaching, too, lecturing on Columbus in places throughout the country.

"I always start with the Vikings, because they did come to America before Columbus," Laufer said, "but the point is, what Columbus did was he discovered America for Europeans. It's like discovering a restaurant."

Laufer doesn't quite lavish praise upon Columbus, but he doesn't vilify him either.

"Columbus was a flawed hero, but I don't think the average person cares," Laufer said. "It's only the person who's curious about history. For these people, (the image of Columbus) has changed. The average person says, 'Don't destroy our heroes; we don't care about those things.' "

Louis Cappelli, president of the New Jersey Order of Sons of Italy, knows exactly what Laufer's talking about. Sure, Columbus and his men may have brought diseases to America, but they didn't know what they were doing. They may have enslaved natives, but it was not unusual back then.

"If you look at that period of time, most everyone in that time used slavery in some way," Cappelli said. "I'm not condoning that, but that's the way it was, and (Columbus) was the discoverer of North America. Don't take that away from Italians."

If Native Americans represent one end of the Columbus spectrum, Italian-Americans are the other end.

Columbus wasn't always as historic a figure as he is now. The first commemoration of Columbus' voyage to America wasn't until 1792. Columbus Day was primarily an Italian-American celebration until the mid-19th century. It wasn't declared a national holiday until 1971.

"He became a mythical character primarily because Italians needed a hero back in the 1800s," Laufer said. "Italian-Americans who had been underdogs needed a hero image to be accepted as Americans."

Italian-Americans celebrate Columbus. The New Jersey branch of the Sons of Italy had its annual Columbus Day celebration in Pennsauken yesterday. Scussel and his UNICO brethren will have a Columbus Day luncheon tomorrow.

"You're talking about New Jersey," Scussel said. "There are more Italians per capita than any state in the nation. To protest Columbus is ridiculous. This guy went through so much to do what he did."

For Donnalee Wilcox, first grade teacher at Howard Emmons School in Pemberton Township, the topic of Columbus isn't too big a deal. Her students read a book about Columbus and build models of the Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria.

"I like (students) to understand why they're having the day off," Wilcox said, "but it's just one day in a series of lessons about the discovery of the North American continent."

[Huck]

Chief Roy Crazy Horse of the Powhatan Renape nation in Westampton doesn't think so.

"Christopher Columbus was a bum. He instituted slavery into this continent," Crazy Horse said.

Chief Stan Sitting Bull, Chief Bill Geronimo, and Chief Bob Ouray were unavailable for comment.

[Abcdefg]

"Christopher Columbus was a bum. He instituted slavery into this continent," Crazy Horse said.

I don't believe Columbus ever set foot on this continent.

[Parmy]

I believe if the accounts written by Columbus are read, one will find notation of slavery already existing on this continent, and S. America, already being practiced before his discovery by the benovelent native peoples. Furthermore, the native, N. American Indians practiced slavery long before the white man ever showed up. There are numerous accounts of tribes enslaving their enemies.

BUT, MAYBE THEY DIDN'T CONSIDER IT SLAVERY. Perhaps, they considered it spoils of war with their friendly neighbors.

[alloysteel]

Who in these revisionists would know what the history of the Native Americans would be? Most of them have never been acquainted with a genuine member of any recognized Tribe or Nation of American Indians. Further, they fail to realize there was NOTHING like unity among the indigenous people. The entire continents of both North and South America were more fractionated than the most savagely Balkanized nation or land anywhere else in the world. The political landscape of the Americas of 1400 would make the Middle East look like a peaceful suburban scene.

Not five people among all these revisionists, for instance, could tell you what the inspiration was for the original "Articles of Confederation" under which the United States was first constituted. This was NOT a "dead white men's" document. The Articles of Confederation were a word-for-word translation from the oral tradition of the Iroquois (Six Nations) tribal constitution that dated from pre-Columbian times. Yet these same revisionists would be hard-pressed to conform to the limitations of this traditional government formulation. The Articles fell apart because the Europeans and their descendents were too contentious to accept the limitations placed upon them, which led to the next draft of a covenant for free people, the US Constitution. And now the revisionists would overthrow that document as well, as being too restrictive to their "liberties".

[truth_seeker]

I recall recently an advancement of the importance of Columbus, on several fronts.

One was that his discovery opened the way for European settlement (unlike other previous voyages, proven or unproven).

The second was that he assembled the financing, obtained and managed the resources (business skill).

And the third was that he utilized the sea navigation information from previous crossings, including Lief and others (science & technology).

[dark_lord]

...and (Columbus) was the discoverer of North America. Don't take that away from Italians.

I never understood why some folks think that just because somebody does something (heroic, prosaic, evil, whatever) that the persons ethnic/national whatever background then means that everyone else of that ethnic/national background gets credit/blame.

[flame on]
You get to take pride in what YOU do. Not because your neighbor did something. Not because someone else in your profession did something. Not because a fellow citizen did something. Not because your grandfather did something. That's their action, they get the credit. You, on the other hand, get no credit. If you want to get credit for doing something, get off your fat couch potato butt and go do something creditworthy.
And very specifically in this case, if any folks anywhere feel that "something is taken away from them" related to Columbus not being credited as the "first discover of America", then those folks are stupider than a dump truck full of hammers. He's dead. He did what he did. Any credit or blame goes to him. And it ends there.
[flame off]

[truth_seeker]

Then there's the African-American point of view. Covil teaches the theories of Rutgers professor Ivan Van Sertima, who claims to have anthropological evidence that Africans were in America as early as 800 B.C.

Evidence, brother, evidence. Does it rhyme?

[nicmarlo]

There are numerous accounts of tribes enslaving their enemies.

That's what I read; and don't forget, white women and children were also captured and enslaved by Indians, too.

[Eternal_Bear]

Have you ever seen the Olmec heads in Central America? They look like Africans to me. There are Indian traditions that Africans came to the Americas but that they were defeated and sent back to Africa.

[SES1066]

The Indians[?!] are correct, Columbus did not discover the Western Hemisphere landmass and the Indians are really the American Aboriginese! What Columbus did was to open this landmass to the expanding Western European civilization. If he had not done so, others would have with the same results. Europe was expansionistic and needed the trade routes to the Orient that had become blocked/monopolized by the Islamic and Mongol cultures. Portugal was trying the around-Africa route but the rest of Atlantic Europe was looking west.

Columbus is neither devil or saint, he was a very able sailor and visionary. To heap all of the ills from the Europeanization of the Western Hemisphere upon his head is rediculous. As for the other potential travelers from other times, who cares. Their influence is displayed by the miniscule evidence of their existance.

[general_re]

Then there's the African-American point of view. Covil teaches the theories of Rutgers professor Ivan Van Sertima, who claims to have anthropological evidence that Africans were in America as early as 800 B.C.

So what do students think, especially those who equate Columbus with the children's rhyme, "In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue?"

"They're annoyed no one else has ever taught them this," Covil said.

Why hasn't anyone taught them that?

Because it's bull****. Anyone on the fence about this needs to refer to an article entitled "Robbing native American cultures: Van Sertima's afrocentricity and the Olmecs" in the June 1997 issue of Current Anthropology for an extensive debunking of virtually all of van Sertima's claims. Just for starters, here's the abstract...

In 1976, Ivan Van Sertima proposed that New World civilizations were strongly influenced by diffusion from Africa. The first and most important contact, he argued, was between Nubians and Olmecs in 700 B.C., and it was followed by other contacts from Mali in A.D. 1300. This theory has spread widely in the African-American community, both lay and scholarly, but it has never been evaluated at length by Mesoamericanists. This article shows the proposal to be devoid of any foundation. First, no genuine African artifact has ever been found in a controlled archaeological excavation in the New World. The presence of African-origin plants such as the bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria) or of African genes in New World cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) shows that there was contact between the Old World and the New, but this contact occurred too long ago to have involved any human agency and is irrelevant to Egyptian-Olmec contact. The colossal Olmec heads, which resemble a stereotypical "Negroid," were carved hundreds of years before the arrival of the presumed models. Additionally, Nubians, who come from a desert environment and have long, high noses, do not resemble their supposed "portraits." Claims for the diffusion of pyramid building and mummification are also fallacious.

[RobbyS]

Columbus is not the Italians sole claim to natigational fame. That he came from Genoa should remind us that the Italian City states dominated the Mediterranean from the time of the First Crusades until the 17th Century. It was not accidental that Spain(Columbus), England (Caboto) and France(Verrizano) used Italians for their first expeditions into the Atlantic, or that America is name after another one. Even in modern times, the Italian navy was the only efficient service under Mussolini. Give credit where credit is due.

[RobbyS]

All pre-Columbian contacts between Africa and America are speculative, but we must keep out minds open to new evidence. After all, the relative ease with which Columbus sailed to the West Indies suggests that the Phoenicians, who are believed to have circumnaviated Africa, might have done the same corssing as he. Of course, MIGHT does not mean DID. Wait and see what turns up.

[general_re]

Well, okay - yes, we should keep an open mind. But, in the immortal words of Steven Tyler, not so open that our brains fall out. Right now, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the thesis that ancient Africans journeyed to the New World, and a great deal of evidence against such a thesis. That's how things stand right now, and in the absence of any immensely compelling evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to believe such a thing...

[stands2reason]

I take it you've never rooted for a sporting team? Never felt a thing when an American won a gold medal? What you're complaining about is called Human Nature. Humans tend to gain pride in feats that our chosen or familial "insiders" accomplish. It's just the kind of social animals we are.

[dark_lord]

I take it you've never rooted for a sporting team?
If I have a bet on it.

Never felt a thing when an American won a gold medal?
Nope. I would have no interest unless it is my personal gold medal - then my interest would be in what I could sell it for.

What you're complaining about is called Human Nature.
Uh oh, you've figured me out. I better put in a call to the mother ship.

[weegee]

Ancient Romans In Texas?

[HitmanLV]

Yea, I agree. I am an Italian-American (and I hate that hyphenated stuff) and have no notable romance for Columbus. His exploits, accomplishments, sins or shortcomings have no impact at all on my identity.

[RobbyS]

A number of years ago, an Egyptian-style boat was constracted sailed to America, showing it was possible. Since Europeans settled America, they have been fasicinated with the origins of the "Indians". Adair's History of the American Indians (18th Century) shows that the idea that they were related to the Lost Tribes of Israel was current at the time of the American revolution. Given the narrowness of the Atlantic, and the possibility that very early Europeans reached North America via the Iceland-Greenland-Labrador route and left their genes in the aboriginal population, who knows? If people from Asia reached Alaaska by skirting the ice-cap in small boats, maybe Europeans did much the same.

But most of the past has been swallowed up



Heck, we can't even be sure that the Portugee did or did not reach the New World before Columbus and then hid the evidence.