I am in my first year, majoring in History. I was asked by my professor to write a comparative essay on on anything I wanted related to the course i was taking (US Studies). I also had to use 2 different source texts. I created the topic, Christopher Columbus, Hero or Villian?
Howard Zinn's "Columbus and Western Civilization" and William Caroll's "Honoring Christopher Columbus" both consist of different views of Christopher Columbus. Whereas Caroll's article perceives Christopher Columbus as a "Flawed Hero", Howard Zinn perceives Columbus as a villian. Comparing both articles, Zinn's article was more convincing than Caroll's because Zinn does something extraordinary and look at the Indians point of view during the era.
Caroll argues that Columbus was working under the Spanish Crown and the Spanish law never recognized Indian slavery. In the case of Columbus's situation, the way he used the Indian people at the time was legal and was not doing anything wrong. Columbus put the Indian people through hard labor work, in order to complete his promise to the Spanish Crown. Also, none of the Indian people were enslaved after the colonial generation. After colonization, the Europeans did not continue put the Indians through slavery. These were still evil actions. Whether it was legal or not, this is not a person who should be recognized as a hero in our society.
Zinn argues that Columbus, who is the first ever European to document his trip to the new world, introduced slavery to that area. When Columbus arrived, he did not see the "Indians" as hosts, but as "servants". He used the "Indians" to find his precious gold, that he expresses seventy-five times in his first two weeks of his journal entries. He forced the Indians in mines and on land to dig for gold. He ordered the Indians to collect a certain amount of gold in a period of time. If they did not complete the requirement they cut their arms off. These are not the sort of actions that would name a holiday after you or a university. Slavery is just one of many evil actions that point to Columbus being a villain.
Before Columbus landed on the island, the Indians were used to commiting human sacrificing and cannibalism. Caroll argues, that if it were not for Columbus's discovery, the Indians would not be Christianized or have ended their evil actions. People lived their confinement before the years of discovery by the Europeans. Their population was in the millions and they never had any sort of documented war. Religion is something that one needs to choose. If a person wants to convert to a certain religion, its up to them. Columbus has no right to interfere with lives of the Indians or force them into practicing Christianity. They were called "savages" by Columbus and uncivilized. The European nations believed that they were the world models that every nation should try to be. These are not choices that a modeled "hero" would do.
Unlike Caroll's idea of Columbus Christianizing and saving the Indians souls, Zinn believed that Columbus did not care about the Indians. Zinn quotes from Columbus's journal, "Christians have an ultimate aim which is to acquire gold". Columbus did not care about the Indians, he just wanted to complete the task he had and enjoy his time. Columbus believed that these people were savages and himself and his crew people were civilized. Also, Zinn points out that some of the Indians ran into the mountains to get away from Columbus. But those who escaped, starvation and disease took a big toll on their bodies. These are not heroic acts that Columbus reveals in his journals. In today's society we give freedom and choice to everybody. Columbus should not be honored, for his evil ways outweigh his "good". It is possible that this was the norm in Columbus's time, to threaten and beat on people, but this is not act of heroism today.
Columbus was known for mass genoicide in todays history. However, Caroll see's it differently. Caroll believes that all the mass killings and disrespectful actions were not Columbus's fault. Caroll says that Columbus insisted on remaining governor of the lands he discovered, his reputation was blackened by the atrocities that occurred during the period when he still had final responsibility for their governance. But it is Columbus the discoverer and explorer who we truly celebrate and honour, not Columbus the Civil governor". Caroll states that Columbus was incharge during horrific acts of terror, but he should not blacken his reputation. If he was in charge he had a choice of protecting the Indian people. He could have stopped some the violence. Hero's may have flaws because they are human, but these flaws that would be considered as crimes in today's society.
Zinn pinpoints certain parts of Columbus's journals that his crew commits acts of violence. "Stabbing Indians, dashing babies' heads on rocks" are just some of the insane in humane crimes that Columbus was a part of. Yet, they did not just stop there, "when the Indians resisted, the Spaniards hunted them down, equipped for killing with horses, armor plate, lances, pikes, rifles, crossbows, and vicious dogs." Even if the Indian tried to battle back for self defense, they were killed brutally. None of these actions represent a hero or even a "flawed hero". The Indians were struggling everyday of their lives and had plenty of horrific crimes against them.
Zinn argues that all of these crimes by Columbus caused the Indian population to decrease dramatically over the next few years. Columbus pushed the Indian people's culture into extinction. This almost happen because they were being murder everyday and their culture was not a written one, but an oral. The Indian were people left no memoirs, no history.
Caroll argues that gold was equivalent to money today and that whatever happened in Columbus's time was the norm. The world was funded by gold and was the catalyst for Columbus's voyage. The push he did to extract the gold, creating slaves out of the Indian people. This pushed the Indian civilization into near extinction. The threat and intimidation the Europeans had upon their arrival was critical to the Aboriginal civilization. One could not agree with this because people could have approached the problem differently. If one agrees to this, then it could be said that cruelty, exploitation, enslavement against helpless people was a value of the fifth-tenth century. This was not the case, because Zinn points out that people protestest against these certain actions on behalf of human rights.
Slavery, genoicide, a bad approach to evangilaizm, and greed does not follow the characteristics of a hero. Zinn's argument was a more convincing article and a better created a better understanding of what heroes are to us.
