Christopher Columbus

Dear Readers,

I got an interesting book recently. It’s Select Letter of Christopher Columbus, with Other Original Documents, Relating to His Four Voyages to the New World, translated and edited by R.H. Major, Esq. of the British Museum. I’ve read part of it, and I used it for a paper I recently wrote for my Colonial and Postcolonial Literature class. Here’s the paper:

The Difference Between Imperialism and Colonialism, Exemplified by Robinson Crusoe and the Writings of Christopher Columbus

The difference between imperialism and colonialism is a small one. Many times those terms are used interchangeably. Some argue that capitalism marks the difference between imperialism and colonialism; that is, imperialism operates via capitalism and colonialism does not (Loomba 11). And some argue that imperialism is a global economic force whereas colonialism is a more specific and localized conquest (11).

Perhaps a more useful way to see the difference between those terms is to use Loomba’s remarks that imperialism is “the phenomenon that originates in the metropolis, the process which leads to domination and control. Its result, or what happens in the colonies as a consequence of imperial domination, is colonialism” (12). In other words, colonialism involves people moving permanently from the metropolis to the colony, and setting up shop, so to speak. Imperialism generates similar effects, but the rule is based in the metropolis.

In this paper I will discuss how the writings of Christopher Columbus are representative of imperialism (the definition of imperialism about rule being based in the metropolis) and how Robinson Crusoe is representative of colonialism (the definition of colonialism about rule being based in the colony). I will then briefly examine the interdependency between Columbus and the “native peoples” of the Americas, and the interdependency between Robinson Crusoe and Friday, and suggest how these interdependent relationships are representative of colonialism or imperialism.

In Four Voyages to the New World, by Christopher Columbus, translated and edited by R.H. Major, it is made very clear that rule of the New World is still maintained in the metropolis, in Spain. The letters that Columbus has written are addressed to the aristocracy in Spain, including King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella. The letter of Columbus’ first voyage to the New World begins, “A letter addressed to the noble Lord Raphael Sanchez, Treasurer to their most invincible Majesties, Ferdinand and Isabella, King and Queen of Spain, by Christopher Columbus, to whom our age is greatly indebted” (Columbus 1). This quote makes it clear that Columbus owes allegiance to Spain. In fact, Columbus wrote these letters mostly to show the Spanish aristocracy that he was a successful voyager, to persuade Ferdinand and Isabella that they had made a good investment on a risky enterprise, and that they ought to keep investing. Columbus wrote the letters to persuade the Spanish custodians of capitol to keep giving Columbus money for future voyages. These letters were written to advertise the “unspeakable increase of wealth” (Columbus 108) that would soon belong to Spain.

Much of Columbus’ letters heap praise and flattery upon the King and Queen, the aristocracy, and anybody else responsible for the funding of Columbus’s voyages. In various places he calls the Spanish King and Queen “invincible” (1) “most serene and most exalted and powerful” (104) and “the most exalted monarchs in Christendom” (104). Throughout the letters, Columbus praises the King and Queen’s piety, and even names islands after them (2). All this is to show that Christopher Columbus is under the control of the fifteenth-century Spanish monarchy. Columbus is not his own emperor in his own new land, but rather subject to the jurisdiction of Ferdinand and Isabella.

Here is another way in which Columbus’ story is indicative of imperialism: Columbus does not spend very much time settling the lands that he discovers. He probably spends more time looking at lands from ships than he spends on the lands themselves. Although he does appoint a few men to stay on an island and cultivate it, (12) he shows no inclination, neither in his writings nor in his life, so far as I have seen, to move to the New World and settle there permanently.

Thus, according to our definitions of imperialism and colonialism, we can call Columbus an imperialist, but not a colonizer.

Robinson Crusoe’s story, on the other hand, exemplifies colonialism. Crusoe owes no allegiance to England or to any other metropolis. Probably the most prominent difference between Columbus’s situation and Crusoe’ situation was that Crusoe was not in debt to anyone. Whereas Columbus had to send back gold and spices and other commodities to Spain, Crusoe did not have to pay taxes or deliver any goods back to a mother country; he only had to make an accounting to himself. A greater difference between Columbus and Crusoe, greater than the lack of economic obligation to a mother country, is the lack of communication between Crusoe’s island and England. Crusoe’s situation was unique in that, for most of the time, there was absolutely no communication between Crusoe and any other country.

Also, in lieu of an aristocracy ruling colonies from a remote location, Crusoe lives on the island he rules; he is the sole emperor of his own island. Thus Robinson Crusoe’s story is one of a free traveler, almost a rebel against his mother country, the metropolis that raised him. Perhaps this is part of the reason why Robinson Crusoe appealed to early Americans, who rebelled against Great Britain.

The difference between imperialism and colonialism is made more apparent when we look at the concept of interdependency. Interdependency is the idea that there is no such thing as one person having absolute power over another. Even in a master-slave relationship, where it would appear that a slave master has absolute control over the soul and body of another man, the slave master is actually dependent, in some ways, on the slave. The slave master needs the slave to keep being a slave, in order for the slave master to maintain his own power. If the slave were to, say, violently rebel, quit working efficiently, break the plantation tools, or simply run away, the master would lose some of his economic and psychological power. If the slave were to rebel, the master would quickly see how dependent he was on the slave. And obviously, the slave depends on the master for mere survival. Thus slaves and slave masters are in an interdependent relationship.

So it is with the relationships between Columbus and the natives. Even though Columbus has the power to take away the natives’ lands and goods and lives, he never has absolute one-hundred-percent power over the natives. And of course, the natives never have absolute power over Columbus.

Columbus needs the natives’ goods. He is dependent on the natives to deliver goods and services. He brags to the Spanish aristocracy about all the profit that will come from the taxation and enslavement of the natives: “I also succeeded in circumnavigating the island of Espanola, which is larger in circumference than all Spain, the inhabitants of which are countless, and all of whom may be laid under tribute” (107). If Columbus cannot procure profit from the people he calls “Indians”, the people who today we call Native Americas, then Columbus’ quest for profit is lost.

The interdependency between Columbus and the indigenous people is a fleeting one, though. Columbus does not stay on the island, and he, nor anybody in Columbus’ crew, cannot speak the same language as the natives. It is because of the relatively fleeting interaction between Columbus and the natives that this interdependency is more indicative of imperialism than colonialism. The interdependencies that develop within imperialism are different than the interdependencies that develop within colonialism.

There is also an interdependent relationship between Crusoe and Friday, which is not much different than the relationship between Crusoe and the island. Crusoe would not have experienced “success” if there had been no goods, no natural commodities, on the island to exploit. That is, if Crusoe would have been shipwrecked near an island of nothing but rocks and sand, Crusoe would have died. Luckily for Crusoe, the island was rife with corn, goats, parrots, trees, and other elements that Crusoe manipulated to make himself more comfortable.

Once Friday came along, Columbus had even more raw material to work with. Crusoe taught Friday English, converted him to Christianity, and got the former cannibal to work for his small, personal empire on the island. Crusoe was partially dependent on Friday because Crusoe needed somebody to rule and colonize. Crusoe wanted to build up his pride, and pride can only exist when other people are around. Crusoe also came to depend on Friday’s labor. He relied on Friday obediently making fires, cooking food, and doing other odd jobs.

In my paper so far, I have been talking mostly about the economic gains that the imperialists and colonizers had in mind, but there were also emotional and psychological benefits from imperialism and colonialism. Interdependency is not only manifested in the act of a physical commodity exchange, but it is also manifested in an emotional exchange. Crusoe briefly expressed that, after he taught Friday how to talk, it was nice to have somebody to talk to. Crusoe’s loneliness was assuaged. Crusoe and Friday did sort of become friends. They did not become friends on equal social standing, but when two men live together on the same island for years, their bound to eventually rely on each other emotionally, and even grow sentimental of each other. (Crusoe and Friday were not bosom buddies for sure, but still, the emotional connection between Crusoe and Friday should not be ignored outright when talking about interdependency.)

Columbus, on the other hand, shows no sort of emotional connection to the native people he interacts with. It is impossible to know whether Columbus really did develop an emotional relationship with some of the natives, but I find no clue of it in his writings that I’ve read. Columbus was essentially a passerby; he did not stay on the islands long enough to get to know the people intimately.

The interdependency between Crusoe and Friday is representative of the type of relationships that occur under colonialism, where two people from vastly different cultures, the European and the “other,” live together for an extended period of time on the same piece of land. The interdependency between Columbus and the natives is representative of the type of relationships that occur under imperialism.

Works Cited

Columbus, Christoper. Four Voyages to the New World: Letters and Selected
Documents. Trans. and ed. R. H. Major. Secaucus, NJ: Carol Pub. Group, 1992.

Defoe, Daniel. The Life and Strange Surprizing Adventures of Robinson Crusoe, of
York, Mariner. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1998.

Loomba, Ania. Colonialism/Postcolonialism. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2005.



While I was writing that paper, I felt uncomfortable bashing Christopher Columbus. But I did it partly because that’s what you do in college, you know, you bash Christopher Columbus. All college students know that. They teach you that at college orientation. I quote from the NAU Gateway Student Success Center website: “Set aside a regular time everyday for homework, be sure to get plenty of sleep and exercise, bash Christopher Columbus as much as possible, attend group study sessions…” j/k lol :)

I had a roommate my first year at NAU who frequently railed against “the three corrupt Cs”, as he called them: Capitalism, Christianity, and Caucasians. My former roommate had a book lying around our dorm, The People’s History of the United States, 1492 to the Present by (radical?) historian Howard Zinn, and I read a little bit of it. It was interesting. The first chapter (I think) was about Columbus, and about how he stole treasure from the people he called “Indians,” enslaved them, worked them to death, and possibly raped a lot of them.

Hmmm…

Columbus, Thanksgiving, Columbus Day… those have become touchy subjects for a lot of people. Not really the people I’m around often, though. For me, Columbus Day is a day off of work and Thanksgiving is a time to be with family and eat too much.

Hmmm…

About the paper I just wrote, though… I like to think that I wasn’t totally bashing him as much as I was acknowledging that Columbus had a profit motive for exploring the New World. (And Columbus definitely did have a profit motive for sailing west across the Atlantic Ocean. He was looking for a better trade route to India, quicker than going all the way around the southern tip of Africa. But also, Columbus was under the gun to make money, I think. The voyage of the nina, the pinta, and the santa maria were funded by the Spanish King and Queen. Columbus effectively took out a big loan from the government and needed to pay back the loan, plus interest.) Is a profit motive wrong? Of course not.

I doubt that many people would go to work if making a profit didn’t motivate them. Making a profit isn’t inherently bad. And there’s enough money for everybody! It’s not like when I make money I’m taking money away from other people. (Well, wait, I guess literally I am- the other people pay me for my goods and services. So I take their money. But you know what I mean. When I clock in and go to work, I’m not subjecting other people to poverty or slavery so that I can become rich.)

But I think there really is enough money for all 6 billion of us! The Lord said, talking about money stuff, “For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare” (D + C 104:17)

(I’m not sure if the earth could sustain every family on the planet living like I will be living, hopefully, in a few months. My wife and I are planning to move out of our one-bedroom apartment and buy a house in the suburbs in Arizona somewhere. It’d be nice if we could get 4 bedrooms, 2 or more bathrooms, a garage, a refrigerator, a washer, a dryer, heating, cooling, a small front yard, a small back yard and all the other trappings of a middle class suburban modern American life. Could the Earth sustain all 6 billion of us living like that? Maybe. I think if we develop good alternative energy, and work in harmony with the Earth, and are wise stewards, yeah, I think we all could live that way. I see a lot of empty space as I drive along the freeway.)

So, Columbus’s profit motive wasn’t wrong, but when it comes to taking somebody else’s property without adequately compensating them for it, yeah, that is wrong. To “discover” indigenous people of the Americas and start taking their stuff and making them work for you, without even speaking their language, and to kill them when they didn’t pose a threat to you- how is that Christian?

I wish there were books I could read written about Columbus’ encounter with the Americas from an indigenous point of view. I’d like to read a first hand, primary-source document, a diary or a letter or a history, written by a Native American in 1492. (Any recommendations, readers? Or do such documents exist?) Maybe the Native Americans did not read or write back then.

Oh, and then there was Hernando Cortez, who ransacked the Aztec Empire. Horrible! Horrible! I heard that during the invasion/war/conquest Cortez destroyed a bunch of Aztec records. Losing those records could have been equal to losing the library of Alexandria. Who knows? We’ll never know what was lost when those Aztec records were destroyed. That stuff would have been invaluable to historians, researchers, scholars interested in indigenous studies, and to anybody else interested in knowing more about America pre-1492. And those records that were destroyed might have also virtually proved the Book of Mormon true. But Cortez had to go and burn all that stuff.

(I tried to finding a good source about Cortez burning Aztec books. I think I remember something about that from an old LDS pamphlet about the Book of Mormon. Maybe I’m thinking of something else. Some other destruction of indigenous records. Have I told you lately that the information found on Telemoonfa Time is subject to error and ignorance?) (This post has too many (parenthesis.))

Besides the profit motive, Columbus also claims to have had a spiritual motive. All throughout his letters, he is constantly asserting that God endorses Columbus’ journeys. Columbus viewed his voyages to the New World as a holy calling from God- a missionary effort. He actually complied a book of Bible verses that, in part, he felt like he was fulfilling. I think he wrote some original stuff in it too… I think I’ll see if the library has it. That book is called Libro De Las Profecias, which translates into English as The Book of Prophecies.

Here’s some exceprts from a long letter that Columbus wrote about his third voyage to the New World that show his faith.

“I gave to the subject six or seven years of great anxiety, explaining, to the best of my ability, how great service might be done to our Lord, by this undertaking, in promulgating His sacred name and our holy faith among so many nations” (105)

“I, myself, in spite of fatiguing opposition, felt sure that the enterprise would nevertheless prosper, and continue equally confident of it to this day, because it is a truth, that though everything will pass away, the Word of God will not; and I believe, that every prospect which I hold out will be accomplished; for it was clearly predicted concerning these lands, by the mouth of the prophet Isaiah, in many places in Scripture, that from Spain the holy name of God was to be spread abroad.” (106)

I’m not sure what scriptures Columbus is referring to. I wonder which of Isaiah’s inspired verses talk about the word of God spreading forth from Spain. But it’s clear from his writings that Columbus thought that he was inspired by God to discover the New World and Christianize the natives of the Americas.

By the way, Christopher Columbus wasn’t just a Christian- he was a Catholic. But he was a Catholic before the Protestant Reformation got into swing. (Columbus lived after Gutenberg, but before Martin Luther, roughly speaking.) So I doubt that Columbus had the luxury of shopping around for a denomination.

Anyway, he was Catholic, and- this is something interesting I just found out about recently- he was almost made Saint Christopher Columbus by Pope Pius IX in the 1800s. Isn’t that crazy? Catholics were very close to praying to Saint Columbus, or praying to him and asking him to make intercession… I don’t get Catholic prayer completely. If Pope Pius IX had got his way, Columbus would have his face on one of those Mexican-looking candles in a tall skinny glass jar, you know what I’m talking about?

Then there’s also the Knights of Columbus, the Catholic men’s group, who revere Columbus. Suffice it to say, Columbus is a figure that is honored by Catholics.

So, we know that good Catholics are supposed to like Columbus, but how are good Mormons supposed to feel about him?

I refer you to 1st Nephi chapter 13, in the Book of Mormon. That chapter is the recording of a lengthy vision given to the ancient prophet Nephi, and it talks about the discovery and colonization of the Americas in a way that not many modern US college professors I know would feel comfortable with.

Look at verse 12 particularly: “And I [Nephi] looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren [the Lamanites, a.k.a. Native Americans] who were in the promised land.”

Many Mormons believe that that man in 1st Nephi 13:12 is none other than Christopher Columbus. In fact, I’m nearly positive that in older editions of the Book of Mormon, maybe from the 1970s or something, there’s an insert thing…uh… front matter or end matter... I think it was on the inside front cover... that talks about interesting things in the Book of Mormon. And one of those interesting things is that Columbus fulfilled the prophecy in 1 Nephi 13:12.

So it would appear that Mormons are supposed to have a pretty good attitude about Columbus.

But wait, there’s more!

There’s even more evidence that Mormons should have a very positive view of Columbus’s character. And this is the part of my blog post where, if you’re not very familiar with the LDS Church and its doctrines, you might want to skip over. I don’t want to scare any of you away from learning more about the Church by telling you something really awesome and crazy-secret about Columbus and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Hopefully I haven’t scared you away from the Church already. Ha ha ha. I believe in milk before meat, you know. (Hebrews 5:12) People should learn about the first principles and ordinances of the gospel- faith, repentance, baptism, the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost- before they go delving into weird stuff about Christopher Columbus.

A lot of the Church stuff I talk about on my blog is not essential to salvation or anything like that, but it’s interesting, and I think it’s also spiritually and intellectually healthy to think and write about some of this fringe-stuff. (I’m not saying that Mormons ought to delve into really really really fringe stuff in the name of intellectual achievement or some type of spiritual understanding that isn’t OK with the core teachings of the LDS church. Like I think that sometimes looking for the connections between Freemasonry and Mormonism can get weird, and I think getting involved with wizards that peep and mutter (2 Nephi 18:19) to try to get a so-called wider view of eternity is messed-up too. There’s got to be a line drawn somewhere between healthy intellectual investigation into non-essential Church topics and unhealthy investigation into non-essential Church topics.)

I like to think that a lot of what I do on Telemoonfa Time is to follow the admonition of 1 Peter 3:15 “… be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:” We need to look for reasons that appeal to the mind as well as hymns and stuff that appeal to the heart.

But sometimes you can’t come up with a “reasonable” answer at all. You talk and talk and talk, and you think and think and think, but you still can’t come up with an answer that satisfies skeptics. I do believe that sometimes we just cannot know God’s mind, that he is mysterious, that his ways are higher than our ways and his thoughts are higher than our thoughts. (Isaiah 55:9)

On the other hand, it gets really boring in Sunday school when the teacher asks, “Why is it important to keep the law of chastity?” and the students answer, “Because we have been commanded.” And then the teacher asks, “Why is it important that we pay our tithing?” and then the class answers, “Because we have been commanded.” And then the teachers asks, “Why should we listen to the Prophet?” and then the class answers, “Because we have been commanded.” And then the teacher says, “Good job everyone. You’re all so smart!” And then that’s the end of Sunday School.

OK, so, now here’s really the part you should skip if you’re not too familiar with LDS stuff.

Besides 1 Nephi 13, there’s also another story as to why Mormons should think well of Columbus.

At the fall general conference of 1877, Wilford Woodruff, who became the President of the LDS church a decade later, said:

“Two weeks before I left St. George, the spirits of the dead gathered around me, wanting to know why we did not redeem them. … These were the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and they waited on me for two days and two nights. … I straightway went into the baptismal font and called upon Brother McAllister to baptize me for the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and fifty other eminent men, making one hundred in all, including John Wesley, Columbus, and others.”

Here’s the link I copied and pasted that from: http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=3189307e3584b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

Wow! So Christopher Columbus was righteous enough to come to the St. George temple in spirit form and asked to get his temple work done! Amazing! I wonder how many latter-day saints know about this. Doesn’t that mean that Columbus is a Mormon now? I would say, yes, Columbus is a Mormon now! I’m sure he repented of all the unrighteous plundering and pillaging he did of the native peoples of the Americas, and I guess he really was inspired by God all along. Sorry, Pope Pius IX, the Mormons already “saint-ified” Columbus!

That’s why I feel bad about bashing Columbus in my college paper. I guess he really was a great, righteous guy. Maybe I’m going to meet him one day, in the next world, and he’ll say to me, “Why’d you write that paper about me in college?”

And I’ll say, “I’m so sorry, Christopher Columbus. All the other cool college students were doing it. That’s what the professor wanted. And sorry, but sometimes in your writings, you do sound self-righteous. And maybe you sound racist and imperialist and greedy sometimes, too.”

And then Columbus will say, “David’s psalms sound self-righteous, racist, imperialist, and greedy sometimes, too, but so what? David was right. He had the Lord on his side. Cut David and me some slack.”

And then I’ll say, “I’m sorry sir. I didn’t mean it sir. You are very right, sir. Good day sir.” And then I’ll move along, floating off to another cloud.

Although, maybe that conversation won’t literally happen. We most likely won't speak that conversation in English anyway. Maybe in the spirit world, or maybe in the Celestial Kingdom (I’m keeping my fingers crossed that I'll actually make it there) Columbus and I will be communicating not via talking, but with awesome glow-in-the-dark soul/mind waves, kind of like how Professor X and Jean Grey communicate in X-Men.

Anyway, thanks for reading, comment if you want to, and take care.

Sincerely,
Telemoonfa

P.S. I also want to say that Columbus was a complex man, he lived long time ago, and was subject to the ideology, messed-up though it may have been, of the culture in which he was raised. There's not a ton of historical evidence that shows just exactly how mean he was to the Native Americans. No mortal, except for Jesus when he was a mortal, was completely good or completely evil throughout his or her whole lives. So the question, “Was Columbus good or bad?” is simplistic, and is an either/or fallacy. This blog post, like most of my blog posts, has been more exploratory than conclusive.