Don Tomas
12-06-2004, 02:02 PM
I wanted to dedicate this post to The Admiral who discovered/invaded/conquered our beloved paradise. This man is otherwise known as Christopher Columbus or Cristobal Colon.
First of all as to why I refer to him as "The Admiral" is because to say his name outloud is "fuku" or bad luck!
He once called Hispanola the most beautiful place on earth and wanted to be buried there.
On to the man...
Christopher Columbus was born in 1451 Calvi (Corsica), northwest of the island, 200km from Ajaccio. He was the oldest of five children. As a child, he helped his father as a weaver. He always liked the sea. Genoa was an important seaport. There is no doubt that as a child he caught rides on ships. He had little schooling but was a genius with the sea. His plan was not to prove that the world was flat, but it was to find a shortcut to the Spice Islands. He wanted to establish a city there for trade, seaports, and much more.When he grew into a man he was interested in sailing to Asia by going west. First he went to the king of Italy and presented his idea before him. Italy wasn't looking for a way to Asia, they were still recieving riches from their old trade routes.
What he did...
The first and most important thing to understand is that the Native American population on Hispaniola (and later, Cuba) was destroyed over the course of a century or less, and that the Spanish were primarily responsible for this. Certainly Columbus was not a perfect person by any means, and was a man of many flaws. But neither was he a genocidal mass murderer. The destruction of these peoples is a historical tragedy, but it is complex episode that deserves more study than simply assigning blame.
Columbus initially had friendly relations with the Native Americans he encountered in the West Indies on the first voyage. Beginning with the second voyage, these relations began to sour, with some tribes more than others. The Spanish had come to America as conquerors. In 1492, they had just successfully finished a centuries-long war to evict the Moors from Spain, and the idea of spreading Christianity (in general) and Spanish control (in particular) was central to Spanish culture. The idea that one could arrive at a new country with no strong central government, and not claim such lands for the sovereigns one had sworn to support and defend, was simply unthinkable. It would be like expecting a 21st-century American to renounce democracy or free enterprise. Although Columbus was born in Genoa, by 1492 he had been in Spain for about seven years, and was in effect a Spanish citizen. Further, Columbus was devoutly Christian, perhaps even more so than most Spaniards of his day.
Therefore it is completely unsurprising that war soon broke out between the Spanish settlers on Hispaniola and some of the Native American tribes there; in fact, it is probably more surprising that war did not break out with all the tribes on the island, and that some of them accepted Spanish rule (and Christianity) without a fight. This warfare began in 1494, and continued sporadically for another decade or so.
Some people have tried to blame Columbus personally for this warfare. To me, this is a bit like personally blaming Abraham Lincoln for the Civil War. The causes of war are often large social forces, mostly beyond the control of any individual. I believe that is true in this case. And it is also true that Columbus personally killed some Native Americans during this period, in the context of this war (although thousands, and perhaps even hundreds, would be a gross exaggeration). But most people in most societies (including Native American societies) view killing in wartime as acceptable; few would claim that it is morally equivalent to murder, much less genocide.
The second important charge generally made against Columbus was his alleged role in the slave trade. Again, this has been overstated by many. In Spain of this period, slavery was legal under certain circumstances: the person had to be a prisoner of war awaiting ransom. In effect, such a person had a monetary value equal to his expected ransom, and therefore it made sense (to a 15th century Spaniard, anyway) that such an "asset" could be bought or sold. (This system of ransoming prisoners of war was actually a huge improvement over the previous ethic of "take no prisoners".)
Therefore, when the Spanish took a number of Native Americans as prisoners on Hispaniola, Columbus saw an opportunity for profit. In 1496, he sent 300 of these prisoners to Spain, to be sold as slaves. The Spanish Sovereigns (King Fernando and Queen Isabel) very properly objected to this, since there was obviously no chance that such prisoners could ever be ransomed. They promptly sent these prisoners back to Hispaniola, and Columbus made no further ventures in the slave trade.
An undercurrent to this debate is the issue of the general decline of the Native American population on Hispaniola (and later, in other parts of the New World) after the arrival of the Spanish. Warfare was a part of this, and disease also played a role; although disease can hardly be seen as a moral stain on its carriers. Also, the scale of this decline has probably been exaggerated by some scholars; the best source on this controversy is David Henige's recent book, Numbers From Nowhere, which I highly recommend; see the bibliography.
But perhaps the most important, and least discussed, aspect of this population decline was the encomienda system that the Spanish established in the New World. This system established a serfdom for the Native Americans, with the Spanish acting as the "nobility", entitled to the fruits of their labor. In effect, many of these Native Americans were simply worked to death. However, Columbus himself had no role in the establishment of this system; in fact, he viewed all Spanish territory in the New World as his own duchy, and was bitterly disappointed when the Spanish Sovereigns relieved him of his role as governor of Hispaniola in 1500. The Sovereigns had acted primarily in response to complaints from the Spanish settlers on Hispaniola who felt that Columbus was controlling every aspect of the local economy personally. It was his successor, Francisco de Bobadilla, who established the encomiendas, in response to this pressure. It should be noted that this system was not hugely different from the feudal system then in place in Spain and much of the rest of Europe; but the Spanish treatment of the Native Americans was far harsher than a Spanish peasant would tolerate, primarily because many Spanish colonists on Hispaniola were, in our modern context, unbridled racists. But the Native Americans did have their defenders among the Spanish, too.
The establishment of the encomienda system and subsequent decline of the Native American population did not escape the notice of the Spanish clergy, who by 1511 began preaching against the harsh conditions under which the Native Americans were forced to work. Although a number of Spanish clerics shared this view, by far the most eloquent and prolific spokesman for the rights of Native Americans during the 16th century was Bartolome de las Casas (1474? - 1566). His masterwork, the Historia de las Indias, still has never been translated into English; and his better-known indictment of Spanish treatment of the Native Americans (known as the Apologetica Historia) remains a primary source for most of what we know of this period. It is worth mentioning in this context that Las Casas was a lifelong friend of the Columbus family.
How did he die & where are his remains...
Christopher Columbus died in Valladolid, Spain, on May 20, 1506, at the age of 54. He had suffered through a long terminal illness that first showed symptoms on his third voyage eight years before.
According to his son Fernando, the cause of death was "gout." But in those days, gout was a catchall diagnosis for anything that caused joint pain. Recent research by Gerald Weissmann indicates that the most likely cause of death was Reiter's Syndrome, a rare tropical disease.
Upon his death, Columbus was initially buried in a small cemetary in Valladolid. Shortly thereafter, his body was moved to Seville. When Columbus' eldest son and heir Diego died in 1526, he was buried beside his father.
But Diego's widow petitioned the Spanish court to move both bodies to the cathedral in Santo Domingo on Hispaniola. So the remains of Columbus were moved across the Atlantic, and were buried under the right side of the altar in the cathedral in Santo Domingo. And there matters stood for two centuries.
In 1795, France captured the island of Hispaniola from Spain. By this time, the Spanish viewed the Admiral's remains as a national treasure, and wanted to prevent their capture by the French at all costs. So, relying on old records, they dug up the remains and removed them to Havana, Cuba. A century later, when Cuba won independence from Spain, the remains were moved again, from Havana back across the ocean to Seville. And so, if you visit the cathedral in Seville today, you will find the tomb of Columbus.
But that's not the whole story. In 1877, workers were restoring the cathedral in Santo Domingo and found, under the left side of the altar, a box containing human remains. The box bore Columbus's name. It immediately became clear to some that the "left" and "right" sides of the altar depend entirely upon the direction one is facing. And therefore, some argue, the body that had been moved to Havana in 1795 was really that of Diego, while the Admiral's remains had been in Santo Domingo all along. And so, if you visit the cathedral in Santo Domingo today, you will find another tomb of Columbus.
Meanwhile, one historian has argued that the wrong body was moved from Havana to Seville, and therefore, Columbus's remains are really in Havana. And another historian argues that Columbus's remains never left Valladolid! Furthermore, portions of the remains in Seville were given to the city of Genoa in 1892 as part of the quadricentennial celebration.
Recently, Spanish scientists tried DNA analysis to answer the question. As it turned out, DNA was not even necessary: a cursory examination of the bones showed that they must have been those of Columbus's sickly son Diego, not the Admiral himself. So the discoverer's final resting place is in Santo Domingo after all.
At this time the Dominican Republic government has denied the Spanish government's request to test the DNA from the bones in Santo Domingo.
First of all as to why I refer to him as "The Admiral" is because to say his name outloud is "fuku" or bad luck!
He once called Hispanola the most beautiful place on earth and wanted to be buried there.
On to the man...
Christopher Columbus was born in 1451 Calvi (Corsica), northwest of the island, 200km from Ajaccio. He was the oldest of five children. As a child, he helped his father as a weaver. He always liked the sea. Genoa was an important seaport. There is no doubt that as a child he caught rides on ships. He had little schooling but was a genius with the sea. His plan was not to prove that the world was flat, but it was to find a shortcut to the Spice Islands. He wanted to establish a city there for trade, seaports, and much more.When he grew into a man he was interested in sailing to Asia by going west. First he went to the king of Italy and presented his idea before him. Italy wasn't looking for a way to Asia, they were still recieving riches from their old trade routes.
What he did...
The first and most important thing to understand is that the Native American population on Hispaniola (and later, Cuba) was destroyed over the course of a century or less, and that the Spanish were primarily responsible for this. Certainly Columbus was not a perfect person by any means, and was a man of many flaws. But neither was he a genocidal mass murderer. The destruction of these peoples is a historical tragedy, but it is complex episode that deserves more study than simply assigning blame.
Columbus initially had friendly relations with the Native Americans he encountered in the West Indies on the first voyage. Beginning with the second voyage, these relations began to sour, with some tribes more than others. The Spanish had come to America as conquerors. In 1492, they had just successfully finished a centuries-long war to evict the Moors from Spain, and the idea of spreading Christianity (in general) and Spanish control (in particular) was central to Spanish culture. The idea that one could arrive at a new country with no strong central government, and not claim such lands for the sovereigns one had sworn to support and defend, was simply unthinkable. It would be like expecting a 21st-century American to renounce democracy or free enterprise. Although Columbus was born in Genoa, by 1492 he had been in Spain for about seven years, and was in effect a Spanish citizen. Further, Columbus was devoutly Christian, perhaps even more so than most Spaniards of his day.
Therefore it is completely unsurprising that war soon broke out between the Spanish settlers on Hispaniola and some of the Native American tribes there; in fact, it is probably more surprising that war did not break out with all the tribes on the island, and that some of them accepted Spanish rule (and Christianity) without a fight. This warfare began in 1494, and continued sporadically for another decade or so.
Some people have tried to blame Columbus personally for this warfare. To me, this is a bit like personally blaming Abraham Lincoln for the Civil War. The causes of war are often large social forces, mostly beyond the control of any individual. I believe that is true in this case. And it is also true that Columbus personally killed some Native Americans during this period, in the context of this war (although thousands, and perhaps even hundreds, would be a gross exaggeration). But most people in most societies (including Native American societies) view killing in wartime as acceptable; few would claim that it is morally equivalent to murder, much less genocide.
The second important charge generally made against Columbus was his alleged role in the slave trade. Again, this has been overstated by many. In Spain of this period, slavery was legal under certain circumstances: the person had to be a prisoner of war awaiting ransom. In effect, such a person had a monetary value equal to his expected ransom, and therefore it made sense (to a 15th century Spaniard, anyway) that such an "asset" could be bought or sold. (This system of ransoming prisoners of war was actually a huge improvement over the previous ethic of "take no prisoners".)
Therefore, when the Spanish took a number of Native Americans as prisoners on Hispaniola, Columbus saw an opportunity for profit. In 1496, he sent 300 of these prisoners to Spain, to be sold as slaves. The Spanish Sovereigns (King Fernando and Queen Isabel) very properly objected to this, since there was obviously no chance that such prisoners could ever be ransomed. They promptly sent these prisoners back to Hispaniola, and Columbus made no further ventures in the slave trade.
An undercurrent to this debate is the issue of the general decline of the Native American population on Hispaniola (and later, in other parts of the New World) after the arrival of the Spanish. Warfare was a part of this, and disease also played a role; although disease can hardly be seen as a moral stain on its carriers. Also, the scale of this decline has probably been exaggerated by some scholars; the best source on this controversy is David Henige's recent book, Numbers From Nowhere, which I highly recommend; see the bibliography.
But perhaps the most important, and least discussed, aspect of this population decline was the encomienda system that the Spanish established in the New World. This system established a serfdom for the Native Americans, with the Spanish acting as the "nobility", entitled to the fruits of their labor. In effect, many of these Native Americans were simply worked to death. However, Columbus himself had no role in the establishment of this system; in fact, he viewed all Spanish territory in the New World as his own duchy, and was bitterly disappointed when the Spanish Sovereigns relieved him of his role as governor of Hispaniola in 1500. The Sovereigns had acted primarily in response to complaints from the Spanish settlers on Hispaniola who felt that Columbus was controlling every aspect of the local economy personally. It was his successor, Francisco de Bobadilla, who established the encomiendas, in response to this pressure. It should be noted that this system was not hugely different from the feudal system then in place in Spain and much of the rest of Europe; but the Spanish treatment of the Native Americans was far harsher than a Spanish peasant would tolerate, primarily because many Spanish colonists on Hispaniola were, in our modern context, unbridled racists. But the Native Americans did have their defenders among the Spanish, too.
The establishment of the encomienda system and subsequent decline of the Native American population did not escape the notice of the Spanish clergy, who by 1511 began preaching against the harsh conditions under which the Native Americans were forced to work. Although a number of Spanish clerics shared this view, by far the most eloquent and prolific spokesman for the rights of Native Americans during the 16th century was Bartolome de las Casas (1474? - 1566). His masterwork, the Historia de las Indias, still has never been translated into English; and his better-known indictment of Spanish treatment of the Native Americans (known as the Apologetica Historia) remains a primary source for most of what we know of this period. It is worth mentioning in this context that Las Casas was a lifelong friend of the Columbus family.
How did he die & where are his remains...
Christopher Columbus died in Valladolid, Spain, on May 20, 1506, at the age of 54. He had suffered through a long terminal illness that first showed symptoms on his third voyage eight years before.
According to his son Fernando, the cause of death was "gout." But in those days, gout was a catchall diagnosis for anything that caused joint pain. Recent research by Gerald Weissmann indicates that the most likely cause of death was Reiter's Syndrome, a rare tropical disease.
Upon his death, Columbus was initially buried in a small cemetary in Valladolid. Shortly thereafter, his body was moved to Seville. When Columbus' eldest son and heir Diego died in 1526, he was buried beside his father.
But Diego's widow petitioned the Spanish court to move both bodies to the cathedral in Santo Domingo on Hispaniola. So the remains of Columbus were moved across the Atlantic, and were buried under the right side of the altar in the cathedral in Santo Domingo. And there matters stood for two centuries.
In 1795, France captured the island of Hispaniola from Spain. By this time, the Spanish viewed the Admiral's remains as a national treasure, and wanted to prevent their capture by the French at all costs. So, relying on old records, they dug up the remains and removed them to Havana, Cuba. A century later, when Cuba won independence from Spain, the remains were moved again, from Havana back across the ocean to Seville. And so, if you visit the cathedral in Seville today, you will find the tomb of Columbus.
But that's not the whole story. In 1877, workers were restoring the cathedral in Santo Domingo and found, under the left side of the altar, a box containing human remains. The box bore Columbus's name. It immediately became clear to some that the "left" and "right" sides of the altar depend entirely upon the direction one is facing. And therefore, some argue, the body that had been moved to Havana in 1795 was really that of Diego, while the Admiral's remains had been in Santo Domingo all along. And so, if you visit the cathedral in Santo Domingo today, you will find another tomb of Columbus.
Meanwhile, one historian has argued that the wrong body was moved from Havana to Seville, and therefore, Columbus's remains are really in Havana. And another historian argues that Columbus's remains never left Valladolid! Furthermore, portions of the remains in Seville were given to the city of Genoa in 1892 as part of the quadricentennial celebration.
Recently, Spanish scientists tried DNA analysis to answer the question. As it turned out, DNA was not even necessary: a cursory examination of the bones showed that they must have been those of Columbus's sickly son Diego, not the Admiral himself. So the discoverer's final resting place is in Santo Domingo after all.
At this time the Dominican Republic government has denied the Spanish government's request to test the DNA from the bones in Santo Domingo.