“Why Christopher Columbus Was the Perfect Icon for a New Nation Looking for a New Hero”
Handwerk, Brian. “Why Christopher Columbus Was the Perfect Icon for a New Nation Looking for a Hero.” Smithsonian.com. Smithsonian Magazine, 9 Oct. 2015. Web. 2 Oct. 2016.
Summary: The way Columbus became recognized as the hero who discovered America was quite interesting. People were well aware of figures such as John Cabot, who stepped foot on North America much earlier than Columbus. Cabot was a way more ideal candidate to stand as a hero of this nation, but he “sailed under an inconvenient flag”. The 200th anniversary of Columbus coming to the Americas was around the time that America broke free from British control. Cabot was simply forgotten and people began to praise Columbus. Many things were renamed from British names to be named after Columbus. Not until later do we realize how bad of a person Columbus truly was, and how he wasn’t actually heroic at all.
Argument: Columbus clearly became the hero of America for all of the wrong reasons. It was even recognized during the times he was first held to be this hero that he wasn’t the best fit. Just because John Cabot was British made people turn to Columbus. In reality, Cabot would’ve been a much better fit. The British and Cabot didn’t commit genocide against the indigenous people, as Columbus did. It took the American people too long to realize that Columbus is really more of a villain than a hero, and his original recognition for being a hero shouldn’t have been decided under the circumstances that they needed a scapegoat.
Pros: This article really does explain the truth of how Columbus became the American hero, and it doesn’t explain it in a cruel way. It’s honest and insightful, giving little facts that may not be commonly known.
Cons: It’s lacking in recognizing his actual accomplishments, it downplays may of the things he really did do. Seems biased for an article that shouldn’t be that biased.
“Christopher Columbus: Hero”
URL: http://humanevents.com/2010/10/11/christopher-columbus-hero/
Flynn, Daniel J. “Christopher Columbus: Hero | Human Events.” Human Events. Human Events Powerful Conservative Voices, 10 Oct. 2010. Web. 02 Oct. 2016.
Summary: Christopher Columbus did indeed do many of the acts that he has been accused of doing. Due to this, many places have changed the way they celebrate Columbus Day, or just do not celebrate the day at all anymore. The native people on the land he discovered did indeed commit many crimes against him and his people too, killing the ones he left behind in the New World. Although he did these things, he still did discover the New World. He also had the mission to spread Christianity, and overall impacted the world as much as second to Jesus. He could more rather be viewed as the catalyst for ensuring greatness.
Argument: Columbus “discovering” the Americas enabled us as a nation to do all of the great things that we have accomplished in history, really. But there’s always that reference back to the fact that many people have done basically the same things as him. Realistically, if Columbus didn’t “discover” the Americas, someone else later on probably would have. Figure, Leif Ericson discovered Canada 500 years prior, and this was on North America, which Columbus didn’t even step foot on. Also, we cannot forget Amerigo Vespucci who America is actually named after. There are other figures who are a better fit than Columbus to be a hero. He did many great things, but those were matched by other people– his atrocities were not.
Pros: This article brings up both sides to the argument which is always good to make readers aware of with Columbus, since it is such a big controversy. It tells the bad of Columbus’s endeavors, but then obviously goes into more depth with the good.
Cons: It doesn’t recognize his mass murders or other crimes committed as a big deal and downplays them, which could be very controversial. It almost plays him out to be not as bad of a criminal that he was.
“The Less Than Heroic Christopher Columbus”
Bergreen, Laurence. “The Four Voyages.” Nytimes.com. The New York Times, 23 Sept. 2013. Web. 2 Oct. 2016.
Summary: All of the allegations made about Columbus were true, and he even admitted that they were true to Ferdinand and Isabella. They sent him on his voyages telling him to treat the people in the New World with kindness and to not harm them, because they wanted him to win over the inhabitants. He did the opposite, so they never appointed him as governor again. Him and Bartolome de las Casas were driven by greed and glory. Even if Columbus had not destroyed these people and “discovered” them and the New World, the Old and New Worlds were bound to collide eventually. Since he did, he is the major historical figure we associate with the two having a connection.
Argument: Columbus overall was just a terrible person. Yes, he introduced the Old and New World, but he did it in a way that is unforgivable. That was even recognized by Ferdinand and Isabella. His motives in meeting the indigenous people were wrong– he was driven by glory, gold, women, and greed, not by standard reasons of wanting to combine two separate worlds and benefit each side. He went to the New World with the intention of committing such acts against these people, which he was strictly advised not to do. He is not an ideal figure to be our American hero.
Pros: It tells the truths of Columbus, and explains how Columbus even admitted to his actions. It doesn’t hold pieces of the truth back. It’s very honest.
Cons: It tries to justify Columbus’s actions by explaining a possible other theory that who knows if that would’ve happened instead. His actions cannot be justifiable (they try to compensate for his wrongdoings).