The moral character of Christopher Columbus

I see this a lot, and of course it’s not true. There were lots of people who thought slavery was wrong. It’s just that they didn’t go out and enslave a bunch of people. History records the doers and those who changed things. Sure, it was a rougher age, but it wasn’t like everybody was equally evil. Lots of people had moral sensibilities we would recognize and sympathize with; it’s just that the consensus of society allowed the bad folks to get away with things we currently would not.

Columbus not only enslaved a hemisphere, he introduced slavery in defiance of his government. He was, as mentioned above, jailed for tyranny by his own side, not the people whose murder and enslavement he systematized. That’s got to be bad.

Again, this is false. Perhaps a large number of people in the time period either would have agreed with Columbus or, more likely, felt it was impossible to stop him. But many people did not like what he was doing. Sure, most of them did not go into the history books, but in every age with a written record you can find people who are against slavery, or vegetarian, or kind to animals, or regard women as equals, and so on. The cartoon linked above mentions one such person: Bartolome de las Casas. He gave up wealth and fought against the mistreatment of the natives for fifty years!

It is easy to thoughtlessly say “times were different,” but some people knew right from wrong in the past. They were just outnumbered and could not overcome social conventions and laws that were often created or maintained by evil people for selfish reasons.

Right and wrong are always ultimately decided by the majority of the time. For every anti-slave position those same people may have been rabid anti-Semites, or religious fundamentalists, or elitist aristocracy, or violent misogynists by today’s standards. The modern total egalitarian, total tolerance, total every view is ok political correctness is a ludicrously recent invention. And one not shared by most of the present, non-Western world…

And everything I’ve read indicates the majority at the the time thought Columbus a horrible person.

If he had an ounce of decency in his body he would have kept his discovery secret.

Still better than Hitler, as he wasn’t actively trying to destroy them. The fact that workers died was a bad thing for him, and the reduction of the population at large at that scale was mostly mediated by disease.

I voted -1 just because he was involved in some improprieties relative to his responsibilities to the Spanish crown. His treatment of natives and most of the stuff he’s hated by modern day Native Americans for to me, are 0 on the scale.

To expand a bit, it’s my strong opinion that historical figures can be fascinating and people whose lives we can learn valuable lessons from. But at the same time, they can be horrible monsters based upon modern day morality. To be quite honest, almost all of them are like this if you go very far back. There’s a few scattered figures pre-enlightenment that would pass a modern day “morality purity test” and the number increases throughout the 19th century. But to be frank, it’s an ignorant and unhelpful perspective on history to judge the past by modern moral standards.

To give some neutrality to this topic, the Native American peoples were vast in number, vast in different cultures, and themselves vast in their behaviors. Many of the behaviors of Native Americans, both pre and post Columbian Exchange are frankly the worst kind of barbarism. Slavery, human sacrifice, genocide, you name it-Native Americans did it. White men c. 1492-2013 do not have a monopoly on evil.

Most of the abuses that modern day American citizens who are Native Americans and members of tribes located here in the United States are talking about actually are directly linked to the American government’s treatment of them, and have essentially nothing to do with Columbus. Columbus’s actual interactions with indigenous peoples only covers a very small sliver of the Americas and the people living in them, and there’s little evidence he invented the idea of treating indigenous peoples who lacked military technology sufficient to defend themselves like shit, or even pioneered it to be honest.

Columbus does deserve some derision for being so ignorant of accepted science of his day, none of the truly learned men of Europe had any serious doubt about the size of the Earth. The ancient Greeks had approximated this “good enough for government work” 2000 years prior to Columbus lifetime and their methods could be reproduced by scholars of the day. Now one can argue most people in Europe were not scholars or learned me in the 1480s/1490s, but mind that Columbus was assembling a voyage based on his idea so he at least should’ve known enough to do some research. He was born and raised in Italy and was a seafarer, so he had access to the best minds and best banks of knowledge in the Christian world–Italy was a hotbed of scholarship at this time.

But on the flipside Columbus deserves a nod at least, for his fool’s errand. Three small (by our standards) wooden ships, packed with people and supplies, navigating by the stars into parts unknown, past the point of no return etc. That’s not a small thing. Anyone who has ever been on the Atlantic Ocean in bad weather knows this isn’t a small thing, and certainly not in an era where you can’t radio for help from the Coast Guard. I’ve been on really bad weather on one of the Great Lakes and my understanding is that’s small potatoes versus what you can run into in the Atlantic, Columbus did something pretty difficult and dangerous in making his crossing.

He had the balls and persistence to make the voyage even if his premises were not fully accurate and he was a terrible people manager. Judging the moral goodness of someone through our cultural lens more than 500 years after the fact is a largely pointless exercise.

When our descendants piss up and down on our graves 100, 500 or 1000 years into the future for our disgusting moral lapses of 2015 how meaningful will that be? Suppose there’s an attitude in the year 3015 that all human life is amazingly sacred regardless of being in utero or out, and that any female ancestor who got an abortion for whatever reason is a murderess who will burn in hell. Suppose we are all judged to be horrifically selfish trolls in the future for our heedless contributions toward global warming. Zoos? SeaWorld? Circuses? Riding horses? Cats held indoors? WTF was that barbarism all about? -3 on the morality scale!!

Why no “worse than Hitler” option?

I voted -5, for the genocide, the general slavery, the hand-chopping, but especially the selling of 9yo girls as rape slaves to his men.

Rather missing the point I made explicit, that is judging him relative to the average morality of his times. It is a valid question to ask whether someone behaved according to the moral standards of his contemporaries or not.

And could be a petty dick too – he sought to screw his lookout out of the first-to-see-land bonus. Really, you’re getting a ducal title, a Grand Admiral commission, viceregal authority and a percent of the gross take from the whole shebang and you still want to cheat Rodríguez off some coins?

Take Chris off the boat and onto land and he became a poor commander/governor, the kind that thinks brutality is the way to show strength and if that fails let’s be more brutal. He was a legend in his own mind and rather peeved that others were not so impressed with his actual performance.

Interestingly, outside the USA in the hemisphere as far as I know the 12 October holiday is NOT identified as “Columbus” Day. It has been Día de la Raza or Discovery Day for most of the time it has been recognized, and Encounter Day or Native Peoples’ Day in the later generations.

On the other hand, it’s not as though Columbus forced Spaniards to hunt people, or made them take on slaves or whatever else. We feel today that he should have prevented those things but, by in large, he doesn’t seem significantly worse than most of the people he was surrounded by. If Columbus wasn’t there, it’s not as though the rest of the Spaniards (or whoever) would have acted like angels.

European discovery and colonialism is chock full of people killing, enslaving, robbing, raping and generally dicking over anyone still armed with a spear and bow. He was just the first guy to get a chance at it. Not anyone I’d want to invite over for dinner but I figured him to barely be a -1 against the standard of the day.

So perhaps Bartolome de las Casas was a +4 or +5 to Columbus’s -1. That doesn’t make Columbus history’s greatest monster (especially relative to the era).

This.

If Columbus and Hitler had been contemporaries, with access to the same technology, both acting as official heads of state (with the resources that come with that), I think there is sufficient reason to believe both would have rivaled one another for Genocidal Maniac of All-Time Award.

Right … and that is a largely impossible task for a 2015 person to undertake in any meaningful way. We can judge to some degree judge his competence on various scales or lack thereof based on historical documents, but how many contemporary (to his time) comments about him were judgements as to his moral character vs his failings as a captain or administrator.

I ask because I do not know. Are there any documents from his time, written during his life commenting on his activities saying C. Columbus was a bad and evil man for having down these evil things to various people?

He was basically a pirate. Thoroughly selfish, brutal, and fearless. Would stop at nothing to get what he wanted. That’s the kind of person who tends to make history.

Fair enough. I admit the moral-o-meter is flawed a bit, in that it’s not an equal split between good/bad if you take 0 to be a 15th century man who we can reasonably assume to be ‘less moral’ than a 21st century man, through the values of his age. I don’t want to play whig historian and sniff at how unenlightened everyone was in the past though, my point was rather how moral was a specific individual compared with his contemporaries.

That said there are documents from his time that show Columbus got up to some seriously unsavory activities;

I’d say he was significantly worse than the average Spaniard of the day, but maybe not much worse than the average sailor. He would have fit in well among those who specifically self-select based on expectation to be rewarded with treasure.

There is a serious flaw in the OP: you ask us to judge Columbus by the moral standards of his own time, yet you calibrate your moral scale with a pair of 20th-century figures.

I’m genuinely curious. What makes you think that? No, he didn’t treat the Native Americans as real humans, but I saw no indication that he wanted to destroy them entirely. He just didn’t care one way or the other.

I mean, if you want to say he’s just as bad as Hitler, I can understand that. Chattel slavery wasn’t genocide either, but it’s still extremely evil. But I don’t see how Columbus was genocidal.

Hell, how would it make sense for him to be? He was a trader, and you can’t trade if you kill off the population. I read him as wanting slaves, and using violence to subjugate.

Because nothing written about his character suggests he morally better than Hitler; the only obvious difference between the two men was the circumstances behind their notoriety.

I think this is a laughable understatement. A simple failure to see NA’s as real human doesn’t explain the immense sadism that Columbus inflicted on the people he subjugated. If he’d treated them like animals, that would have actually been a step up. He treated them like disposable objects that existed only to be exploited and tortured.

This Huffington post article summarizes his crimes against humanity pretty well, I think.

To me, there is little daylight between genocide that results in the wholesale killing of people and the wholesale enslavement of people. Certainly not enough daylight to suggest one is morally better. Personally I’d rather be killed outright than be killed by literally being raped and worked to death, but that’s just me.