What do school kids learn about good old Christopher Columbus these days?

Back when I was a lad, (I’m only 25) good old Christopher Columbus was as good as it got in terms of Europeans coming to the New World. I only heard about other theories in college, and only recently realized that there is a hell of a lot of evidence to indicate that Norsemen were here at least in the 14th Century, if not before, and others might have been here a heck of a lot earlier.

So, do kids today still learn that C.C. was the first here, or do they introduce other possibilities? I would also be interested in how US geography mixes things up. For example, being from the plains, I think I accepted the Columbus story more readily than I would have had I been from Newport Rhode Island, for example.

I put this in IMHO because I’m interested in different ages and different locals reporting.

Spanish, age 38. This means I was starting school at the time of Franco’s death. In general my History classes were so hygienized you would’a thought the Visigoth kings never existed, the Second Republic was Sleeping Beauty, and all those relatives of ours who’d fought in the Carlista Wars and had the medals to show it hadn’t gone to any wars but smoked too much pot instead.

The vikings got mentioned in my last history class, where the teacher didn’t bother follow the book at all; that also happens to be the only one where CC got mentioned. You see, in “universal history” we got to hear of the Egyptians and the Greek and the Romans and the Vandals, but somehow it ran out of calendar year before we got to the Middle Ages. History of Spain was “modern”, it started with Napoleon.

They also got mentioned in one of my chemistry classes in college: the teacher remarked the importance of good lab notes by saying that “the vikings got to America first, but it was Columbus who discovered it. Why? Because Columbus documented it, that’s why!”

And one of my classmates said “and the reason it’s called America and not Colombia is that the guy who got the article published was called Americo Vespucci.” (true)

You know what’s funny, Nava, is that I’ve been to Spain thrice, have many Spanish friends, and my parents used to have a gal from Valencia living with them, yet it did not occur to me until this year that the Spanish national day WAS Columbus day.

We were in a car on the way to a Spanish party in Denver when my pal commented that the Spanish are wise for having a party on a three day weekend. We all agreed, but upon arriving at said party, realizing that both cultures where partying in the same man’s honor made the world feel a little smaller.

I think it really depends on the district and the school. I really hope that most schools teach that Columbus wasn’t the first to discover America, that it had been discovered tens of thousands of years earlier and was well-settled by the time Columbus came over. I don’t have much faith that this is universally taught, though.

Some folks certainly teach Columbus as the Villain story: he was a slaver, an avaricious conquerer who plundered and slaughtered the native population of the Caribbean. Some folks certainly teach him as the Hero story: he was a brave explorer who opened new lands and made our country possible. The best, I think, teach bits of both, helping students to recognize that he did both terrible and amazing things.

Daniel

Venezuelan, 34. In elementary school, Columbus was just one step below God. He discovered America, for crying out loud.

By the end of elementary and beginings of high school, Columbus started having a bit of a dark side. He cheated Rodrigo de Triana (the first guy to set eyes on the New World) of the prize for seeing land first; he had all kinds of financial troubles with the Pinzon guys and the Crown; he didn’t get to discover the continent, Americo Vespucci did; he still was the guy with the vision and the *cojones * to make it happen, though.

By the end of high school, Columbus hadn’t discovered squat. The “indian” were there first, after all. October 12th was the Day of the Encounter of Two Races. Still a man of vision and resolve.

In college, Columbus was just a bumbling idiot who just couldn’t help running into a continent that stretches from pole to pole while he was searching for something else he knew he couldn’t reach.

Currently, Mr Chavez is seeing to it that Columbus is more of a monster than anything else. The jerk who puts the Genoa in genocide. October 12th is the day that marks the begining of the indigenous resistance (I am not making this up)

It is a bad time for Mr Columbus in Venezuela.

Sapo, since the end of Una, Grande y Libre, we were told by our new and newly liberal masters so many times that we’d been real nasty to the poor indians who were so good and so perfect (nobody gave details of how exactly had we been so nasty, plus excuse me but MY foreparents either stayed home or oppressed the Flemish) that once people started honeymooning in Latin America, going there to spend the summer doing volunteer work, and even later on, people from Latin America started coming by the boatful… 40M spaniards were surprised that you guys don’t hate us.

I just hate how something that should be a retelling of facts becomes worthless propaganda.

I am guessing this is part of where the OP is going. Nothing has suffered the ravages of revisionist history the way the life and work of Columbus has.

New Zealander/Australian, 25.

At school, Columbus got a brief mention as one of many people who got to North America before crossing the Atlantic was something that anyone with a ship and a spare couple of weeks could do.

We were told that the Vikings managed it first, the Irish & English also managed it (the cod fisheries off New England were known in the Middle Ages), and the major thing Colombus had going for him were rich patrons (Spanish Royalty) and good PR (at the time).

Captain James Cook was the real discoverer hero in NZ, along with Captain Robert Scott (Of The Antarctic fame), and also along with Lt. Governor William Hobson, first Governor of New Zealand and signatory to the Treaty of Waitangi on behalf of the United Kingdom.

Really? I know that this is a recollection from school, but does anyone have a cite about this?

It’s mentioned in Bill Bryson’s Made in America, but this Wikipedia article on Pre-Columbian Trans-Oceanic Contact mentions that English Cod fishermen were active off New England during the reign of Henry VII (from 1485-1509), and I’m pretty sure that they were there before that (but thanks to the twin effects of it being late and some rather excellent Woodford Reserve, I’m unable to find a reliable cite to that effect at the moment).

To cut a very long story short, Columbus wasn’t the first to North America by any stretch of the imagination, and there’s evidence to suggest that rather a lot of people managed the trip both long before and around the same time as Mr. Colombus’ somewhat misguided attempts to find India.

Well, the revisionism began in 1493.

I’m 26, living in Vermont, USA.

I remember learning quite a bit about the Vikings in the 6th grade, Leif Erikson, Erik the Red and so forth. That was the same year we learned about all of the European explorers, Colombus included.

I also remember mention of the Vikings in North America maybe in the 4th grade as well.

As for the relationship between Colombus and the Native Americans, and the Pilgrims and the Native Americans, I think we had a pretty clear view of it beyond the 4th or 5th grade; Colombus was not vilified, but the dynamics of European/American relationships pre-colonialization (and beyond) were definitely explored.

We never learned about Colombus as a man of conquest, though. He was an explorer first, with subsequent innapropriate behavior coming in second, and being of less import than his contribution as an explorer.

25, New Englander.

Columbus always came across as kind of a dumbass. The doofus that discovered America long after Ericson had come and gone, not to mention the Indians. Oh, and he was such a moron that he decided he was in India. Not evil, just kind of like Forrest Gump, a guy who blundered his way into history.

Whether that was what my teachers tried to impart, of just my impression is hard to say.

I graduated from a Christian school in 1996. Our “history” books taught us that Columbus was the first one here and didn’t even mention the possibility of other European exploration. We were also taught that Columbus was a good, pious man who wanted more than anything to share Christ’s love with the natives. (How could he* not* be a great guy with a name that translates to “Christ-bearer”?) There was a passing reference to natives who died of disease, but there was never any mention of the genocides which followed the colonizations.

(They operated on the premis that to say anything bad about historical heroes would encourage children to question authority which would then lead them to disobey their parents. And I’m not just guessing here. I took a class to be a teacher.)

I learned he proved the world was round, and saw a picture of him holding an octant (an earlier version of the sextant). I wondered where he bought it, because on a flat earth an octant wouldn’t do anything useful…

(American, 50)

To nitpick a bit, Columbus never reached North America proper. He discovered the West Indies, and was the first to see the South American mainland (on his third voyage in 1498) and most of Central America (on his fourth voyage in 1502). The first explorer to “officially” reach North America after the Vikings was John Cabot (Giovanni Caboto), an Italian sailing for England, in 1497.

I was in grade school and high school in the 1960s. I’m certain we learned at the time that the Vikings preceded Columbus in the New World, though I can’t recall what grade. It was in the 1960s that excavations at L’Anse aux Meadows firmly established that the Vikings had got that far south.

This is a personal irritation for me. Everybody educated knew at the time that the world was a ball; this was proven in ancient Greece, but largely ignored in the Middle Ages. Columbus was also aware of this, and thought that Earth was far smaller than it actually is, reducing the distance from England to India enough for a ship to be able to cross it. He was, in fact, dead wrong, and the expedition would have failed miserably if he hadn’t managed to run into another continent.

(I realize that you know what you learned isn’t true, but I just wanted to explain.)

Very interesting question. I was pretty much taught Columbus was some kind of brilliant god in high school–had only the best interests at heart for the lamentably “uncooperative” indigenous folks, etc. Lots of emphasis on bravery, and devoutness and how it shaped our American “can-do” culture.

I got a rather rude awakening in college when I studied Latin-American history. One of the first things we read were his actual words, in the original Spanish–for those who care, Columbus spoke atrocious Spanish. We’d go into class the next day and be like, “Well, we didn’t really understand what he was trying to say here…” to which my prof would reply, “Nobody really does.” Generally he came off as an idiot, obviously over-blowing “the glory of the Indies” to convince Spain to jump on board the colonizing idea… described the “Indians” as weak, docile, manipulable herd animals.

We also read “The Devastation of the Indies” by Bartolome de las Casas (pardon no accent.) “The Devastation of the Indies” was written by a priest during early colonialist times and encapsulates his sense of horror at how awfully indigenous people were treated. The problem is, he gave out some pretty impossible numbers in his account. We discussed how his basic premise–that atrocities were being committed on a massive scale-- was true, but that he’d obviously exaggerated many accounts in the interest of convincing others that Spanish colonists had become monsters.

Then, in “Lies My Teacher Told Me” by James Loewen, I read about how Columbus and his crew blithely raped women and girls as young as 8 years old, herded up villagers and selected slaves, killing the rest. Some members of his crew reported (with no guilt whatsoever) their way of extorting gold from the villagers–they were forced to wear tokens around their necks that “proved” they had paid their bi-weekly tithe of gold–if a villager was found without the proof they had paid the tithe, his hands were chopped off. There were accounts of the enslaved indigenous folks having to carry Columbus and his men around on their hands and knees–the carriages resting on their backs. There were several instances of mass suicide on behalf of the indigenous, deliberately killing themselves to escape the tyranny. There’s an account of a man describing the slave selection process, and how one woman was so frightened that, given the chance to escape, she threw her baby down so it wouldn’t hinder her survival. The witness took it as evidence that the indigenous people were inferior and barbaric, but anyone who knows anything about survival psychology understands that she most likely had been terrorized out of any semblance of humanity by that point. We are talking about the systematic and sadistic destruction of the human spirit.

We’re talking serious, bad stuff here, that often gets whitewashed in the teaching of U.S. history - oh, the hero Christopher Columbus. No, he was actually an openly greedy, manipulative, lying, horrible man with no conscience about raping, torturing, and extinguishing indigenous people.

But U.S. history is extremely Eurocentric–my high school textbooks downplayed every other culture that arrived to the Americas before Europeans… in many ways, we were taught that history began with colonization, and that indigenous folks instantly dropped dead from disease so we weren’t really displacing anyone… there was lots of “wilderness” to “tame” but not much mention of all the civilizations that populated the land when Europeans arrived. The fact that colonists interacted (war, trade, etc) with indigenous people for at least 300 years following colonization, and that indigenous culture has impacted U.S. culture in many key ways, came as a total shock to me.

I always viewed my country as an extension of European ideals, but now that I truly understand the history of this land, I realize it’s much more nuanced and complex than that.

If you’re interested in this sort of thing, “Lies My Teacher Told Me” is a phenomenal book that uses predominantly primary source material for its reporting. Loewen is basically doing a comparative analysis of 12 United States high school history textbooks and then ripping them apart for their completely inaccurate portrayals of historic events. Fascinating, paradigm-shifting stuff–at least for me. Another EXTREMELY interesting part of his book is concerning the issue of slavery and racism and how our students’ ignorance of the truth on these matters basically perpetuates the unspoken rule of white supremacy being the natural order of things–which is how, I’d wager, so many people seem to think the United States is now beyond racism and systemic unfairness. I didn’t really understand racism in this country, or how deeply it runs, how much a part of collective national identity it is, until I read this book.

[/shameless plug]

olives, the book you really should read is Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States. For one thing, it’s the source Loewen used. Zinn was the first to publicize the actions of Columbus at length, and he took a lot of heat over it. The rest of his book is worth reading, as well – he consistently goes to look at other historical events through the eyes of the underdog.

It’s on my list–sitting on my nightstand–waiting to be read as soon as I finish “Lies My Teacher Told Me.” My husband just finished “A People’s History” and loved it.