Christopher Columbus And His Legacy: Positive Vs. Negative

Upon completion of first grade, it is likely that children in America will have learned about the famous maritime explorer and navigator, Christopher Columbus. Born in 1451, Columbus was a Genoese captain commissioned by the king and queen of Spain to find a route to the Indies. However, he sailed the opposite direction of his intended goal by crossing the Atlantic and landing in the Americas, resulting in the discovery of the New World for Spain. Like all major figures in history, Columbus has left behind a legacy that people will always remember him for. The nature of this legacy in question is what remains controversial. It can be summed up with two opposing camps: those that view Columbus with a positive, respectful regard that he changed history for the good and those that polarize him into a negative category, as an individual who had no true achievements of his own and ultimately caused unwarranted harm to human life.

One of the main issues with Columbus is whether he should be seen as a hero, or as a pitiable individual. Harvard professor Samuel Eliot Morrison championed the former, saying, "Christopher Columbus belonged to an age that was past, yet he became the sign and symbol of [a] new age of hope, glory, and accomplishment," (Morrison 223). By discovering the New World, Columbus set into motion the fervor for European discovery in the Americas and beyond. Defenders of Columbus assert it was him that brought Western Civilization to North AmericaÐ'--the catalyst for the flourishing of colonies that would ultimately culminate with the establishment of an important nation, the United States. Aware that Norse voyages beat the voyages of Columbus in transatlantic contact, supporters maintain their view of his achievement because his discovery was the first recorded and fully documented account, something the Vikings did not achieve. On the other side there are those that devalue the achievements of Columbus and emphasize his morality as their basis for his negative image. 19th century historian, Justin Winsor was among the first to share this view. Winsor and other fellow members of his camp believe Columbus did not change world history, and that labeling it as such is dubious, "It is extremely doubtful if any instance can be found of a great idea changing the world's history, which has been created by a single man. There are always forerunners whose agency is postponed because the times are not propitious," (Winsor 43). Essentially, they believe that a single person cannot be credited for an achievement of this caliber because it requires an individual to be at the right place and time, and that someone would reach this point sooner or later. Negative critics also point out that if he did change history, it was "the beginning of the bloody trail of conquest across the Americas," (Hans 29). Columbus had paved the way for a series of Spanish conquistadors to hit the Americas. Because of this, longstanding civilizations such as the Aztecs and Incans would fall, and thousands would perish. Though not intentional, Columbus would also bring disease with him, along with those following him, which would kill countless Indian tribesÐ'--some to the point of extinction. Columbus and his cruel treatment of natives are also frequently emphasized by critics; he had enslaved many natives and sold them for money despite being explicitly told not to by the royalty of Spain. Further, land that had been with Native American tribes for generations would be displaced by Columbus, which gets into a whole new argument of its own in judging the justification of Columbus for this act.

With Columbus bringing Europe to North America, a question surfaces as to whether Native Americans had a right to not be dispossessed of their land. Proponents of Columbus say that the Indians are unworthy whilst opponents say they have an equal claim to their land. Native Americans had been living in North America for centuries when Columbus came. Indian chief, Tecumseh would later give a speech to Americans on how he and his people were being robbed of their rightfully deserved land, his justification for why he should keep his lands, "[t]he white people have no right to take the land from the Indians, because [the Indians] had it first; it is theirs," (Tecumseh). Native Americans are no different than Europeans in terms of being human; they treat each other with civility, care for their young and elderly, and have language of their own. Thus taking Indian land cannot be compared to taking land from mere animals, as it is more complicated because they are civilized people. Columbus advocates stress that Native Americans did not use their land to its fullest potential, that they were wasting it and not even bothering with agriculture. Therefore it is believed, "that the cultivation or melioration of the earth, gives a property in it," (Brackenridge 48). Columbus and his followers deserved Indian land because they would actually take advantage of it and make profit through farming and other industries. Native Americans "are like cattle," (Brackenridge 53) they simply migrate to new areas for grazing, living, when they are forcibly relocated.

Now in the modern day, there is much debate on how history should acknowledge Christopher Columbus. The sides remain the same; one wishes Columbus to be forever seen as a ruthless exploiter and the other him a discoverer. Though Leif Erikson and other Norse explorers beat Columbus in reaching America first, "ColumbusÐ'...recognized

...