US: Christopher Columbus Was a Bad Guy

I find it strange because we were never taught anything even remotely bad about Columbus.  We were taught that he did *not* discover America (and they stressed how this was a common myth) but we were taught that he was an extremely honorable and great man.  I never said I (personally) had any objections; I said I wasn't sure how I felt about it.

I'm not sure where other people live that were taught this type of information...but I never was (I did know this information from outside sources, but never knew it was being taught in school) so even if it's "old news" to you, it's very "new news" to me!  My daughter is in Kindergarten and part of their curriculum for the year is to be able to identify explorers...and Columbus is on that list.  Even though we're moving now so I'll never know, I was interested to see what she would be taught about him...at age 5.

Thanks for the answer. I didn’t intend to grill you, sorry if I came across too bluntly but I was genuinely curious about your experience. I know curriculums can vary across states but I was surprised that at least some of this information wasn’t given to you in school mainly because I assume I’m older than you are and this was taught to me in the 70s.

Don’t get me wrong I wasn’t told that Columbus ‘was a very bad man’ in kindergarten, but later on I definitely remember the less heroic aspects of his journey being introduced in the classroom and by the time I reached high school I was being taught pretty much the level that seems to be introduced to 5th and 6th graders today (at least according to the article).

I don’t have any objections to exposing children (or adults) to different viewpoints and letting them decide for themselves but I do think there is a real danger in applying 21st century mores and ethics to events that occurred in the 15th century.

 I do think there is a real danger in applying 21st century mores and ethics to events that occurred in the 15th century.

That's what lots of people say, leaving "danger" to dangle as if it's universally understood and accepted when it's anything but. If you think there's a danger in applying contemporary mores to Columbus, what is the danger and from where should we look for it? (I still prefer this to another, more fragrant way of putting this exact same thought, as presented by cicero_jc, that he was just a man of his time.)
 
In other words, danger of what, exactly?

Upon second thought I guess what I meant in there being a ‘danger’ is that in judging events that happened in the past out of context of the time in which the events occurred can lead to over simplification, either positively or negatively depending on your point of view.

In the case of Columbus, the debate can be framed in terms of hero or villain but what’s not talked about is that he was just one man. The real underlying issue is European colonisation of the Americas and the rest of the world.

And that’s a debate too complicated for this forum, at least for me at the moment. But I think a civil debate can take place that encompasses many views, including in a classroom.

Upon second thought I guess what I meant in there being a ‘danger’ is that in judging events that happened in the past out of context of the time in which the events occurred can lead to over simplification, either positively or negatively depending on your point of view.

I can definitely see what you are saying here.  We can sit here, today, in 2009 and say that everyone who was pro-slavery in the 1800s were horrible people...but where they really?  Today, yes...how could anyone ever support slavery?  BUT...in their day and time, no they weren't.  Does that make slavery right or wrong?  No.  But keeping in mind the morality of society during the time period does have a very serious impact on the judgements we place on those people.  With that in mind, was raping little girls ever ok?  No.  But I get the point.

Upon second thought I guess what I meant in there being a ‘danger’ is that in judging events that happened in the past out of context of the time in which the events occurred can lead to over simplification, either positively or negatively depending on your point of view.

In the case of Columbus, the debate can be framed in terms of hero or villain but what’s not talked about is that he was just one man. The real underlying issue is European colonisation of the Americas and the rest of the world.

And that’s a debate too complicated for this forum, at least for me at the moment. But I think a civil debate can take place that encompasses many views, including in a classroom.

He is one man whose positive actions are considered extraordinary, but whose negative actions need contextualization? If he is capable of singularly great things, why can't he be equally capable of singularly evil things?



Deviations from the mean don't just happen in one direction. Either we put ALL his actions in context when we teach (he WAS only a product of his time, wasn't he?) or none of them.

Besides, saying that the underlying issue is European colonization is a bit disingenious. He's considered the father of European colonialism in the Americas. That is, presumably, why there's Columbus day and not Vespucci day. You don't think that might mean he set examples of behavior for others to follow?

Check out the book- Lies my Teacher Told Me. 

Takes all the glorified history Americans learn and then the parts that weren't covered.

Great stuff.

I learned all this when I was in elementary school in the 1970s.

I'm shocked that it's considered "news" to people.

I was in elementary school in the 70s, and we weren't taught anything other than the basics - he went to "discover" the New World, and wound up in Hispaniola.  Nothing more than that.  How he and his crew treated the native people, and what happened after he landed were never taught.  It was always treated as a minor note in the broader spectrum of American history.  Almost a footnote, really.

I, too, thought it a bit strange as the article opened with teachings to 5 year olds. Shouldn't that sort of thing be left until they are a bit older? As Abbey stated ...at a level that's appropriate for their age.5 year olds should being taught how to interact with others, writing, reading etc not the cold harsh realities of the real world.

Actually, I think the way it was handled with the kindergartners was appropriate.  As much as I'd love to keep my kindergartner living in a happy, fluffy world, he doesn't.  And he knows it.  "Mean" people are everywhere, and kids are taught that at an earlier age than we were.  The key, as Bmore_2_UK said, is that they left the harsh stuff out and kept it appropriate to their age.

I read that, actually. I thought the "Civil War was not about slavery?" chapter to be stupendous because I actually remember being taught in junior high about how tangential of an issue slavery was.

I was in elementary school in the 70s, and we weren't taught anything other than the basics - he went to "discover" the New World, and wound up in Hispaniola.  Nothing more than that.  How he and his crew treated the native people, and what happened after he landed were never taught.  It was always treated as a minor note in the broader spectrum of American history.  Almost a footnote, really.

I was in elementary school in the '80s, and this is what I was taught as well.  I remember being surprised some years later to learn that there were people who considered Columbus a hero. 

As to contextualisation, I do think it's important to teach about how culture, and its attendant values and mores, changes over time and that things we consider horrors today may once have been standard practise.  However, what's really important for children to understand is that people are flawed.  Great things have been accomplished by dreadful people, but the dreadfulness doesn't negate the accomplishments.  Why must our "heroes" be untarnished?  It's possible to admire one aspect of a person's life whilst condemning another. 

I also oppose the idea that children should be taught a whitewashed version of history when they're young, then given the gory details later.  It can be difficult to adjust when certain ideas have become fixed in our heads, even when we're presented with convincing evidence disproving those ideas.  Hence the people who refuse to hear anything about Columbus that contradicts the image they've had of him since the age of five.  Elementary school has a lot to answer for.   

I read that, actually. I thought the "Civil War was not about slavery?" chapter to be stupendous because I actually remember being taught in junior high about how tangential of an issue slavery was.

An interesting note to all of this is that for the US Citizenship test this is how the Civil War is taught.  It is about North and South and Slavery.  That's it. 

On one hand just how much information is too much information at certain age groups or with new Citizens that can't really speak great English? 

I think the truth is very important, but if we started trying to get our students into the nuances of how the Emancipation Proclamation didn't really free the slaves and many other Civil War misconceptions I think it would be years before they ever managed to pass the exam. 

He is one man whose positive actions are considered extraordinary, but whose negative actions need contextualization? If he is capable of singularly great things, why can't he be equally capable of singularly evil things?

Deviations from the mean don't just happen in one direction. Either we put ALL his actions in context when we teach (he WAS only a product of his time, wasn't he?) or none of them.

Besides, saying that the underlying issue is European colonization is a bit disingenious. He's considered the father of European colonialism in the Americas. That is, presumably, why there's Columbus day and not Vespucci day. You don't think that might mean he set examples of behavior for others to follow?

I’m not sure what you’re saying to be honest. I’m neither a historian nor a Columbus scholar. My comments referred more to how history is taught rather than the history itself.

I think it’s a good idea to present differing points of view to students, including those that may challenged traditional thought or the usual way of teaching a subject, and let them make up their own minds. It's important that lessons be age appropriate. I didn't see anything in the article about Columbus that appeared to be suspect and if there was, school is not the only place that children get information from.  

I still think that the types of classroom lessons in the article are not solely meant to revolve around determining whether or not Columbus was a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ man. I find that pointless actually outside the context of his role in European colonisation that followed his ‘discovery’ of the Americas.

Because if Columbus landed wherever he landed, said hello to the natives (even raped and pillaged them) and then went home, and Native Americans were left to themselves do you think that we’d be celebrating him with a bank holiday? I don’t think we would be because why would native Americans celebrate a European explorer. Columbus matters mostly because he is considered the first of what was to come to the Americas and that's most important.

Citizenship test in the US is administered after several years in the country. It's not like people are presented with it right off the plane. And they administer the test in several different languages too. Or at least they used to.

Truth be told, I think the Cit exam in the US is a joke. I'm not a huge fan of Life in the UK test either, but at least you read a book from which you're tested. In the US you get a list of like 30 questions from which they pick I think 10.

I think the problem of simplification in the test though is not just language-based. There's also the sheer amount of material that it's supposed to cover. The history, the government structure, some form of current affairs, how to copy sentences and read them out loud. Now take all that and reduce it to a 10-question test that probably needs to have a passage rate of 70%+ and we have a test that's the epitome of lowest common denominator. 

ETA: vnicepeeps, I think I misrepresented the point of the chapter to which I was referring. He actually says that history text books tend to downplay the role of slavery in the North/South conflict, relegating it to some kind of secondary reason, when, according to the author, in reality it was the main reason -- the central issue over which the war was fought. And, according to him, it was recognized as such by people at the time. Everything else was a very distant second. That saying "North and South fought over slavery," is way more historically accurate than "there were a host of different reasons, one of them was slavery."

It's a funny issue to bring up, I think, because it shows the flip side of the Columbus issue: context run amok. To unambiguously say "it was about slavery first and foremost." is to admit the corollary: one side fought to end slavery, one side fought to keep it. To do so would be getting awfully close to actually making a judgement that North was on the side of the angels, and South..well..not so much. And those kinds of judgements make people verrrrry uncomfortable.

Deviations from the mean don't just happen in one direction. Either we put ALL his actions in context when we teach (he WAS only a product of his time, wasn't he?) or none of them.

I see what you're saying here...however, if you feel this way about Columbus, you should feel the same for every person in a history book, correct?  If this is your theory, then it should be noted that every person has two sides.  Perhaps we should be teaching our children about all the great things Hitler did...instead of accentuating only the negative impact he had on the world?  It wasn't until much later in life that I learned about the positive contributions Hilter made to society...including the invention (or contribution to the development of) several products most of us use today.

It boggles me that you are defending slavery or insisting that Columbus was free to take part in it because it was "the norm" (which, at that time period it wasn't, actually, slavery took off after the "discovery" of the New World - we can thank Columbus in part for that, as once he ran out of Taino indians to enslave he started importing them from Africa!). I don't know why you seem to take it so personally that Columbus was not a good person - and yes, I really do believe that he raped Taino women and girls, as well as tortured individuals - but you shouldn't take my word on it, I will find a better source!
 

Just a side note... slavery was not new at this point. It's been happening all through history, most notably (in terms of widely known) being the Egyptians and the folks they had building the pyramids for them!

I see what you're saying here...however, if you feel this way about Columbus, you should feel the same for every person in a history book, correct?  If this is your theory, then it should be noted that every person has two sides.  Perhaps we should be teaching our children about all the great things Hitler did...instead of accentuating only the negative impact he had on the world?  It wasn't until much later in life that I learned about the positive contributions Hilter made to society...including the invention (or contribution to the development of) several products most of us use today.

Hitler?  

You didn't understand what I was saying. I was saying we should put ALL his actions in the context of his time, not that we should teach about the duality of character. You put Hitler's actions in the context of his time and guess what??? He still comes out pretty evil. I was saying that if Columbus's evil is not all that evil by 15th century mores, is his accomplishment all that remarkable when judged by those same mores?

Hitler? Seriously? What is this, a race to Goodwin's 1?

ETA: I am actually having a pretty hard time coming up with a context in which Hitler would come out in any way but a personafication of the worst that humanity is capable of.