Christopher Columbus: Villain or Hero?

Image from: http://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Christopher-Columbus-800x430.jpg

Introduction

It has often been said, “history is written by winners.” But this age of enlightenment has proven that does not remain constantly true. In 1992, Barbara Ransby, in her article Columbus and the Making of Historical Myth, proved that history can be re-written by unmasking the truth behind the myth of Christopher Columbus. Controversially, in 2007, David Sprecace, in his article Columbus Should be Celebrated, upheld the old depiction of Columbus as a great explorer and hero. The purpose of this essay is to compare and contrast the approaches that the two authors used to make their arguments, the techniques they employed, and the proofs they presented. Moreover, the problems with their approaches and the biases in their perspectives will be scrutinized.

Argument Style and Approach: Barbara Ransby

Ransby employed deductive reasoning model by establishing her major premise that Christopher Columbus was a villain, and his depiction as a hero was nothing but a fabricated lie. She enumerated countless minor premises to support her main idea on how the real Columbus had been transformed through centuries into a mythical hero (Ransby, 1992, p. 79).

In her introduction, Ransby effectively used a metaphor by comparing history to a battleground where historians fight to decide what was to be written (1992, p. 79). She introduced her disagreement of fictitious story of Columbus, brought about by decades of propaganda, which concealed his real legacy of violence and cruelty. She opined that history had been manipulated to uphold white male supremacy. She confronted contradictions by former US President Andrew Jackson on his justification of white violence and colonialism to promote economic progress, at the expense of ecological destruction and few thousand native people (Ransby, 1992, p. 80). She used united proposition, took an anti-Columbus stance and fought for it. Her argument was of social relevance and sought change and justice for those who suffered and died at the hands of Columbus. The lifespan of her argument was timeless, for she tackled about the atrocities, genocide and social injustice committed to a race of people. Justice and human sufferings are two concepts that time could never erode. As long as the lies are continuously told, the violence committed to those groups of people is perpetuated over and over again.

Argument Style and Approach: David Sprecace

Sprecace used deductive reasoning model, and his major premise was that the recognition of Columbus’ achievements was a right choice (Sprecace, 2007, para 1). He supported his main idea with minor premises on why Columbus deserved to be up in the pedestal by enumerating his numerous qualities, and his courage of challenging the conventional notion that the Earth was flat. He claimed that Columbus' daring resulted to the acceptance of the heliocentric concept. He admired Columbus’ capitalistic spirit for seeking wealth and glory and justified it by saying it opened new trade routes (Sprecace, 2007, para 2).

Sprecace started in his agreement of the traditional depiction of Columbus as a celebrated hero. Unfortunately, his subjective claim was not argued in objective terms. He presented some persuasive points but they did not possess measurement and testability. He confronted the anti-Columbus movement by saying that Columbus had been wrongly blamed for genocide, rape, the slave trade, etc. He argued that by blaming Columbus alone, the real perpetrators such as governments, founding fathers, Ku Klux Klan, were excused for their crimes against humanity (Sprecace, 2007, para 5). Ineffectively, he stated that Columbus didn’t cause all the horrible things he was accused of.

Sprecace reminded the readers about the history of the tribes: that Arawak tribe came from Venezuela and conquered the West Indies in 1st century AD, and that the tribes, Arawak, Carib, and the Antilles, had been engaged in warfare, violence, slavery and even cannibalism prior to Columbus' arrival. He claimed that those who were defeated in the tribal wars were taken prisoners. He mentioned the works of the historian, Virginia McConnell Simmons, and another explorer’s, Cortez, accounts regarding the existence of slavery in the islands pre-Columbus (Sprecace, 2007, para 7). His nonchalance to slavery, violence to indigenous people and rape of women was quite offensive to most people, and he gained negative reactions as a result. In his conclusion, Sprecace reiterated that Columbus deserved the honors bestowed upon him. He appealed that instead of judging him, his critics should be grateful to Columbus (Sprecace, 2007, para 8).

Quality of Proofs

Ransby supported her subjective claims in an objective manner. For instance, she tried to decipher the origin of Columbus' fabricated story by perusing 30 social studies books published in 1966 to 1990, and her premise was confirmed by the depiction of Columbus on those books. With this experimentation, she used measurement to prove that her evidence was reliable, thus compelling. She lamented the way most children’s books’ simplistic and benign portrayal of Columbus as a courageous explorer, who discovered a new world, and the omission of the bloody events that befell the millions of indigenous people. She directly quoted the texts from those books and concluded that the writers were either selective and wrote only the parts that highlighted Columbus, or they were downplaying his atrocities under the guise of progress (Ransby, 1992, p. 80).

Ransby presented superior proofs to her argument, not just mere allegations. She quoted Columbus’s biographer, Kirkpatrick Sale, describing the unspeakable horrors that were done to the indigenous people under the pretense of religious conquests. She also quoted Columbus’ sailors’ journal about the slavery, brutality, and the sexual exploitations of women (Ransby, 1992, p. 81). The imagery that she painted in the readers’ minds was horrifyingly vivid. This made her argument convincing and emotionally moving.

Sprecace’s opinion article was bare of any strong proofs. This made his argument weak and unconvincing. He used the same ideas that sounded very clichéd, like a recycled piece of story. This suggested either ignorance or indifference. He insinuated that the indigenous people were barbaric and implied that they were deserving of what happened to them. His portrayal of the tribes was erroneous. Although tribal communities had always been at war with each other, as a community, they had harmony. It takes new set of eyes to appreciate the beauty of other cultures which Sprecace obviously lacked.

Logical Fallacies and Emotional Appeals

Although Ransby wrote a very persuasive article, it was not free from faults and flaws. She used hasty generalization and genetic fallacy on her stance that Columbus and all his men were vile people, and that the indigenous people were all blameless victims. All races produce good and bad individuals, and to categorize all as either bad or good is a fallacy. She quoted few sailors and concluded that they represented the whole group. In one of the journals she quoted, one of Columbus’ men stated that the war raging between them was due to their men’s promiscuity which suggested that the writer was being truthful, and maybe even apologetic. This suggested that she might even be selective of the information she used, and chose only those that supported her cause.

She also used the fallacy of false cause which erroneously assumes that one thing was caused by another. She stated that by 1540, the whole race was annihilated, partially due to disease and displacements, but mostly due to the genocide done by the invaders (Ransby, 1992, p. 81). She discounted the effects of diseases that also played big part the demise of the indigenous people. This exaggeration was an attempt to demand sympathy, which was an example of argumentum ad misericordiam (appeal to pity).

All throughout her article, it appeared that she tried to appeal to the emotions of the readers to achieve the result she wanted: the fall of Christopher Columbus from the pedestal down to fiery hell where she thought he belonged. It would have been fairer if she gave credit when credit was due. The exploration period was not all for gold. The impetus that drove this era was the pursuit of the three G’s: God, gold, and glory. Some of the European monarchs had good intentions; they were not all for financial gains. Some of them were devout Catholics who truly believed that Christianity should be spread and that it was their Christian duty to convert the unbelievers, the pagans, and the gentiles. Furthermore, she failed to recognize the other missionaries that came after the explorers. Most of these missionaries were good people who wanted to spread their religion, and they died for their faith converting and helping people, and serving God. It has been said that every story has two sides. This is wrong. Every story is a multi-faceted tale. Historians have the ethical duty to tell the truth, to eradicate subjectivity, and to narrate all sides in a manner that is devoid of manipulation.

In his opening statement, Sprecace used appeal to good reputation and tradition by citing President Franklin Roosevelt’s proclamation of Columbus Day in 1934 (2007, para 1). He used appeal to tradition by saying that “slavery was a universal institution in the world, lacking opposition until the mid-16th and early 17th centuries” (Sprecace, 2007, para 6). He used naturalistic fallacy to label the tribes as belligerent and warlike. He mentioned cannibalism to incite disgusts and to obtain the readers’ support. This strategy also qualified as poisoning the well, by attacking the victims, he hoped to discredit them of any sympathy bestowed upon them. His argument was an epitome of circular reasoning or begging the questions. He offered no supporting premises to support his major premise, like a broken record, the same argument echoed over and over again.

Critical Interrogation and Evaluation of the Writers

Barbara Ransby is an American-African historian, writer, and activist. She is a Professor of African American Studies, Gender and Women's Studies, and History at the University of Illinois at Chicago. From her background, it can be gathered that she would be sympathetic towards women and indigenous people. Her education and experience validated her as a subject-matter expert on history. Her allegiance is to the oppressed people of history. She has no sympathy for colonizers and oppressors. The accolades she earned in her field cemented her reputation as reliable history writer. She has no qualms vilifying all the explorers, thus vilifying the entire exploration era. She even accused Queen Isabella of Spain of committing acts of religious intolerance (Ransby, 1992, p. 83). It has to be noted that all through history, mankind has committed unthinkable atrocities in the name of religion and for what they believed in.

On the other hand, David Sprecace is a highly-rated Tax Attorney in Denver, Colorado, and former president of the Denver Columbus Day Parade Committee. He does not have expertise in social studies or history. It is evident that he favors capitalism, and being a Caucasian male, he could be indifferent to the plight and suffering of women and people of color.

Conclusion

David Sprecace stalwartly believed in the Machiavellian concept of the end justifies the means. This justification was to ensure the acceptance of imperialism and colonialism in the name of progress. His argument lacked sufficient proofs to establish the validity of his claim, thus, making it ineffective and biased. On the other side of war field, Barbara Ransby militantly condemned all pro-Columbus claims. She spared no one and uncovered all the collaborators in this large-scale and centuries-old conspiracy. Between the two writers, Barbara Ransby presented a better argument in all aspects of critical writing. Ransby’s strategy could be improved by not vilifying the entire exploration era, and by balancing the two opposing sides of the story.