Ever since I read of Christopher Columbus’ barbaric practices with respect to the native peoples he encountered after “discovering” North America, I’ve been repulsed by him. My Arts Editor and I once wrote a novel in which an American Indian has subtly incorporated the word SUBMULOC, “Columbus” spell backwards, into his garage as a way to call on his Gods to expel the European invaders.
But is there anyone whose countenance might be worth putting up on all those empty plinths, maybe even replace the name of that town in Ohio? My cousin Scott Chamberlain, a former Latin American historian, makes the case for another European. All the links below are mine, not Scott’s:
From Wikipedia:
Fray Bartolomé de las Casas depicted as Savior of the Indians in a later painting by Felix ParraGiven the problematic nature of Columbus’s legacy, let me suggest that we remove him from the pantheon of cultural heroes, and replace him with a different figure from the Age of Exploration… a man who moved in the same circles as Columbus and experienced many of the same things as his contemporary did, and yet took a very different path. Let us consider life and times of Bartolomé de las Casas. …
A former encomendero (holder of an ENCOMIENDA) who after experiencing the plight of the native peoples under Spanish rule in the early sixteenth century, took the vows of a DOMINICAN friar and became an energetic champion of native rights on both sides of the Atlantic.
Las Casas remains one of the most controversial figures in Latin American history. His attempts to convert and protect the indigenous people of the Americas earned him the adulation of missionaries and several key figures in the Catholic Church. Religious and secular leaders in England, France, and the Netherlands argued that he was a courageous figure for standing up to the corrupt, destructive actions of his fellow Spaniards, and his works were widely read in these countries.
In Spain itself, however, he faced a more mixed reaction—many Spaniards felt that he was unpatriotic, soiling the reputation of national heroes. His later writings seemed to undermine the legitimacy of the conquest, causing Las Casas to lose favor with the royal government. Many of the conquistadors and their families felt personally attacked by his writings and moved to have them denounced at court. One sixteenth-century polemic against Las Casas bore the revealing title: Against the Premature, Scandalous, and Heretical Assertions which Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas Has Made in His Book About the Conquest of the Indies, Which He Has Had Printed Without the Permission of the Authorities. The controversy over his life and writings has continued through the twentieth century, where Spanish historians called him “mentally ill” (1927), “a pigheaded anarchist” (1930), a “leveler possessed by the Devil” (1946), and “a pathological liar” (1963). Those who doubt the veracity of his works have argued that he was creating a “BLACK LEGEND” about Spain’s actions in the New World, while his supporters have claimed that he is perhaps the only reliable figure of the conquest era.
When angry epithets are flung at someone by nationalists in that quantity, he’s definitely off to a good start. He had some disastrous misfires, but after becoming a Dominican monk, he managed to secure some land and convince local tribes to convert.
Scott tells the story far better than I, though. Go read it. I’m not sure any European of the era should be honored with monuments, but perhaps Bartolomé de las Casas would be the best candidate, if we need any.
