CHRISTOPHERCOLUMBUS
COACHING
CHRISTOPHER
COLUMBUS
COACHING
On October 12, 1492, Christopher Columbus landed on an island he named La Ciudad de Gran San Salvador (The City of the Great Holy Savior).
Christopher Columbus was an extraordinary human being.
You and I can learn a lot from him.
You would become a better Christian and a better human being if you had a personal coach like Christopher Columbus
Headings
"Columbus scholarship is a fertile ground for that peculiar academic blindness whereby an interesting but indefensible hypothesis is followed to its logically necessary but increasingly lunatic conclusions." - Peter Hulme
At the four hundredth anniversary of Columbus' voyage to America (in 1892), nearly every nation of Europe and the West joined in the celebration. Festivities and praise for the Admiral of the Ocean Sea ran high and uninhibited. The Roman Catholic Church even considered the discoverer for patron saint status.
What a difference a century makes! How strange it would be for the participants in the four hundredth anniversary to see what's going round on the quincentenary. We who have the privilege of living in this enlightened age are being told (loudly) that whatever Columbus was, he most certainly was no saint. He was (and here I draw from a nearly inexhaustible supply of politically correct and environmentally "sensitive" literature that has been sent to me): a rapist, a "plunderer", a slave trader, an "eco-fascist", a racist, a mass murderer, and (my personal favorite) the "Instigator of the Big Lie".
The ever trendy National Council of Churches started all this with a statement issued last year which charged Columbus with "invasion, genocide, slavery, and 'ecocide'." Others have followed the lead of these eccentric churchlings by charging the Admiral with "grand theft, racism, initiating the destruction of a culture, rape, torture, and maiming of indigenous people". Let's see, is anything left out? Imperialism, greed, racism, and environmental insensitivity - all the mortal sins of the Politically Correct.
Not to be left out, the Indians (now known as the "Native Americans") have joined the chorus complaining that, "Columbus was possessed by an ethic of destruction.... We see him sort of like a creature out of science fiction, an alien from another planet who sort of zipped down and imposed a new way of life, against which there has been a guerrilla struggle to this very day."[1]
In addition, we are being inundated with "unbooks" to lend documentation to these rantings (Kirkpatrick Sale's The Conquest of Paradise, Barry Lopez's The Rediscovery of North America, Hans Koning's Columbus: His Enterprise and most recently, "A Quincentennial Commemoration" edited by Herman J. Viola and Carolyn Margolis entitled Seeds of Change). Each is little more than leftist propaganda dressed up as history.
What can be said in the face of all this madness? Is it all just so much folderol? Is it merely another smear campaign against our traditions and heroes? Even Columbus's defenders have begun a safe (and quiet) retreat. Better not to say anything than to risk being branded a racist, a fascist, or (horror of horrors!) an ecocidal maniac.
Maniac or no, I do want to address a number of issues that have been raised by the "Columbus-bashers". A fair reading of the history of the man and the times in which he lived may lead us to a more balanced perspective.
Columbus always (and quite clearly) professed Christianity. He was one of those pre-Reformation saints who, though filled with many of the errors and superstitions of Rome, held a remarkably evangelical faith. Many passages from his writings point us to this faith:
I am a most unworthy sinner, but I have cried out to the Lord for grace and mercy and they have covered me completely. I have found the sweetest consolation since I made it my whole purpose to enjoy His marvelous presence. No one should fear to undertake any task in the name of our Savior, if it is just and if the intention is purely for His holy service. The working out of all things has been assigned to each person by our Lord, but it all happens according to His sovereign will, even though He gives advice. He lacks nothing that it is in the power of men to give Him. O what a gracious Lord, who desires that people should perform for Him those things for which He holds Himself responsible! Day and night, moment by moment, everyone should express to Him their most devoted gratitude.I spent seven years in the royal court...and in the end they concluded that it was all foolishness, so they gave it up. But since things generally came to pass that were predicted by our Savior Jesus Christ, we should also believe that this particular prophecy will come to pass. In support of this, I offer the gospel text, Matthew 24:25, in which Jesus said that all things would pass away, but not his marvelous Word. He also affirmed that it was necessary that all things be fulfilled that were prophesied by himself and by the prophets.
I said that I would state my reasons: I hold alone to the sacred and Holy Scriptures, and to the interpretations of prophecy given by certain devout persons.
The Holy Scripture testifies in the Old Testament by the prophets and in the New Testament by our Redeemer Jesus Christ, that this world must come to an end. The signs of when this must happen are given by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The prophets also predicted many things about it.
Our Redeemer Jesus Christ said that before the end of the world, all things must come to pass that had been written by the prophets. Isaiah goes into great detail in describing future events and in calling all people to our holy catholic faith.... For the execution of the journey to the Indies I did not make use of intelligence, mathematics, or maps. It is simply the fulfillment of what Isaiah prophesied.... These are great and wonderful things for the earth, and the signs are that the Lord is hastening the end. The fact that the gospel must still be preached to so many lands in such a short time - this is what convinces me.[2]
Over and over again, Columbus states the purpose of his voyages to be that of bringing Christianity to the pagan isles. Note the following stated purpose of his first voyage:
And your Highnesses, as Catholic Christians and Princes, devoted to the holy Christian faith and the propagation thereof - and enemies of the sect of Mohammet and of all idolatries and heresies, resolved to send me, Christopher Columbus, to the said regions of India, to see the said Princes and peoples and lands and the disposition of them and of all and the manner which may be undertaken their conversion to our holy faith.[3]The second voyage had a similar end in view. The instructions from Ferdinand and Isabella declare the prime object of the voyage to be the conversion of the natives.[4] The directives from the sovereigns for the third voyage in 1497 specify that Columbus engage priests to go with him to administer the sacraments and to "convert the Indians native of the said Indies to our Holy Catholic Faith."[5]
This expressed desire for the spiritual well-being of the natives never left Columbus. His Journal entry for Thursday, November 27, 1492, records this request:
Columbus desired that part of his estate be used to erect a church in Hispaniola along with a hospital for the people of that region. He also specified that his heirs "maintain and support in Hispaniola four good Masters of Sacred Theology", whose main concern would be to work for the conversion of the natives.[7]And I say that Your Highnesses must not allow any stranger, except Catholic Christians, to trade here or set foot here, for this was the alpha and omega of the enterprise, that it should be for the increase and glory of the Christian religion and that no one should come to these parts who was not a good Christian.[6]
The unanimous testimony of those who knew him confirm the sincerity of Columbus's piety. His son Ferdinand, who was with his father throughout the last six years of his life says, "In matters of religion he was so strict that for fasting and saying all the canonical offices he might have been taken for a member of a religious order. And he was so great an enemy to cursing and swearing, that I never heard him utter any other oath than 'by San Fernando!' and when he was most angry with anyone, his reprimand was to say, 'May God take you!' for doing or saying that. And when he had to write anything, he would not try the pen without first writing these words Jesus cum Maria sit nobis in via ["Jesus and Mary be with us on the way"], and in such fair letters that he might have gained his bread by them alone."[8]
Bartolomé de las Casas, who is severely critical of Columbus in regard to his management of the colonial aspects of the enterprise, says this about his faith in his account, Historia de las Indias,
In matters of the Christian religion, without doubt he was a Catholic and of great devotion; for in everything he did and said or sought to begin he always interposed "In the name of the Holy Trinity I will do this", or "launch this" or "this will come to pass"... He observed the fasts of the Church most faithfully, confessed and made communion often, read the canonical offices like a churchman or member of a religious order, hated blasphemy and profane swearing, was most devoted to Our Lady and to the seraphic father St. Francis; seemed very grateful to God for benefits received from the divine hand, wherefore, as in the proverb, he hourly admitted that God had conferred upon him great mercies, as upon David. When gold or precious things were brought to him, he entered his cabin, knelt down, summoned the bystanders, and said, "Let us give thanks to Our Lord that he has thought us worthy to discover so many good things." He was extraordinarily zealous in divine service; he desired and was eager for the conversion of these people [the Indians], and that in every region the faith of Jesus Christ be planted and enhanced....Even Columbus most famous modern biographer, Samuel Morison (at best a lukewarm admirer of everything about Columbus except his navigational skills), is convinced:He was a gentleman of great force and spirit, of lofty thoughts naturally inclined...to undertake worthy deeds and signal enterprises; patient and long-suffering (as shall later appear), and a forgiver of injuries, and wished nothing more than that those who offended against him should recognize their errors, and that the delinquents be reconciled with him; most constant and endowed with forbearance in the hardships and adversities which were always occurring and which were incredible and infinite; ever holding great confidence in divine providence.[9]
In contrast to the humanists of his day, who believed in salvation by a new environment (finding an earthly paradise, "the isles of the Blest"), Columbus was motivated by the Biblical gospel of salvation by God's grace and the new, re-created man. He was convinced that the name given him by his parents was prophetic: Christopher, "Christ-bearer". He would bring Christ to the "second part of the world" in fulfillment of the Biblical prophecies. Those who refuse to take his faith seriously, are bound to misunderstand his life.
- He was Man alone with God against human stupidity and depravity, against greedy conquistadors, cowardly seamen, even against nature and the sea. Always with God, though; in that his biographers were right; for God is with men who for a good cause put their trust in Him. Men may doubt this, but there can be no doubt that the faith of Columbus was genuine and sincere, and that his frequent communion with forces unseen was a vital element in his achievement. It gave him confidence in his destiny, assurance that his performance would be equal to the promise of his name. This conviction that God destined him to be an instrument for spreading the faith was far more potent than the desire to win glory, wealth and worldly honors, to which he was certainly far from indifferent.[10]
For many however, Columbus's profession of faith raises more problems than it solves. How can we explain his seeming obsession with gold? What about the incidents of mistreatment of the natives about whom he expressed such pious concern? Do not these and other matters reveal his profession to be hypocritical? These serious matters should be addressed.
But though sin should never be justified, we can, in the spirit of charity, seek to understand the circumstances which provoke the failures of our brethren. A number of things should be noted in Columbus's defense.
First, Columbus was concerned for his family's care and provision. He was not a pure adventurer but a man who felt the responsibility to care for his own as the head of his house. His son (by his first wife) was ever a concern. His "common law" wife and son, Ferdinand, added to the burden and responsibilities of the explorer.[11] The reality of his obligations to his family made the "business" aspects of his voyage most important. He was taking a great risk (one which is well-nigh unimaginable for moderns) and desired to be rewarded for it. Only those who view profit and the Biblical idea of a laborer being worthy of his hire as evil can fault him for this.
Further, Columbus felt the pressure to succeed and bring profit to the sovereigns of Spain who had taken on such a risky and expensive venture in his behalf. He desperately wanted to pay them back for their faith in him. This pressure undoubtedly played a major part in his obsession to find gold at every harbor.
Lastly, and largely overlooked by all, Columbus had a desire to finance a crusade to free the Holy Land from Moslem rule. It is difficult for modern, twentieth century yuppies and college idiots to realize how much the desire for God's honor pervaded the Middle Ages. The zeal with which men risked their lives for God's glory is incomprehensible to men who love no one but themselves. We must remember how dark the prospects for the future of Christendom seemed in the late 15th century.
In 1491, most people in Europe had little hope for the future. Christian civilization was not only shrinking in its physical land area but becoming hopelessly divided theologically. The Moslem tide seemed insurmountable and unstoppable. Islam held the Holy Land in an iron grip. Three hundred years of crusades to regain the Holy Sepulchre had failed. The Ottomans had conquered the ancient Byzantine Empire, overrun most of Greece, Albania, and Serbia, and would soon be threatening Vienna. It was a time of despair for the Christian West.
Columbus's optimism stands out against this dark background all the more brightly. He was convinced God would use him to bring about new advances for Christendom: by taking the gospel to the "isles of the east" and, by means of the riches gained from his enterprise, he believed God would provide fresh finances for renewed efforts to retake the Holy Land. This immediately came to his mind upon the hopes of the first significant discovery of gold in the New World:
And he says that he trusts in God that on his return, which he intended to make from Castile, he would find a barrel of gold, which those whom he had left there should have obtained by barter, and they would have found the gold mine and the spices, and in such quantity, that the Sovereigns, within three years would undertake and prepare to go to the conquest of the Holy Places, "For so", he says, "I protested to Your Highnesses that all the gain of this my enterprise would be expended on the conquest of Jerusalem, and Your Highnesses smiled and said that it pleased them, and that [even] without this they had that inclination."[12]As noted below, his hopes for such a venture never waned. He made a point of mentioning it in his will, exhorting his descendants to do all in their power to bring it about.
These reasons all conspired to keep gold in the forefront of the Admiral's mind and heart. Did he sin? Undoubtedly. Was he a blind idolater of Mammon? Hardly.
The practice of involuntary slavery is abhorrent to the morality of the scriptures with certain exceptions (penalizing criminals and in warfare). The fact that Columbus engaged in unwarranted slavery (even to a limited extent) cannot be defended by those who take the Bible seriously. Yet, a number of things must be remembered which help us to place Columbus's actions in their proper context.
First, slavery was a common and accepted part of life in the 15th and 16th centuries (as indeed it remained throughout the world until the latter part of the 19th century). This was especially the case in pagan countries. Long before the Portuguese began the slave trade in Africa in the mid-fifteenth century, slavery was a hard fact of life to the African people. The same was true in the Indies. Slavery was commonplace among the Indians of the Caribbean as it was among nearly all the tribes of North America. John Greenway has noted, "Slavery was widespread in aboriginal America. Nearly every tribe that could afford to keep slaves did so."[13]
It is seldom noted that those whom we call "native Americans" actually are of Mongolian descent and migrated to this continent sometime in the far distant past from northern Asia. Prior to this migration, this continent was inhabited by primitive tribes of truly "native Americans" who were either killed, enslaved, or exiled when the descendants of the "Indians" of North America came to this land. This explains why many early "Indians" were baffled when the white man sought to pay for land or offered barter to them in exchange for the lands they confiscated. They had simply killed the former inhabitants or otherwise disposed of them and that had been that.[14]
Columbus soon realized that slavery was not confined to Europe and Africa. The apparently mild-mannered Tainos were regularly enslaved by raiding bands of Caribs. Many of those Columbus is accused of enslaving were willing captives, fleeing from the Caribs. Being a slave to the Caribs was not a pleasant experience, though it usually was a rather brief one. The Caribs had the unhappy habit of eating their slaves. They even developed cannibalistic gourmet food (by keeping young girls for the purpose of bearing babies who were especially enjoyed for their tender meat).[15]
It is clear that Columbus, like most of his contemporaries, saw nothing inherently evil in slavery, yet he was far from a wild-eyed slave merchant. His motives in taking some of the Indians back to Spain was to teach them Spanish in order that they might be used as translators and missionaries among their countrymen. The Journal entry for November 12, 1492, indicates this: "He said that on the previous Sunday, the eleventh of November, it had appeared to him that it would be well to take some persons from that river, in order to carry them to the Sovereigns, that they might learn our language, in order to discover what there is in the land, and that, on their return, they might be tongues for the Christians and adopt our customs and the things of our faith."[16]
Columbus, apparently seeking to follow the biblical strictures, would later justify slavery "provided the victims were genuine prisoners of war."[17] The "slave trade" he engaged in, consisted of captives from among the Caribs and of those of the island of Hispaniola who had attacked his men there.
Was this enslavement Biblically justifiable? Not always perhaps. Was Columbus a promoter of slavery? No more than anyone else in the 15th century and far less than many others.
What about the "cruel oppression" of the Indians? There were a number of incidents which must be condemned (especially those which occurred in Hispaniola during the time between the first and second voyage). It must be noted in fairness to Columbus however, that these crimes were committed by men contrary to the specific orders of the Admiral.
In spite of these incidents, one has to acknowledge it would have been much worse apart from the restraining influence of Columbus's orders and his sometime direct intervention. The Journals are replete with notations of Columbus's desire to treat the Indians with kindness in order that they might be inclined to trade with Spaniards as well as be disposed to the gospel.[18] These desires of the Admiral were not always followed however.
Was he always so just and compassionate? No. Columbus may be rightly blamed for defending wicked Spaniards over against the Indians when his men had provoked attack by their own wickedness. This is especially the case since this cruelty occurred contrary to the his explicit orders. Whether Columbus took the side of his men out of fear of mutiny or out of naive confidence in their integrity, his actions in unjustly punishing the Indians cannot be condoned.
Further, Columbus's panic over the lack of gold, would later lead him to agree to require the natives of Hispaniola to pay a tribute of a "hawk's bell" full of gold dust every three months. This became an intolerable and truly impossible burden on the inhabitants in this "gold poor" region and caused tremendous grief and suffering.
These actions are inexcusable and Columbus condemned himself for them. Later, convicted of his sin in these matters, Columbus purposed never again to wear the costly garments of "the Admiral of the Ocean Sea" and assumed the brown habit of a Minorite friar as a symbol of his penitence. This remained his costume when in Spain for the rest of his life.[19]
A great deal of Columbus's "crimes" are attributable to the myths surrounding the supposed "nobility" of the savages who inhibited the islands of the Caribbean. The common line runs that the natives lived in peaceful harmony with the environment and one another. Loved reigned in what is often described as a primeval "paradise". Columbus himself contributed to this myth by describing the Tainos in such benevolent and effeminate terms.
Apparently influenced by the "noble savage" idea, he misunderstood the pacific nature of the Tainos, attributing it to an aversion to violence when in fact it was rooted in their fear and superstition toward these strange men from the ocean. They thought the Spaniards were from heaven and messengers of the gods (in much the same way the subject tribes of Montezuma would view Cortes and his men a few years later). When the Tainos begin to suspect their error, they showed a much more fearsome aspect.
The Caribs, being much more warlike, never fit the mold of the "noble" aborigines. Their cruelty, immorality, callousness, treacherousness, and bloodthirstiness were shocking. J. H. Plumb, in his article, "America: Illusion And Reality", notes, "The theory that the naked Caribs lived in innocent bliss was soon dispelled. The Spaniards learned with horror that the Caribs hung up the hams of men and women to cure in the sun like sides of bacon. They relished the taste of human flesh; for them it was a gourmet's revenge on an enemy. When the Spaniards began to root themselves inefficiently in Hispaniola, the denizens of the Golden Age rapidly became subhuman. The Spaniards stressed their cannibalism, their nakedness, their fornication, and their frequently deviant and public sexuality. This savage paganism made their salvation imperative and their servitude justifiable."[20]
In the face of "paganism in the raw" men sometimes react with what may appear to be unwarranted harshness. It is impossible for us to imagine the shock and dismay such barbarism produced in these sons of Medieval Europe. It does not excuse their sins, but it does make those sins much more understandable.
Columbus ended his days in bitter disappointment. He never found the way to Japan and China that he sought. He never received the recognition he deserved. He was painfully aware of his moral failures. Yet, at the end of his days, thoughts of God's glory and the successful advance of the gospel throughout the earth still were uppermost in his mind. With the expectation of future revenues which he trusted would one day result from his discoveries, he made provision for the disposition of all his estate in three areas: "legacies to repay ancient debts of his improvident father; a chapel in Hispaniola...; and a sinking fund to be used for the recovery of the Holy Sepulchre."[21]
His last words were, in manus tuas, Domine, commendo spiritum meum ["Into your hands, Lord, I commend my spirit"]. So died one of the important and controversial men in history.
Was Columbus a perfect man? No. Was he orthodox in all his beliefs? Hardly. Did he do things Christians ought not to do? Without question. But so do I. And so do you. Judged fairly, in the light of the realities of pre-Reformation Europe, Columbus reflects many of the best qualities of the men of his day. Surely, in the midst of all his flaws, we are able to see a greatness born of God's grace.
Though we must always be careful not to react against the unfair judgments of the unbelieving historians by committing the same errors (on the opposite end), we have to say the judgment of Columbus by most modern historians has been unduly harsh and overdrawn. We need not claim that Columbus was sinless, nor dare we seek to whitewash his faults, but neither should we judge him uncharitably. Columbus was not without serious sins, but neither was he an impenitent, rebellious, deceiver. He was a man of his times and carried much of the unhappy "baggage" of his day. But he was also a sincere believer who sought to honor the Lord in the midst of his imperfections and ignorance.
In light of the facts, one may wonder over the screams of outrage in regard to the commemoration of Columbus's discovery. Why all the hubbub?
The attacks on Columbus are the latest efforts in the long war against Christianity and the Christian West. In this warfare, Christians are the prime enemies of the people. Columbus is not vilified because he was peculiarly evil (there have been many, before and since, who were far more wicked and brutal than he). Rather, he is assaulted simply because he had the temerity to believe that certain things were right, good, and true, and their opposites wrong, evil, and false; that Christianity and the culture it produces is inherently better, in spite of its flaws, than paganism and the destruction it leaves in its wake. In the final analysis, this is Columbus's greatest crime in the eyes of his modern critics. For this there is no forgiveness.
The same people who excoriate Columbus are strangely short of righteous indignation when it comes to Pol Pot, Gorbachev, Mao Tse Tung, Castro, and any number of truly evil men of our day. When is the last time you heard Lenin or Stalin charged with genocide by any of our left-leaning "intellectualoids"? When will the National Council of Churches denounce Martin Luther King for his immorality? Don't hold your breath.
Since when have you heard anyone point out to the 'greenies' and to the infinitely 'sensitive' politically correct crowd, the ecological indifference or the barbaric immoralities, of the Indians of this hemisphere?[22]
Why are the Caribs forgiven for cannibalism, rape, murder, savage slavery, and racism, while Columbus is ridiculed and anathematized for expressing the desire to have them adopt the customs of Christendom? Could it not be that the destruction that befell the Indians of this hemisphere was the judgment of God upon their idolatry, slavery, immorality, brutality, and racism? These are real possibilities and should be considered by all who are seeking the truth. But truth is not the goal of our modern crusaders. This blatant double standard used to judge men and movements in history reveals the true agenda.
The recent hysteria is merely another evidence of the enmity of the world against God. The sins of idolaters are ignored for the sake of The Revolution against God. Christians are branded as the originators of all evil (so says the revolution). The real "sinners" in the minds of the revolutionaries, are the ones who confess their sins and repent of them, and who call others to do the same. The height of Evil is to remind men they are mortal after all and will face the judgment. When it gets down to it, this is the sin of Columbus and Cortes, the Puritans of New England, and all the other "villains" of our modern history books. This is not a judgment demanded by the facts, it is demanded by The Revolution.
R.J. Rushdoony has stated that men will not honor a past that indicts them for their present failures. True. Modern, unbelieving historians sneer at faith and confession not daring to grant it respectability lest anyone wonder over their agnosticism. It's part of the futile conspiracy to "cast away His cords" (Psalm 2). It will fail, as all the other faithless conspiracies before it.
The new gods of pluralism and multi-culturalism demand no absolutes and have no room for a God who declares such (or for disciples who acknowledge such). Thus, Christians are bound to get the worst end of it until such time as God is pleased to either destroy the gainsayers or to convert them. Until then, we must not be surprised that God's people are mocked. Whether it be Jesus or Columbus, the world always hates those who testify against it. CM
[2] Christopher Columbus, Book of Prophecies, trans. August J. Kling, Columbus A Layman 'Christ-bearer' to Uncharted Isles, The Presbyterian Layman, October, 1971.>
[3] Christopher Columbus, The Journal of Christopher Columbus, trans. Cecil Jane, New York: Bonanza Books, 1960 (1989), p. 4.
[4] Samuel Eliot Morison, Admiral of the Ocean Sea, Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1942, p. 391.
[5] Admiral of the Ocean Sea, p. 509.
[6] Journal, p. 78. Other expressions of concern for the salvation of the Indians can be found in the entries of October 11,16; November 1,6,12,27; December 16,18.
[7] Admiral of the Ocean Sea, p. 514.
[8] Admiral of the Ocean Sea, p. 44.
[9] Admiral of the Ocean Sea, pp. 45-46.
[10] Admiral of the Ocean Sea, pp. 46-47.
[11] I am referring here to Beatriz Enriquez de Harana, who became the mother of Ferdinand in the late summer of 1488. Columbus met her during the time of his stay in Spain (after the death of his wife) while trying to convince Ferdinand and Isabella to finance his voyage. It is clear that Columbus never married Beatriz either secretly or otherwise. Yet, she was more than a mistress. As Morison notes, [Columbus] had her on his mind all his life; for in 1502 he ordered his legitimate son Deigo to give here the annuity of 10,000 maravedis which he took as reward for the first sighting the New World Here again, Columbus acknowledged his sin and sought to make restitution. In a testamentary codicil of 1506 he charged Diego to see that Beatriz Enriquez, mother of Don Fernando my Son, is put in a way to live honorably, as a person to whom I am in so great debt, and thus for discharge of my conscience, because it weigheth much on my mind. Diego not only paid the annuity to Beatriz but remembered her in his will as well. The relationship between the legitimate son Diego and his half brother was an intimate one. In fact, it was Ferdinand, who fought hard and successfully to protect the hereditary rights of Diego after the death of Columbus (Morison, Admiral of the Ocean Sea, pp. 84-85).
[12] Journal, p. 128.>
[13] John Greenway, ed., Folklore of the Great West, Palo Alto: American West Publishing Company, 1969, pp. 89-94.
[14] A Polynesian chief once observed to a white officer: I don't understand you English. You come here and take our land and then you spend the rest of your lives trying to make up for it. When my people came to these islands, we just killed the inhabitants and that was the end of it. (John Greenway, "Will the Indians Get Whitey?", National Review, March 11, 1969.)
[15] More than one search party found ghastly evidence of their gastronomic preferences: In the huts deserted by the warriors, who ungallantly fled, they found large cuts and joints of human flesh, shin bones set aside to make arrows of, caponized Arawak boy captives who were being fattened for the griddle, and girl captives who were mainly used to produce babies, which the Caribs regarded as a particularly toothsome morsel. (Admiral of the Ocean Sea, p. 407).
[16] Journal, p. 58.
[17] Admiral of the Ocean Sea, p. 563.
[18] See for example the entries for October 15,17,21; November 6,12; December 12,16,18,21; January 9,13.
[19] Ibidem, p. 505.
[20] John A. Garraty, ed., Historical Viewpoints, New York: Harper and Row, 1983, p. 35.
[21] Admiral of the Ocean Sea, p. 667.
[22] See James Davidson and Mark Lytle, "The Invisible Pioneers", After the Fact: The Art of Historical Detection, 2nd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 121-128; Otto Scott, "Central America's Past", Chalcedon Report, Number 265, August, 1987; Jon M. White, Cortes and the Downfall of the Aztec Empire, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1971; John Greenway, "Will the Indians Get Whitey?" National Review, March 11, 1969, pp. 223-228,245; Paul W. Valentine, "Hollywood's Noble Indians: Are We Dancing With Myths?", The Washington Post, March 31, 1991, B5.