This week was a great further introduction to the course. The content covered Columbus stumbling upon Latin America and the interaction between the new and old world through various texts. I found it was interesting how Jon talked about 1494 AKA the “first discovery of Latin America” being a “mythical date”. In school, we learnedContinue reading “Week 2: The Meeting of two Worlds”
One of the main takeaway for me from this week’s topic was the rather arbitrary definition of modernity. At the start of this course, we defined Christopher Columbus’ voyage to the New World as the beginning of modernity and yet there are so many opposing views to this. As mentioned in the video, modernity canContinue reading “Week 7: The Export Boom as Modernity”
Week 2 lecture (video)
Long have I waited to read the diaries of Columbus and Cortes. Though there is much other research that is need to be investigated before I can have legitimate opinion about the transcripts and events, I go into this reading with a state of enmity and conflict. I think a lot of Latinos feel the […]
Having grown up in Europe the image of Columbus presented to us at school was that of the accidental hero who stumbled across America whilst in search of India and returned home with mountains of gold much to the pride and delight of Spain. However, recent socio-political movements regarding the glorification of colonisation in Europe has put Columbus’ heroic status along with other key imperialist figures such as Napoleon and Rhodes into question. And so it is with these two conflicting outlooks that I began this week’s reading and lecture hoping to find a resolute answer to whether Columbus deserves the status of a hero or a villain.
As I began Columbus’ journal I was initially intrigued by his leading strategy, lying to the crew about how far they had sailed presumably in the hope of encouraging them to work harder the next day. He struck me as a respected, competent leader – however this may just be due to his own perception of himself as arguably he cannot have been that competent a leader to lead all his crew in the opposite direction of their destination! He addressed the monarch repeatedly in the journal suggesting that it was not kept solely for Columbus’ own eyes but to be used as an account of the voyage by the King himself demonstrating that Columbus was clearly a trusted servant of the King,
Once Columbus began to write of his actions in America I was horrified by his manipulation of the naïve and innocent indigenous communities; exploiting the fact they were “eager to please” to not only rob them but abuse the information they shared. I was further angered by the offhand manner in which Columbus discussed capturing seven of the Americans to take back to Spain to learn Spanish. However, these feelings were combined with the awe that followed Columbus’ poetic description of the new land he was in as discussed in the lecture. It was clear Columbus was in complete reverence of the place and some of the people. This admiration made me question whether he truly did not feel any emotion towards the Americans and whether he just believed that whatever harm he was causing was for the greater good.
It was Columbus’ clear religious motivation for the voyage; stating that the Americans would make “good Christians”, that made me believe that perhaps Columbus felt his actions were justified in the eyes of God. Through this work I have not found a resolute answer as to whether Columbus deserves the status of a hero or a villain. He may have believed he was acting as God and the King willed and his discoveries and riches did improve the lives of the Spaniards in Europe however I cannot say that it excuses his abuse of the Americans naivety and kindness. What is clear however, no matter whether Columbus is honoured or condemned is the impact he has had on the world even over 500 years later.
Having grown up in Europe the image of Columbus presented to us at school was that of the accidental hero who stumbled across America whilst in search of India and returned home with mountains of gold much to the pride and delight of Spain. However, recent socio-political movements regarding the glorification of colonisation in Europe has put Columbus’ heroic status along with other key imperialist figures such as Napoleon and Rhodes into question. And so it is with these two conflicting outlooks that I began this week’s reading and lecture hoping to find a resolute answer to whether Columbus deserves the status of a hero or a villain.
As I began Columbus’ journal I was initially intrigued by his leading strategy, lying to the crew about how far they had sailed presumably in the hope of encouraging them to work harder the next day. He struck me as a respected, competent leader – however this may just be due to his own perception of himself as arguably he cannot have been that competent a leader to lead all his crew in the opposite direction of their destination! He addressed the monarch repeatedly in the journal suggesting that it was not kept solely for Columbus’ own eyes but to be used as an account of the voyage by the King himself demonstrating that Columbus was clearly a trusted servant of the King,
Once Columbus began to write of his actions in America I was horrified by his manipulation of the naïve and innocent indigenous communities; exploiting the fact they were “eager to please” to not only rob them but abuse the information they shared. I was further angered by the offhand manner in which Columbus discussed capturing seven of the Americans to take back to Spain to learn Spanish. However, these feelings were combined with the awe that followed Columbus’ poetic description of the new land he was in as discussed in the lecture. It was clear Columbus was in complete reverence of the place and some of the people. This admiration made me question whether he truly did not feel any emotion towards the Americans and whether he just believed that whatever harm he was causing was for the greater good.
It was Columbus’ clear religious motivation for the voyage; stating that the Americans would make “good Christians”, that made me believe that perhaps Columbus felt his actions were justified in the eyes of God. Through this work I have not found a resolute answer as to whether Columbus deserves the status of a hero or a villain. He may have believed he was acting as God and the King willed and his discoveries and riches did improve the lives of the Spaniards in Europe however I cannot say that it excuses his abuse of the Americans naivety and kindness. What is clear however, no matter whether Columbus is honoured or condemned is the impact he has had on the world even over 500 years later.
Having grown up in Europe the image of Columbus presented to us at school was that of the accidental hero who stumbled across America whilst in search of India and returned home with mountains of gold much to the pride and delight of Spain. However, recent socio-political movements regarding the glorification of colonisation in Europe has put Columbus’ heroic status along with other key imperialist figures such as Napoleon and Rhodes into question. And so it is with these two conflicting outlooks that I began this week’s reading and lecture hoping to find a resolute answer to whether Columbus deserves the status of a hero or a villain.
As I began Columbus’ journal I was initially intrigued by his leading strategy, lying to the crew about how far they had sailed presumably in the hope of encouraging them to work harder the next day. He struck me as a respected, competent leader – however this may just be due to his own perception of himself as arguably he cannot have been that competent a leader to lead all his crew in the opposite direction of their destination! He addressed the monarch repeatedly in the journal suggesting that it was not kept solely for Columbus’ own eyes but to be used as an account of the voyage by the King himself demonstrating that Columbus was clearly a trusted servant of the King,
Once Columbus began to write of his actions in America I was horrified by his manipulation of the naïve and innocent indigenous communities; exploiting the fact they were “eager to please” to not only rob them but abuse the information they shared. I was further angered by the offhand manner in which Columbus discussed capturing seven of the Americans to take back to Spain to learn Spanish. However, these feelings were combined with the awe that followed Columbus’ poetic description of the new land he was in as discussed in the lecture. It was clear Columbus was in complete reverence of the place and some of the people. This admiration made me question whether he truly did not feel any emotion towards the Americans and whether he just believed that whatever harm he was causing was for the greater good.
It was Columbus’ clear religious motivation for the voyage; stating that the Americans would make “good Christians”, that made me believe that perhaps Columbus felt his actions were justified in the eyes of God. Through this work I have not found a resolute answer as to whether Columbus deserves the status of a hero or a villain. He may have believed he was acting as God and the King willed and his discoveries and riches did improve the lives of the Spaniards in Europe however I cannot say that it excuses his abuse of the Americans naivety and kindness. What is clear however, no matter whether Columbus is honoured or condemned is the impact he has had on the world even over 500 years later.
Though I have never formally learnt about Christopher Columbus in school, in my mind he had always been portrayed as heroic – possibly I assumed this because of the countries and provinces which are named after him, possibly also because of the fact that he must have been an intelligent individual and highly skilled navigator. Since moving to Canada and learning about American history I am aware of the devastating impact of cultural myopia and colonialism, though I still never held Columbus personally accountable. Reading Columbus’s personal memoir was very strange for me; I found it shocking how brief some of his daily accounts were. Many people who experience historical events of huge difficulty and significance seem to have written detailed thoughtful accounts of their life and plans, for example Anne Frank, Adolf Hitler and Nelson Mandela, whereas this text struck me as more of a report – the prologue implies it was presumably a report to the monarchy of Spain. I had assumed that he wrote to process his thoughts and emotions, but it seems this is not the case. It makes me question – did Columbus have so much faith that he would eventually make it back to Spain to hand over the account? Did he leave instructions for what was to happen to it after his death, or make more than one copy?
Despite the structural style, Columbus described many of his surroundings and experiences in a lyrical, poetic way – as mentioned in the lecture this week. Hauntingly, I found a certain purity in his words – despite the insensitive language sometimes used to describe people he encounters, he is undoubtedly in awe of what he finds, “no man could look at [the fish] without amazement and delight, the colours are so beautiful”. The villain character he is so often made out to be does not line up with the naivety of his words when discovering this new land – and from his perspective just doing his job. He wrote, “They captured [the Native American] but told him they meant him no harm”.
The other assigned reading shows a similar history from a vastly different perspective. I found it uncomfortable to read, though it is more like what I was expecting when learning about colonialism in a class on Latin American studies. It is difficult to consider this piece alongside Columbus’s account. After mentioning how the Inca believed the newcomer to be a “lord in his kingdom” one phrase which stuck out to me was “…the soldiers began to kill Indians like ants”. This notion is supported by the assigned student video “The Meeting of the Two Worlds II” – which discusses the horrific abuse of the native people, and also the after effects of their invasion; 90% of Native Americans were killed from contact with Europeans – largely through disease. I’d like to learn more about how far there was miscommunication between the indigenous people and the explorers, and how far, perhaps, Columbus’s account is untruthful or unreliable?
Though I have never formally learnt about Christopher Columbus in school, in my mind he had always been portrayed as heroic – possibly I assumed this because of the countries and provinces which are named after him, possibly also because of the fact that he must have been an intelligent individual and highly skilled navigator. Since moving to Canada and learning about American history I am aware of the devastating impact of cultural myopia and colonialism, though I still never held Columbus personally accountable. Reading Columbus’s personal memoir was very strange for me; I found it shocking how brief some of his daily accounts were. Many people who experience historical events of huge difficulty and significance seem to have written detailed thoughtful accounts of their life and plans, for example Anne Frank, Adolf Hitler and Nelson Mandela, whereas this text struck me as more of a report – the prologue implies it was presumably a report to the monarchy of Spain. I had assumed that he wrote to process his thoughts and emotions, but it seems this is not the case. It makes me question – did Columbus have so much faith that he would eventually make it back to Spain to hand over the account? Did he leave instructions for what was to happen to it after his death, or make more than one copy?
Despite the structural style, Columbus described many of his surroundings and experiences in a lyrical, poetic way – as mentioned in the lecture this week. Hauntingly, I found a certain purity in his words – despite the insensitive language sometimes used to describe people he encounters, he is undoubtedly in awe of what he finds, “no man could look at [the fish] without amazement and delight, the colours are so beautiful”. The villain character he is so often made out to be does not line up with the naivety of his words when discovering this new land – and from his perspective just doing his job. He wrote, “They captured [the Native American] but told him they meant him no harm”.
The other assigned reading shows a similar history from a vastly different perspective. I found it uncomfortable to read, though it is more like what I was expecting when learning about colonialism in a class on Latin American studies. It is difficult to consider this piece alongside Columbus’s account. After mentioning how the Inca believed the newcomer to be a “lord in his kingdom” one phrase which stuck out to me was “…the soldiers began to kill Indians like ants”. This notion is supported by the assigned student video “The Meeting of the Two Worlds II” – which discusses the horrific abuse of the native people, and also the after effects of their invasion; 90% of Native Americans were killed from contact with Europeans – largely through disease. I’d like to learn more about how far there was miscommunication between the indigenous people and the explorers, and how far, perhaps, Columbus’s account is untruthful or unreliable?
(I accidentally spoke about the reading from week 1 also … oops!) For the first part of this blog post I want to focus on the opening paragraphs of Dawson’s “Latin America’s Useable Past” that intensified my desire to visit Mexico City! Dawson speaks about two neighbourhoods/communities in Mexico City (Polanco and Ecatepec) and says: […]
