Denver, Colo., May 2, 2017 / 05:24 pm (CNA).-
The historical legacy of Christopher Columbus is tarred by bad history in the quest to change Columbus Day, according to a researcher who has focused on Columbus’ religious motives for exploration.
“They’re blaming Columbus for the things he didn’t do. It was mostly the people who came after, the settlers,” Prof. Carol Delaney told CNA April 25. “I just think he’s been terribly maligned.”
“I think a lot of people don’t know anything much, really about Columbus,” said Delaney, an anthropology professor emerita at Stanford University and the author of the 2011 book “Columbus and the Quest for Jerusalem.”
She said Columbus initially had a favorable impression of many of the Native Americans he met and instructed the men under his command not to abuse them but to trade with them. At one point Columbus hung some of his own men who had committed crimes against the Indians.
“When I read his own writings and the documents of those who knew him, he seemed to be very much on the side of the Indians,” Delaney said, noting that Columbus adopted the son of a Native American leader he had befriended.
Columbus is again in the news in Colorado, which in 1907 became the first U.S. state to make Columbus Day an official holiday.
Now, one Colorado legislator aims to repeal Columbus Day as a state holiday.
State Rep. Joe Salazar’s 2017 bill charges that Columbus’ voyage “triggered one of history’s greatest slave trades” and created “a level of inhumanity towards indigenous peoples that still exists.”
The bill excerpts three paragraphs from the writings of Bartolome de las Casas, a Spanish Dominican friar born in 1484 who became the first Bishop of Chiapas, Mexico and advocated for indigenous Americans. He wrote strong polemics against Spanish abuses.
Bishop De las Casas depicted the Spaniards as “acting like ravening beasts, killing, terrorizing, afflicting, torturing, and destroying the native peoples, doing all this with the strangest and most varied new methods of cruelty, never seen or heard of before.” De las Casas claimed that the native population of Hispaniola was reduced to 200 people from 3 million.
He said the Spanish killed “such an infinite number of souls” due to lust for gold caused by “their insatiable greed and ambition.” He charged that the Spanish attacked towns and did not spare children, the elderly or pregnant women. He said they stabbed and dismembered them “as if dealing with sheep in the slaughter house” and made bets on how efficiently they could kill.
Salazar’s bill describes these as “Columbus’ acts of inhumanity.”
Delaney, however, emphasized that the acts of the colonists need to be distinguished from those of Columbus.
Bishop De las Casas’ own view on Columbus is more complex, she said. Other scholars have noted that Las Casas admired Columbus and said he and Spain had a providential role in “opening the doors of the Ocean Sea.” The bishop thought Columbus was treated unjustly by the Spanish monarchs after he was accused of mismanagement.
De las Casas himself is not above criticism. He owned indigenous people as slaves before changing his mind on their mistreatment. At one point he suggested to the Pope that black Africans be enslaved as an alternative to enslaving Native Americans.
Among the critics of the Colorado bill are the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternity founded in 1882, which takes its name from the explorer who brought Christianity to the New World. Columbus was a widely admired Catholic at a time when American Catholics were marginalized.
“Scholars have long shown that de las Casas was prone to hyperbole and exaggeration, and the bill does not take into account recent scholarship on de las Casas or Columbus,” the Knights said in an email to members.
“The legacy and accomplishments of Christopher Columbus deserve to be celebrated. He was a man ahead of his time and a fearless explorer and brilliant navigator whose daring discovery changed the course of history,” the group continued. “Columbus has frequently been falsely blamed for the actions of those who came after him and is the victim of horrific slanders concerning his conduct.”
Isaac Cuevas, a spokesman for the Knights of Columbus, was even more forceful, connecting the move against Columbus Day to a dark period in Colorado’s past.
“Nearly a century ago, the Ku Klux Klan in Colorado targeted Catholics including Italian-Americans. One of the Klan’s tactics throughout the United States was the denigration of Christopher Columbus and the attempted suppression of the holiday in his honor,” he said.
Cuevas said that a committee hearing on the bill was “tinged with offensive anti-Catholic overtones.” He charged that the bill “takes us back to what the Klan outlined in the 1920s in order to promote ethnic and religious resentment and marginalize and intimidate people with different religious beliefs and ethnic backgrounds.”
Rep. Salazar put forward a bill in previous years against the Christopher Columbus holiday. His 2016 bill to replace Columbus Day with Indigenous People’s Day was defeated in the state legislature.
“After speaking with the American Indian community and other communities, they were saying, ‘We actually never really wanted a day – this isn’t what this is about. This is about removing a state holiday about a man who engaged in genocide against our people’,” Salazar told the Colorado Statesman newspaper recently.
Columbus Day drew particular controversy in Colorado on the 500th anniversary of Columbus’ arrival in the New World. Organizers of Denver’s 1992 Columbus Day parade canceled it at the last minute due to threats from radical activists with the American Indian Movement.
Columbus has been a major figure for Catholics in America, especially Italian-Americans, who saw his pioneering voyage from Europe as a way of validating their presence in a sometimes hostile majority-Protestant country. The Knights of Columbus, the largest Catholic fraternal organization in the world, took his name, his voyage and his faith as an inspiration.
At one point in the nineteenth century there were even proposals to push for the voyager’s canonization.
In 1892, the quadricennial of Columbus’ first voyage, Leo XIII authored an encyclical that reflected on Columbus’ desire to spread Catholic Christianity. The Pope stressed how Columbus’ Catholic faith motivated his voyage and supported him amid his setbacks.
Under pressure from some Native American activists and their allies, some U.S. localities have dropped observances of Columbus Day, while others have added observances intended to recognize those who lived in the Americas before Columbus sailed.
Delaney acknowledged that some Native Americans were sent to Spain as slaves or conscripted into hard labor at the time Columbus had responsibility for the region, but she attributed this mistreatment to his substitutes acting in his absence.
She thinks Columbus Day should be continued, even if the indigenous peoples of America also deserve recognition.
For her, Columbus’ handling of the killings of his crew showed restraint. After his ship the Santa Maria ran aground on his first voyage, he left 39 men on a Caribbean island with firm orders not to go marauding, not to kidnap or rape women, and always trade for food and gold.
“When they returned on the second voyage, they found all of the settlers had been killed,” she said. The priest on that voyage wanted to attack the locals and kill all of their people in revenge, but Columbus strongly refused to make such a move.
She noted the explorer’s relationship with a Native American leader on Hispaniola, a Taino chief named Guacanagari. Columbus had very good relations with him and adopted one of his sons. That son took the name of Columbus’ natural son, Diego, and accompanied Columbus on his final three voyages.
Columbus on his second return voyage took six Indians back to Spain, but not as slaves.
“He took them because they wanted to go,” Delaney said.
[…]
The KofC 4th Degree uniform change is ridiculous and tears down a traditional mode of dress which is proper, correct and respectful. No silly berets…no blazers can replace something worm proudly by thousands and thousands of Knights for decades. Worst of all…where is the sword??? This is patently stupid…and I will NOT be wearing the new version…period!
I have been fourth Degree knight for 15years and I am not changing now.I am not army Range if I want to be Range I would have done back in 1950.
I agree with you. I had always loved seeing the Knights in the traditional regalia and now it just looks sloppy.
““However, the preferred dress for the Fourth Degree – including color corps and honor guards – is now the new uniform of jacket and beret.””
Preferred by whom? The same people who think nuns should be schlepping around in street clothes in case someone might think that they were doing something out of the ordinary and special?
I will not be a fourth degree membr much longer
I made no such combative comments, just stated that I may not be a fourth degree
Member much longer
The decision to change the uniform was from the ground up or the top down??
It seem like the latter.
Was there a groundswell of complaints from 4th degree Knights about the old uniform?
Apparently not. So why the change?
Tradition, too much of it represented in the old uniform. And we all know who owns the mindset that has absolutely no use for Tradition. Do we not?
WHY CHANGE. TOTALLY STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!
I LIKE the new uniform! This is 2017, so why are we wearing chapeaus and capes that were the fashion in the 1700s or 1800s? Why not dress in 21st century clothes? The berets are NOT silly. In the military the beret is worn by the most elite forces, not by your average G I Joe. The 4th Deg. is the most elite of the K of C, so the Beret is very appropriate. If we are to look like Elite warriors for the Church, then lets look like soldiers. Tuxedos with nerdy looking bowties are appropriate for a high society Hollywood party, but are very un-military looking. We are knights, not Hollywood playboys. I’m a former Sir Knight who will not rejoin the Degree as long as they are still wearing Tuxedos and wimpy bowties. I’ll wait until this modern uniform is fully adopted and THEN apply to be reinstated. I’ll then wear the new uniform PROUDLY!
Everyone in the US Army now wears berets and most soldiers hate them, most do not know how to form them correctly.
Most of our Knights look silly with the beret because they wear them like Brownie scouts.
You seem to think the beret is more modern than the chapeau and cape. Here’s some information on the history of the beret from wikipedia.
Archaeology and art history indicate that headgear similar to the modern beret has been worn since the Bronze Age across Northern Europe and as far south as ancient Crete and Italy, where it was worn by the Minoans, Etruscans and Romans. Such headgear has been popular among the nobility and artists across Europe throughout modern history.[3]
The Basque style beret was the traditional headgear of Aragonese and Navarrian shepherds from the Ansó and Roncal valleys of the Pyrenees,[5] a mountain range that divides Southern France from northern Spain. The commercial production of Basque-style berets began in the 17th century in the Oloron-Sainte-Marie area of Southern France. Originally a local craft, beret-making became industrialised in the 19th century. The first factory, Beatex-Laulhere, claims production records dating back to 1810. By the 1920s, berets were associated with the working classes in a part of France and Spain and by 1928 more than 20 French factories and some Spanish and Italian factories produced millions of berets.[3]
In Western fashion, men and women have worn the beret since the 1920s as sportswear and later as a fashion statement.
Military berets were first adopted by the French Chasseurs Alpins in 1889. After seeing these during the First World War, British General Hugh Elles proposed the beret for use by the newly formed Royal Tank Regiment, which needed headgear that would stay on while climbing in and out of the small hatches of tanks. They were approved for use by King George V in 1924.[6] The black RTR beret was made famous by Field Marshal Montgomery in the Second World War.[3]
It takes a special person to advance to the 4th Degree, one who is willing to continue the service of the 3rd and be a visible part of the order in the ceremonies, funerals, and parades. Again, time is a major factor. If it is the regalia, then the regalia has not been explained properly. We wear a chapeau to show leadership as heads of families, as leaders in the church as an Admiral leads his fleet. The cape is worn to show that we protect women and children, using the cape as shelter from wind and rain, from poverty and despair. It is an honor to wear the regalia showing that you are a soldier for the church, a soldier against the secular society that is taking away sacred traditions like the sanctity of marriage, the rights of the unborn, and now even the identity of our genders. The regalia sets us apart from other groups such as the legion, the shrine, the kinsman and many more. When they see the regalia, they see the Knights of Columbus. With the new uniform, they will not see this.
Apparantly I am in a very small minority that likes the new uniform. On other websites almost all the comments are negative, some even insulting and bashing the K of C, The Board of Directors, the supreme Council, and even our Supreme Knight Carl Anderson. A few Sir Knights even threaten to resign. Brother Knights, even if we strongly disagree with the decisions of Supreme Council, let us show some respect for our Supreme Knight and Supreme Council. Please, there is no need to be rude or insultive to anyone. Where is our Fraternity? If I had beeen asked to design the uniform I would have designed it differently. But I’m not on the board of directors. and it wasn’t my decision. But let’s stop calling their decisions “stupid”. We need to remain loyal to our leaders and show some respect for them. I’m looking forward to getting back into the 4th Degree and even though I dont like everything about the new uniform, as I said before, I will wear it PROUDLY – as should all Sir Knights! But I will have to wait a while because I cannot afford to pay for a tuxedo and regalia which is being phased out, then pay again for the new design. As for the swords, the Supreme council has said that Ceremonial swords WILL still be used. I presume this includes a Service Baldric to hold the Sword. Let’s give the new uniform a fair trial. I’m willing to bet there was a major outcry among the members long ago when they modernized from top hats and tails, to ordinary tuxedos. But the 4th Degree survived. Now let’s get over these current changes and move on. Vivat Jesus!
You’ve already said that you would not rejoin the 4th degree until they change the uniform, which you describe in disparaging terms. Then you tell us that you are shocked – *shocked* – that a few Knights even threaten to resign over the matter. You don’t seem to be in a position to complain that they may do what you have done.
Your fixation on the 21st century and how the uniform should look modern leads me to wonder if perhaps you would prefer a ceremonial M4 to anything as old-fashioned as a sword.
This seems to have been a top-down, don’t-consult-the-peons, modernism-is-king sort of thing. Hmmm, where have I seen that before? *koff*spiritofVaticanII*koff*
Leslie, you are right. I was being quite a hypocrite to say I would not rejoin the 4th Degree until they adopted the new uniform, and then criticized others for wanting to resign. I was wrong, I stand corrected, and I apologise for those remarks and take them back. The truth is, and yes this IS the truth, on several occasions I HAVE considered rejoining the 4th Degree long before we knew anything about a uniform change. I did not drop out of the degree because of the uniform. I dropped out for financial reasons. (I was broke at the time and couldn’t pay my dues which were almost two years in arrears. The Assembly offered to help me out, but I foolishly declined.) As for the regalia, at one time I actually did own a tuxedo and full regalia – all second hand and offered to me at a reduced cost. These, however, were returned to the Assembly after I dropped out. Yes I did wear these on occasion. I am currently retired and on a low income (Social Security only no other income) Thus it seems prudent to wait and see what happens with the new uniforms. If the Supreme Council goes ahead with this change, why pay double for two uniforms when one is being phased out soon? I’ll just wait and only pay for the new design. On the other hand, If Supreme backs down and rescinds their decision and keeps the old regalia, then I’ll still only have to pay for the one set of “old” regalia. But I take back what I said about not rejoining unless the new uniform is adopted. I really do want to march with the color guard some day, regardless of which regalia is finally mandated. (But I hope it is the new one!) And for the record, I would NOT prefer a ceremonial M4 over a sword. In fact, I strongly wish to keep the sword and do not consider it old fashioned. Vivat Jesus!
If you want “respect” for supreme, then supreme needs to show some respect for us.
I served my country in the armed forces and was proud to serve. My uniforms were PROVIDED by my country. The new fourth degree UNIFORM of the fourth degree is exactly that a UNIFORM, not Regalia with tradition and meaning which is a part of the Fourth Degree. Each piece of my Regalia has a specific meaning. When I must purchase something I must like it. If I don’t like it, I do not buy it simple enough. I do not like the new Uniform and will not wear it just to update. OUR leaders chose it and told us that this is our new uniform. What ever happened to majority rules in our organizations, are we a free society? Were ANY or ALL Assemblies even given an option, or ask for an opinion on this? I think maybe a FEW may have been sold this bill of goods but not the majority. I surveyed all members of my Assembly and not ONE was in favor of the change. I for one was not aware of the change until I was informed in the State Newsletter. I for one WILL NOT buy the new UNIFORM, and will only participate in functions that require the current Regalia. I feel as do a majority of others that this is a travesty for OUR GREAT ORGANIZATION. Let’s still be recognized as Knights of Columbus by our attire, not Special Operation Soldiers. Let our great works of kindness, charity, unity,fraternity, as well as patriotism bring us TOGETHER not DIVIDE. Let us vote by Assemblies, One Sir Knight, One Vote. Lets see DEMOCRACY at work in the Knights of Columbus. WE ARE THE Organization and we should have a voice in what we wear. Vivat Jesus
Where are their Jump Wings and Ranger Tabs? Are they going to be allowed to wear them as well? Those who EARNED the privilege of wearing the beret consider this to be “Stolen Valor.”
I worked on a military base, and I remember when in 2001 the powers that be decided that all soldiers, not just Rangers, should wear black berets. According to Stars & Stripes, their rationale was something to the effect that the Rangers wore black berets and their morale and cohesion was high, and therefore if the rest of the army wore black berets their morale and cohesion would be high.
By that reasoning, I hoped that someone would give me an Olympic gold medal, because people with Olympic gold medals are fit and athletic and healthy, and if they gave me the medal I would then be fit, healthy, and athletic.
What’s with everybody swiping the black beret?