Friday, September 4, 2020

Debunking Ted Ed's History v. Columbus YouTube Video


A few years ago Ted-Ed made a video about Columbus titled "History vs. Columbus" ( Above is our video response and here is the transcript of it:

"Ted-Ed should rename their video 'History vs. Columbus' as 'Propaganda vs. Columbus' since the information on their video is false. Indeed, Columbus convinced the King and Queen of Spain to send him on a mission to find a better trade route, but not to India, but to the Indies, which was another name at the time for east Asia. And yes, people mocked Columbus, believing in a number of myths, including, that it was impossible to reach the other side, or that it would take many years to do so. Others believed there was not inhabited land, while others believed if he was to reach the Indies he could not return because going west meant he would go downhill, out of the hemisphere, and he would have to return uphill, which is something ships could not do. Though most people believed the Earth was round, the shape of the planet was not settled either. 16th-century historian, López de Gómara, wrote that many people thought the Earth was round, but in the shape of an egg, pineapple, or, a pear. They also believed the Earth was the center of the universe. Contrary to what Ted-Ed claims, Columbus did not torture and mutilate natives for not bringing him enough gold, and he did not sell children into sexual slavery. Columbus wasn’t brutal with the colonists either, nor was he removed from office for that reason. Columbus was not “bad” by modern or old standards. In fact, the missionary Bartolome de las Casas, described Columbus as a hero, and he said Columbus “was a good Christian.” Las Casas also defended Columbus’ honor from those who wanted to discredit his discoveries. Columbus did not bring slavery and imperialism since slavery was universal and Indigenous groups like the Aztecs, Incas, and Mayas were imperialistic. Columbus did not cause the suffering of today’s Indigenous peoples either. Poverty and discrimination existed everywhere before Columbus, during Columbus’ lifetime, and after Columbus was dead. Ted-Ed falsely claims Indigenous tribal warfare was “sporadic and limited,” and that “certainly did not wipe out 90% of the population.” Actually, the Caribs, who were the enemies of the Tainos, wiped out 100% of the natives of some islands in the Caribbean, and Indigenous peoples like the Aztecs, sacrificed thousands of their own people, including women, children, babies, elderly, and other innocent human beings, to their gods. Though some Hispanic countries celebrate “El Día de la Raza,” the Hispanic race came as a result of Columbus bringing two worlds together. In other words, no Columbus, no raza, or Hispanic race. In the USA Columbus Day is being renamed as Indigenous Peoples’ Day due to anti-Columbus propaganda even though there are already several Indigenous Peoples holiday dates on the calendar. First, in August, known as the “International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples.” Second, in November, observed the Friday after Thanksgiving, known as “Native American Heritage Day.” In addition, November is known as “Native American Heritage Month.” If Columbus Day represents slavery, conquest and genocide, then by the same logic Indigenous Peoples’ Day represents the same, since they were doing the same, with the addition of cannibalism and human sacrifice. If Columbus is a “villain” today, it is not because “our historical knowledge expanded,” as Ted-Ed claims, but because people are lying and repeating lies about him. Finally, Ted-Ed stated that “traditions and holidays are important to ALL cultures.” But that is not true since they want to replace a tradition and a holiday by discriminating against the Italian American community who lobbied for the holiday.

#ColumbusDay #IndigenousPeoplesDay #BartolomeDeLasCasas #ItalianAmerican #TedEd #HistoryVsColumbus 

Friday, June 12, 2020

Debunking "Top 5 Atrocities Committed by Christopher Columbus"

This so-called Top 5 atrocities committed by Christopher Columbus is being used by some people on the internet. Apparently the article is affiliated with the Associated Press somehow. The first thing to notice is that the source for the article is Howard Zinn, who was not a primary historical source, but a history revisionist of the 20th century. Zinn’s arguments have gained popularity lately due to his connections with Hollywood celebrities and many mainstream media outlets before he died. 

When it comes to Columbus, Zinn had the bad habit of putting two or more sentences together that have nothing to do with each other, to make it say whatever he wanted you to think it says. That’s what he did for ALL the claims below. So let’s take a closer look at his arguments and then debunk them.

'We could subjugate them all'

Here is Zinn (mis)quoting Columbus:

“They ... brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things ... They willingly traded everything they owned ... They were well-built, with good bodies and handsome features... They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane. ... They would make fine servants. ... With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.” Columbus would add: “As soon as I arrived in the Indies, on the first Island which I found, I took some of the natives by force in order that they might learn and might give me information of whatever there is in these parts.”

Zinn wants to give the impression the natives received Columbus with presents (“They ... brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things.”), but it was Columbus who gave them presents instead. Because of Columbus’s generosity, they later returned with gifts and things for trade. Here is the actual account:

“Soon many of the islanders gathered round us. I could see that they were people who would be more easily converted to our Holy Faith by love than by coercion, and wishing them to look on us with friendship I gave some of them red bonnets and glass beads which they hung round their necks, and many other things of small value, at which they were so delighted and so eager to please us that we could not believe it. Later they swam out to the boats to bring us parrots and balls of cotton thread and darts, and many other things, exchanging them for such objects as glass beads and hawk bells. They took anything, and gave willingly whatever they had.” Source: Columbus’ Own Journal translated by John Cummins, Friday, October 12, 1492, p. 94. (Emphases are mine).

When Columbus said the natives “do not bear arms,” he meant they did not have a European style of arms. But they did have weapons, and also “scars on their bodies” because “people from other islands nearby came to capture them and they defended themselves.” Source: Own Journal translated by John Cummins, Friday, October 12, 1492, p. 94.

Also, Columbus did not say the natives “would make good servants.” That’s a lie. Columbus said they “MUST BE good servants,” as one who served a king, and not one who is a slave. Here is the sentence: “They must be good servants, and intelligent, for I can see that they quickly repeat everything said to them. I believe they would readily become Christians.” Source: Columbus Own Journal translated by John Cummins, Friday, October 12, 1492, p. 94.

The natives had both servants and slaves.

As for the statement “With fifty men we could subjugate them all,” it was written 3 days later, on another island and under another context. Zinn added that sentence next to the “servants” quote to give the impression Columbus was thinking about slavery from the very first day he arrived to America. So, what does the “with fifty men” statement mean? Columbus perceived the natives of the first islands he visited were not skillful in battle, therefore he was assuring the queen, to whom his journal was addressed to, that he could defeat them or conquer them with just a few men IF he had to fight them. That’s all he meant. 

Though Columbus initially took six or seven natives against their will (to help him travel the uncharted waters), he almost immediately changed the approach, when one of them escaped. He decided to take a native aboard, give him gifts, and then let him go. That way he was telling them his intentions were good. Remember, Columbus did not know their language, and the natives did not know his. Here is the account:
 “By now another small almadia was approaching the Niña from a different headland with one man in it who had come to barter a ball of cotton. He did not want to come aboard, so some of the sailors jumped into the sea and captured him. I saw all this from the deck of the sterncastle, so I sent for him; I gave him a red bonnet and put a few little green glass beads on his arm and hung two bells from his ears. I had him put back in his almadia, which had also been taken aboard the ship's boat, and sent him back ashore. I then made sail to go to the other large island which I could see to the westward, and I ordered the other almadia which the Niña was towing astern to be set adrift. When the man to whom I had given gifts, refusing his ball of cotton, reached the shore I saw that all the others came up to him. He was amazed and thought that we were good people and that the other who had escaped was being taken with us because he had done us some harm. That was my purpose in giving him presents and letting him go: to make them think well of us, so that when Your Majesties send someone else here he may be well received.” Source: Columbus Own Journal translated by John Cummins, Monday, October 15, 1492, p. 98. 

From that point, Columbus was received as a hero everywhere he went in the Caribbean. The natives (Tainos) believed Columbus was sent by God to save them from the Caribs, a tribe of cannibals who constantly terrorized them. The Caribs would hunt the Tainos, raping their women, castrating the boys, and killing the men. They cannibalized entire islands before Columbus’ arrival. Ironically, Zinn omitted all that information. At the end of the first voyage, Columbus made a treaty with one of the Taino chiefs of Hispaniola island, named Guacanagari. Columbus promised the chief that he would protect him from the Caribs when he returns for a second voyage. This kind of alliance, where two different groups unite to fight a common enemy, was common back then. Source: The Life of the Admiral by Ferdinand Columbus, Chapters 24-34. See also the accounts by Martyr, Oviedo, Las Casas, Bernaldez, etc.

Slavery and gold


“Columbus had two goals in the Caribbean: to find gold and slaves. Columbus returned home to Spain and came back to the Caribbean with 17 ships and 1,200 men. His men traveled from island to island, taking Indians as captives. In 1495, in a large slave raid, Columbus and his men rounded up 1,500 Arawak men, women, and children, and put them in pens. They selected what they considered the best natives and loaded them onto ships back to Spain. Two hundred died en route. After the survivors were sold as slaves in Spain, Columbus later wrote: ‘Let us in the name of the Holy Trinity go on sending all the slaves that can be sold.’ ”

Zinn’s statement above is false. Columbus’ goals were gold and spices. The Tainos were his allies, and Columbus was commanded by the queen to punish anyone, including Spaniards, who would mistreat them. When Columbus returned to the New World, he fulfilled his promise about the Caribs. He either destroyed their canoes, so they could not sail again to terrorize the Tainos, or would capture them and send them to Spain as prisoners of war. However, when Columbus arrived in Hispaniola, he found 39 of his men, he left there, dead. A rival chief to Guacanagari killed them. Columbus decided to settle in another part of the island and for almost a year, he did everything he could do to keep the peace between him and the rival chiefs. Columbus was forced to arrest some of them later because they started to kill more of his men again. A month later, chief Guacangari asked Columbus to help him fight the rival chiefs, because they killed and kidnapped some of his wives (chiefs were polygamous). Columbus agreed, since they had killed his men. Columbus fought them, defeated them and sent some of them (along with the cannibals) to Spain, as prisoners of war. That is the so-called “slave raid” Zinn claimed happened. When Columbus said, “Let us in the name of the Holy Trinity go on sending all the slaves that can be sold,” he meant the cannibals or those who were rivals to his ally, chief Guacanagari, in Hispaniola. Though it is true, many of them died en route, it’s also true that many of the 1,200 people who came with Columbus died as well for a diverse number of reasons. Do you see how much of the story and context Zinn left out? Source: The Life of the Admiral by Ferdinand Columbus, Chapters 47-61.

Blood for gold

“But slaves weren’t enough for Columbus or the Spanish monarchy. Columbus needed to bring back gold. Columbus and his crew believed there were gold fields in the province of Cibao on Haiti. He and his men ordered all natives 14 years or older to collect a certain amount of gold every three months. Natives who didn’t collect enough gold had their hands cut off. But it was an impossible tasks. There was virtually no gold around; only a little dust in streams. Many natives fled and were consequently hunted down and killed by the Spaniards.”

That statement is false too. After Columbus defeated the rival chiefs in battle, sending some of them away to Spain, he made the rest to pay tribute. This was the norm during battles back then. Also, there was gold. EVERY primary source of this era says so. The claim that cutting their hands off was the punishment for not paying the tribute, is a lie as well. However, the tribute was hard to accomplish, which is why Columbus reduced the quota to half. Another important detail about the so-called “slavery” is that it was temporal. Columbus even told the chiefs he arrested, he would restore them back to power. Source: Historia de los Reyes Católicos by Andrés Bernáldez, Cap. CXXXI, p. 331

The reason for the tribute and the temporal slavery was to keep the chiefs from bickering with one another or keeping them from killing more Spaniards. Columbus obtained peace for a while, which was his goal. In the meantime, Columbus punished any Spaniard that mistreated a native, as he was commanded by the queen to do. Source: The Life of the Admiral by Ferdinand Columbus, Chapter 61.


“If captivity and death weren’t enough, Columbus and his men had a particular reputation for cruelty. Bartolome de las Casas, a young priest who participated in the conquest of Cuba and wrote a history of the Indies, describes the treatment of the natives: ‘Endless testimonies ... prove the mild and pacific temperament of the natives... But our work was to exasperate, ravage, kill, mangle and destroy; small wonder, then, if they tried to kill one of us now and then... The admiral, it is true, was blind as those who came after him, and he was so anxious to please the King that he committed irreparable crimes against the Indians …’ Las Casas describes how Spaniards rode on the backs of natives. How the Spaniards ‘thought nothing of knifing Indians by tens and twenties and of cutting slices off them to test the sharpness of their blades.’ Las Casas adds ‘two of these so-called Christians met two Indian boys one day, each carrying a parrot; they took the parrots and for fun beheaded the boys.’ ”

When Columbus returned to Hispaniola, for his third voyage, he found it in mutiny and revolt. Several Spanish political rivals tried to take over, but failed. They succeeded when they falsely accused Columbus as a cruel man toward both Spaniards and natives. They arrested Columbus without due process, and took the governorship upon themselves. When the king and queen heard about it, they immediately set Columbus free because they did not believe the accusations. In their own way, the king and queen apologized to him. They also arrested those who arrested Columbus first, for mutiny, and the temporal slavery on Hispaniola was suspended. As for Columbus, his titles were restored and he made one more voyage. Source: The Life of the Admiral by Ferdinand Columbus, Chapters 74-87

Zinn’s quote above, who in turn was quoting from Fray Las Casas, belongs to the timeline when the mutineers took over Hispaniola causing all sorts of trouble to the natives. Columbus himself reported to the queen the very same things Las Casas complained about. Las Casas did not believe the accusations that cost Columbus the governorship either. Las Casas even said that even if the accusations were true (that Columbus was cruel toward the Spaniards), then they deserved it, since they were the ones committing all sorts of atrocities. Source: Historia de las Indias by Las Casas, Libro I, Tomo II, Capítulo CLXXXIII, pp. 513-514.

Las Casas' only disagreement with Columbus was about the few times he fought the natives. Las Casas labeled those battles “unjust wars,” even if justified. As a priest, he believed the natives would go to hell when they die fighting for not knowing the One true God. An “unjust war” was a crime to Las Casas. That’s why Las Casas said Columbus “committed irreparable crimes against the Indians.”

Zinn fails to explain that Las Casas was also the person responsible for creating or propagating the Spanish Black Legend and the Myth of the Noble Savage. That is, the idea that all Spaniards were evil, while all natives were angels. Source: History of the Indies by Las Casas, Introduction by A. Collard. 

Las Casas’ works were translated into other languages and were used as political propaganda against Spain. The problem with Las Casas was that he did not distinguish what was war and what was abuse. Eventually Las Casas books were banned by Spain and the Catholic church. The few times Columbus fought native tribes, he did it at the request or with the assistance of other tribes, who were allied with him. 

The irony is that Las Casas admired Columbus and he defended his honor against those who were trying to discredit him. In the very same book (History of the Indies), Las Casas described Columbus as: “imposing, good natured, kind, daring, courageous... a pious man… God had endowed him good judgment, a sound memory and eagerness to learn… a God fearing man… ” p. 15. “... the most outstanding sailor in the world, versed like no other in the art of navigation, for which divine Providence chose him to accomplish the most outstanding feat ever accomplished in the world until now.” p. 17. “... he was well-mannered, handsome man and a churchgoing Christian…” p. 19. “ .. well spoken, wise and prudent.” p. 29. “Many is the time I have wished that God would again inspire me and that I had Cicero’s gift of eloquence to extol the indescribable service to God and to the whole world which Christopher Columbus rendered at the cost of such pain and dangers, such skill and expertise, when he so courageously discovered the New World.” pp. 34-35. The last thing Las Casas said about Columbus was that “he was a good Christian.” p. 143.

Mass genocide

“Facing extermination, the Arawaks organized and attempted to fight back against the Spaniards. But they were little match against the armor, muskets, swords and horses of the Europeans. The Spaniards hung or burned Indians that they took captive. By this point, the Arawaks began committing mass suicides. They fed cassava poison to their infants to save them from the Spanish. In two years, half of the 250,000 Indians on Haiti were dead, either through murder, mutilation or suicide. By 1550, there were 500 Indians. By 1650, the Arawaks had been wiped out from the island.”

After Columbus finished his fourth and last voyage, this time exploring Central and South America, he made a last stop on Hispaniola (before he returned to Spain) and noticed that many natives had died. He wrote (again) complaining about how they were mistreated under the Nicolas de Ovando administration. Source: Historia de las Indias by Las Casas, Tomo III, Lib. II, Cap. XXXVII, p. 190. 

The reason why some Spaniards behaved so badly was because they were far away from Spain, where no one could see what they were doing. Source: De Orbe Novo by Peter Martyr, Vol. Two, Book IV, p. 272.  

 As long as Columbus was alive and in charge, he would punish them, arrest them or report them. After Columbus died, the next group of people exposing this kind of corruption were the priests. The problem with Zinn’s quote is that they are about events that happened after Columbus was dead. Every primary source of this era condemned those evil acts, precisely because it was unlawful and against the policies of Spain. 

Another problem with Zinn and other revisionists is that they won’t mention that the native tribes were doing the same things they condemned others of doing. That includes wars, civil wars, political cuops, conquest, slavery, mutilations, and genocide (through cannibalism and human sacrifices). I think the Associated Press should label their article as fake news or rename it as the “Top 5 atrocities NOT committed by Christopher Columbus'' instead.

#Top5AtrocitiesCommittedByColumbus #Debunked

Thursday, May 14, 2020

Debunking Grunge's “The Strange and Bizarre Truth about Columbus"

Grunge should remove this embarrassing video. It should be renamed as “The Strange and Bizarre LIES about Columbus.” Grunge sources? A museum, The New York Times, Yale University, “experts,” CNN, etc. In other words, no primary sources. 

One of the tactics revisionists often use is to remove Columbus from his historical context, and that is exactly what Grunge did throughout all their video. Columbus’ errors were not his, but they were the errors of his times. For example, Columbus was not the only one who believed he was in the Indies (Asia). Everyone else did! Columbus’ cosmography was based on the best cosmographers, including Pliny, Aristotle, Marinus, Toscanelli, etc. None of them knew there was another continent between Europe and the Indies (Asia). That is (partly) why we say “Columbus discovered America.” 

During the times of Columbus, there were a lot of myths, but Columbus had the custom to go and seek what the truth was about them. One of the myths was that it was “impossible” to reach land by sailing west. But Columbus took 3 ships and proved “the professionals” of his times wrong. 

Another myth was the belief of mermaids and sirens. The reason why Columbus wrote that he saw 3 “mermaids” was to prove that they were just animals (manatees) and not a mythical creature. Columbus did not quote himself in the third person because he was a "megalomaniac" when he wrote about the “mermaids.” The reason why the quote is in the third person is because the quote is not from Columbus, but from someone else (Bartolome de las Casas) who was quoting him.

Columbus did not believe the world was a “gigantic boob” either. According to the 16th-century historian, López de Gómara, many people thought the Earth was round, but as the shape of an egg, pineapple or pear. Columbus’ actual quote was that the Earth was “of the form of a pear, which is very round except where the stalk grows, at which part it is most prominent; or like a round ball, upon one part of which is a prominence like a woman's nipple, this protrusion being the highest and nearest the sky, situated under the equinoctial line, and at the eastern extremity of this sea.” Writings of Christopher Columbus, p. 133.

This quote was partly influenced by The Travels of Sir John Mandeville, a book that like most cultures back then, mixed facts with myths. Scholar Carol Delaney also tells us that the “maps of the day” placed East usually “ ‘up’ at the top, often with the Terrestrial Paradise (the Garden of Eden) somewhat raised (like a protuberance) and also often surrounded by water or flames.” In other words, Columbus was repeating the erroneous beliefs of his day, or theorizing them, while at the same time seeking the truth of it all. The reason why Columbus did not realize he was on another continent, instead of the East close to Paradise, was because he died just a few years later. However, he opened the doors to other explorers to finish what he started: That is, to solve the remaining mysteries and myths on cosmography that kept the world in darkness for centuries. Do you see how different this is to the caricature Grunge painted of Columbus?

Columbus did not go to Trinidad “to possibly enslave” their natives as Grunge asserted. Instead, Columbus traded with the natives of every place he visited. Since they did not understand each other’s language, Columbus’ men showed these natives “shiny objects” to let them know they wanted to trade with them. The natives got closer, but then they hesitated. The reason why Columbus made his men play music and dance was because the previous Indigenous tribes he had met, loved music and dancing, and it was a sign of friendship to them. Nevertheless, music and dancing to this tribe were a sign of war, which is why they shot arrows to Columbus’ men. Columbus’ men shot back, but without (intentionally) killing anyone. Then, one of Columbus’ pilots went to the natives’ canoe and gave them “some trifles that pleased them greatly” and the natives made signs that they would reciprocate by providing food for them. THEN, they left, which contradicts Grunge’s implication that they left due to the “battle.” All this information is in the primary source, The Life of the Admiral Christopher Columbus, Chapter 69.

Among other things, Columbus did not start a reign of terror or devastation in Hispaniola, and he was not alive 20 years after 1492. Slavery, disease, and murder existed before 1492 everywhere in the world and the Indigenous peoples were killing and devastating one another long before the Discovery. Columbus was not responsible for the decimation of the natives of Hispaniola. They were doing just that by cannibalism or sacrificing each other to their gods.

Columbus has nothing to do with African slave voodoo. Besides, the natives of Hispaniola already believed in dead people walking and demonic activity long before any European contact, since it was part of their beliefs. See The Life of the Admiral, Chapter 62, De Orbe Novo by Peter Martyr, The First Decade, Book XI, pp. 167-175; The Second Decade, Book III, p. 219, and The Third Decade, Book I, p. 285 (or any other primary source of the era).

The purpose of Columbus’ fourth voyage was not to “find gold and the Garden of Eden” as Grunge claims. The purpose was to cruise down the coast of Paria, in South America, until he came to a strait he felt must be close to the area. Source: The Life of the Admiral Christopher Columbus, Chapter 88, p. 228. 

Columbus was not “a man of mystery.” Everyone who knew Columbus, knew he was from Genoa, Italy. Every primary source, document, and even Columbus himself said so. Here are the sources that confirm this fact: History of the Indies by Las Casas, Book One, Chapter 3, p. 15; De Orbe Novo by Peter Martyr, The First Decade, Book I, p. 57; Historia de los Reyes Católicos by Andrés Bernáldez, Tomo I, Capítulo CXVIII, p. 269; Historia General by Herrera, Década I, Libro I, Capítulo VII, p. 11; Historia General y Natural by Oviedo, Capítulo II, p. 12.

Those who think otherwise are not real historians but conspiracy theorists. 

Columbus was not a narcissist and he was not necessarily thinking he would be alive for the “Apocalypse” or the Second Coming of Christ. Rather, he believed his discoveries fulfilled Biblical Scripture since the Bible predicted the gospel would reach far lands beyond the African coast, as told in the Book of Isaiah. Many of Columbus’ eschatological theories were rooted in those of his era as well. 

In conclusion, Columbus was not the “weirdo,” “confused,” and “ignorant” person Grunge claims he was. Instead, it is Grunge who is confused, weird, ignorant, and conspiratorial. 


Thursday, February 20, 2020

Debunking Knowing Better

Some time ago, a Youtuber who goes by the name of “Knowing Better” (KB) made a video defending Columbus from many of the revisions out there. Yet, he said in the same video that Columbus was neither good or bad. I was also intrigued about why the video was subtitled “An Exaggerated Evil,” which means it’s been exaggerated, but still evil. I sent KB two emails, but he never answered back. KB has now produced this new video where he explains why he still thinks Columbus Day or his statues should be replaced. He says, that has always been his position. Except that his explanations to justify his position are all wrong and historically incorrect. 

First, let’s look at his errors and then we will correct Columbus’ biography:

KB says Columbus was looking for Cipangu, but in reality, he was looking for the Indies, which included Cipangu (Japan), Cathay (China), the surrounding islands and continent. 7:30. KB says, Columbus did not come-up with this idea. Maybe he meant the idea of the existence of Cipangu, which is true. But the idea to reach the east by sailing west was his idea. Up to that time people reached the Indies by traveling by land or by circumnavigating the African continent, but not by crossing the Atlantic. People thought Columbus was insane because there was nothing but water between Europe and Asia. As for the Vikings, I’ll be posting about it soon.

KB also removes Columbus from his historical context when he says, Columbus assumed he was on “an island off the coast of Japan” when he reached America in 1492. 8:00. Except that it was not just Columbus, but EVERYONE else in the Old World that believed this. The people from the Old World did not know there was another continent on the other side of the globe.

KB claims Columbus kidnaped some Tainos so he could take them to Spain to teach them Latin. That is incorrect. It was Spanish and not Latin. 8:44. 

KB is correct that Columbus did not start the Transatlantic slave trade. However, “Americans being enslaved in America” did not start with Columbus as he claims or implies. Slavery was practiced before 1492 by the Indigenous people and it was practiced in every continent of the world as well. 8:50

KB is also incorrect when he implies Columbus’ second voyage was the beginning of the Encomienda system. 9:15. More on that below. 

Columbus was NOT a participant on the mistreatment of the natives and KB is wrong when he says that Columbus, as a governor, did not do anything to stop them. 9:50.

The King and Queen of Spain did NOT replace Columbus because of his inability to extract gold or the mistreatment of the colonists and natives. 9:55. That is false.

Columbus did not defend himself from child sex slavery after he was arrested and removed from office. There is not such a thing as this, anywhere, with Columbus.10:10.

Columbus was not directly responsible for the deaths of tens or 100’s of thousands and he neither killed millions with diseases. Plagues killing great numbers of people had happened before, during and after Columbus in both the Old and New World. It was more common than most people know. Right now the coronavirus is killing thousands of people in China. Is that Columbus’ fault too? The reason why revisionists are getting away with this one is that most Indigenous peoples in the Americas did not have a written language where we can see their record of epidemics. In addition, Columbus is not responsible for anyone’s poverty today.

The first thing to notice with KB, and many people who oppose Columbus, is that the natives are mostly absent. They are only present when Spanish slavery is brought into the conversation. This absence gives the impression that the natives were strangers to the concept of war, conquest, and slavery. But the fact is that the natives of America were doing what everyone else was doing everywhere in the world before 1492. That is, they were conquering or being conquered, enslaving or being enslaved by other tribes. 

It wasn’t uncommon for a weak nation to make a treaty with a stronger one to defeat a common enemy. Columbus himself made a treaty with a chief named Guacanagari, that he would defend the Tainos from the attacks of the Caribs. The Caribs were a tribe of Indigenous people who constantly invade the islands, raiding the Tainos, killing the men, castrating young boys, and raping the women. They commit the genocide of entire islands by killing and eating everyone since they were cannibals. The word “cannibal” is derived from the word “Carib” which is where we get the name of the Caribbean sea. Should we rename the Caribbean?

Columbus kept his word when he returned for his second voyage. He either saved the Tainos from the Caribs, destroyed their canoes to prevent them from more raids, or he would take them  and send them as “slaves” or prisoners to Spain. 

However, when Columbus returned to Hispaniola he found 39 men he left there with Guacanagari, dead. A rival chief named Caonabo, killed them all. For more than a year Columbus tried everything he could to keep the peace, but Caonabo kept more attempts for assassinations. Later, the Spaniards disobeyed Columbus’ orders to keep the peace while he was absent from Hispaniola exploring the Caribbean. These costed the lives of more Spaniards by other rival chiefs and Columbus was forced to stop the bloodshed by arresting some of them. Meanwhile, Columbus’ ally, Chief Guacanagari, asked Columbus to help him fight Caonabo because he and the other rival chiefs killed one of Guacanagari’s wives (the chiefs were polygamous) and kidnapped another. Columbus agreed since Caonabo kept harassing Columbus and killed more people. Columbus fought the chiefs, defeated them, sold some of them as slaves and made the rest to pay tribute. These were the norm during war back then, and the natives used to do the same. Do you see how much of the story was left?

Though Columbus and Spain saw the Tainos of Hispaniola as their allies, the queen reluctantly allowed Columbus to temporarily enslave only those who would engage in war against him until he obtained peace. What most people don’t know is that by the end of Columbus’ governorship, slavery was suspended. In the meantime, and contrary to what KB says, Columbus, as governor, punished any Spaniard who mistreated the natives as told by the queen herself. She is the one who authorized him to do so and he did.

During these times, a mutineer named Roldan usurped Columbus’ power and sent false reports to Spain that Columbus was mistreating colonists and natives alike. It was Roldan who, against Columbus’ policies, started the Repartimientos that later evolved into the Encomiendas. Columbus, as a wise leader, knew the Spaniards disliked that they were ruled and punished by a foreigner. At least that was their excuse. That’s why he requested Spain to send judges who could deal and sentence other Spaniards without the prejudice that they were sentenced by a foreigner. Columbus also asked for military help so that Roldan’s rebellion could be contained, but apparently these letters never reached the queen on time.

In the meantime, the queen sent a man named Bobadilla to investigate the false reports made by the rebels and see what was going on in Hispaniola. However, Bobadilla arrested Columbus first and asked questions later. He took the false testimonies of the rebels as “evidence,” and illegally took the governorship of the island to himself. This is where the allegations that “Columbus was a horrible man” came from, and those allegations were false. Bobadilla put Columbus and his brothers in chains without due process, not even telling him why they were arrested. This was a political coup. Primary Source: The Life of the Admiral by Ferdinand Columbus, chapters 34-85.

As Columbus was sent to Spain in chains, he wrote a letter to a friend named Juan de las Torres complaining of everything stated above, and even more, of what had happened to him. He felt unappreciated after all he, as a foreigner, had done for Spain. It is this letter where revisionists, and now KB, claim Columbus admitted children were sold for sex or as sex slaves; except, the letter says nothing of the sort. This allegation is the most fantastic of all and the most stupid of the claims made by modern-day propagandists. Knowing Better should know better. All you need to do is to read the full letter. Primary Source: Writings of Christopher Columbus, Letter to Juana de las Torres, pp. 151-176

Are you telling me that Columbus incriminated himself of selling children for sex to a woman (Juana de las Torres) who was a mother and a friend of the queen? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? The closest thing I’ve seen about pedophilia was when Columbus was exploring the continent, when the natives sent two young girls, for free, for sex. One was 7 and the other 11 years old. Happy Indigenous Peoples’ Day! Columbus was upset about the situation and said the girls were acting like whores. In turn, Columbus fed them, gave them gifts and returned them to their people. If he was a pedophile, why would he be upset? Primary Source: Columbus's Lettera Rarissima to the Sovereigns, Journal and Other Documents by Morison, page 381.

When Columbus arrived in Spain, he was immediately released because the king and queen did not believe the accusations. They compensated Columbus, they sent him letters of encouragement and in their own way apologized to him, lamenting to ever send Bobadilla. In return, they promised Columbus his titles, slavery was suspended, Bobadilla was removed from office and Roldan and his rebels were sentence for mutiny. Primary Source: The Life of the Admiral by Ferdinand Columbus, chapters 86-87.

Columbus made one more voyage, his fourth and last, to the continent. While he was busy exploring, the new governor of Hispaniola, Nicolas de Ovando, did not inform the natives that their slavery was suspended. It was him who implemented the Encomiendas and committed all sorts of atrocities until most of the natives died. Primary Source: History of the Indies by Las Casas, pp. 109-110. 

After Columbus returned to Hispaniola from Jamaica, he was informed about the atrocities and reported them to the king and queen. Primary Source: Historia de las Indias by Las Casas, Tomo III, Lib. II, Cap. XXXVII, p. 190.

So how can Columbus be responsible for abuses he did not commit? Why did he report the abuses if he was a participant? Why would he severely punish the Spaniards (as told by the queen) if his administration was in favor of their mistreatment? Sounds more like he was the hero and not the fictional villain revisionists claim he was! 

KB ended his video by saying, “get rid of Columbus Day.” My question to him is, “why,” if Columbus did not do any of the things he claimed in his video? And why replace Columbus Day for Indigenous Peoples’ Day? If we should not celebrate Columbus Day because of war, conquest, and slavery, then by the same reasoning we should not celebrate Indigenous Peoples’ Day either, because they did the same and worst. If Columbus Day represents colonial abuses, which he did not commit, then Indigenous Peoples’ Day represented cannibalism and human sacrifices which they did commit.