Wednesday, June 22, 2022

“Conquistadores: Adventum” TV Series Review

 

                                                                                     Film Poster IMDB

                                                                                     YoutTube Tv Trailer

“Conquistadores: Adventum” was a 2017 Spanish TV Series about the first 30 years after America’s discovery by Christopher Columbus followed by other explorers and Conquistadors' exploits. It was one season long with 8 episodes in total. The following review is only on the first three episodes since they are about Columbus:


Episode 1 “Las Llaves del Mar” (The Keys of the Sea):


The show is in Spanish. The episodes are nonlinear, they don’t follow a chronological timeline. One moment the story is in 1492, the next moment it goes back to time, then back to 1492 or another year, or another place, etc.


The actor who played Columbus (Miguel Lago Casal) doesn’t look like Columbus at all. Columbus was tall. The actor is not. Columbus had grey hair. The actor has black hair.


The tone of the show is somber, of a slow pace and, boring. The music score sometimes sounds like one from a horror movie. The story is mostly narrated by an anonymous fictional character who seems to be present in everything we see, apparently all 30 years long the events took place. This character remained anonymous at least for the first three episodes I watched. I don’t know if the character ever revealed himself later. 


The only thing this anonymous “witness” narrator does throughout the show is to complain about everything and everybody. To him the sailors who sailed with Columbus were all “wretches” (“desgraciados”), while the Pinzon brothers were “pirates,” and Juan Niño (owner of La Niña ship) was just a “slave trader.” For some unexplained reason, he liked Juan de la Cosa, the owner of the Santa María ship.


Christopher Columbus speaks with a perfect Castilian accent, even though Queen Isabel called him “a Genoese.” However, our “Anonymous Narrator” commented he did not know if Columbus was a Spaniard or an Italian, nor did he care.


Here, Columbus is not an inspiring character, but one who is stoic and stern. In fact, no one shows much emotion, even in the scene where they arrived discovering America. 


Queen Isabel is boring. The priest at her court looks goofy. The Pope looked sick and died drinking blood. Whether that happened or not, I don’t know. 


At times some characters looked and acted disgustingly. One of them throws up.

Christianity is not sincere in the show; maybe in Columbus, but only to some extent. The “Anonymous Narrator” ends this episode by stating that “they (the Indians) took us for gods, while we took them as slaves.” 


Episode 2 “El Pequeño Capitán” (The Little Captain):


This episode begins with Columbus' second voyage, where “Anonymous Narrator” claims this time they came to conquer. At one time “Anonymous Narrator” complained that Columbus often made up the things he wrote in his journal and letters. Like talking about gold, sirens, cannibals, etc., even though there was a scene (in the first episode) where one of the natives told Columbus about the cannibals.


The Narrator insisted that Columbus was delusional in thinking he was in Asia (the Indies) when he was in a new continent. Except that it wasn’t Columbus who thought so, but everyone else. It took many years for everyone to realize Columbus indeed discovered a new world.


Ojeda, who was one of Columbus’ captains, traps and murders Chief Caonabo. It is true that Ojeda arrested him, but he did not murder him. Caonabo died in a shipwreck. 


As you can see, this show is full of historical errors.


Columbus’ brother (Bartolome) shortly appears here, as Governor of Hispaniola. Like a scene from “Schindler's List,” Bartolome shoots an Indian in the back with a gun for no reason whatsoever. Bartolome never did such a thing. Bartolome also burns Indians alive without any reason explained. In fact, most of this show is fictional, and the dialogues are based on the imagination of whoever wrote the script.


Amerigo Vespucci makes a short appearance as well. “Anonymous Narrator” calls him the “the greatest liar of all” for some of the claims he made about his explorations.


Episode 3 “La Caprichosa” (The Capricious):


Here Columbus is still in denial that he was not in the Indies, but another, land and is arguing with Amerigo Vespucci about it. Except that never happened. 


At some point we see Columbus stranded in Jamaica during his fourth voyage. He requested help from Ovando, who was the new Governor of Hispaniola, but Ovando initially ignores the request as he is “busy” killing Anacaona, the female chief of the island. 


From here the show makes a transition from Columbus to other explorers and Conquistadors. First, we see Captain Ojeda, who is hanging natives (with no reason given) in the name of “the Holy Church.” Something he never said. Then we see short scenes involving Martín Fernández de Enciso, Vasco Núñez de Balboa, Francisco Pizarro and Hernán Cortés.


Conclusion:


Here was a great opportunity to bring history to the TV screen, but instead, what we get is a work of fiction written with a modern-day revisionist “perspective” with a lot of guessing. Though most of the show is boring, I did not fall asleep. The reason is because the production was excellent and so was the acting. That’s the only compliment I can give to the series, which is sad because it makes this production a waste of time, money and talent. This show is an anti-Spanish, anti-American, and anti-Christian propaganda film. Thank God it wasn’t dubbed in English and played in America in 2017, which is the year people vandalized and destroyed Columbus’ statues in United States.


If you want to learn the real story of the Conquistadors from a primary source, I would suggest to you, De Orbe Novo, Volume One and Two, written by Peter Martyr. His work begins with Columbus, followed by all the aforementioned explorers and Conquistadors, plus some extras. Martyr is the best primary source of the time in the sense that he brings everyone (Europeans and Indigenous) into its proper historical context. His letters (which were private) were written as the events were happening or close to the time it happened. 


The ebook version of Martyr’s work is available free on Google Books and other platforms. Skip the fictional film and read the real story.




#ConquistadoresAdventum #Conquistadors #Columbus #TvSeries #Spain #FilmReview #History #HernanCortez


Thursday, June 16, 2022

Salvador Brau's 19th Century Book Review "Puerto Rico and its History" (in Spanish)




Studying Columbus’ primary sources led me to go back and read some of the historians we studied or heard about in school when I was growing up in Puerto Rico. One of them is Salvador Brau and his work titled, “Puerto Rico y su Historia” (PR and its History- 1892). 

Brau’s Appendix at the end of the book includes a letter by Columbus (1493), a portion of Gomara’s Historia on the discovery of PR, a letter on how Ponce de Leon became the Governor, etc., However, I would suggest this work only to those who are already familiar with Columbus and other primary sources. The reason is that the book is not the story of Puerto Rico per se, but Brau’s insights and opinions on the subject, including the claims of many other historians who lived before him. 

He discusses the long-time debates on where Columbus exactly arrived in 1493 when he discovered the island. The same about the debates on how PR’s original name was supposed to be pronounced: Was it Buriquén, Boriquén, BoriNquén, or Boriquén?

Brau talks a little bit about the first Governors and bishops of PR during the16th century, along with the names of the first towns founded on the island. 

Brau informs the reader that there were many white Europeans who were slaves in the Americas. He debunks the claim that Spaniards exterminated the Taino race (in PR) since the number of Spaniards was small, to begin with. He discusses scientific evidence of Indigenous cannibalism (by the Caribs) and observes the importance of the word “Gua” often used by the natives. For example Guacanagari (the name of a chief Columbus met), Guanica (a place in PR), Guatios (a word meaning “friend”), etc. 

The most interesting thing to me was Brau’s interpretation of Columbus’ enigmatic signature: 

.S. 

.S. A. .S.

X  M  Y 

Xpo Ferens .

According to him it means: Servus Supplex Altissimi Salvatoris. Jesus, Maria, Joseph, Christo ferens. Or Humble Servant of the Highest Savior. Jesus, Mary, Joseph. The Christ Bearer.

Salvador Brau was born in Puerto Rico in 1842 and died in 1912. He was a “journalist, poet, dramatist, novelist, historian, and sociologist.” [1]

“Puerto Rico y su Historia” ebook version is available free on Google books.

1. Wikipedia- Salvador Brau's Work


#SalvadorBrau #PuertoRico #History #Historia #CristobalColon #ChristopherColumbus #BookReview #19thCentury


Wednesday, November 3, 2021

"Genoan Monk Mentioned America" or "Italians Knew About America 150 Years Before Columbus" Debunked


It is sad how many people share “news” links based on the headline, without taking the time to read the article. Many times the article contradicts the headline because it is just clickbait, or as in this case, a reflection of the ignorance of the publisher. This year (2021) we have several headlines circulating the news claiming that “Italians knew about America long before Columbus...” NY Post

Another headline was “Ancient Documents Suggest Italian Sailors Knew of America 150 Years Before Christopher Columbus.” SciTechDaily


Or that “The First Mention of America” was made in 1340. (Taylor & Francis Online). Taylor & Francis Online


The headlines above are a reference to an unfinished unpublished book by a Genoan monk named Galvaneus Flamma (14th century) where Markland (Marckalada) is mentioned. Markland is supposed to be somewhere in North America. This document was “recently” found (2015) by a professor of Medieval history named Paolo Chiesa.


Here are the reasons why the headlines are ALL incorrect: America is NOT mentioned by the monk in 1340, nor by anyone else before him, because Amerigo Vespucci (where the name “America” comes from) was a contemporary of Columbus and not of Galvaneus. 


If by America what they mean is Markland, then the headline is incorrect since Markland is not the “old” name for America. The name of Markland was not new either since it was mentioned in several sagas, like the “Saga of Erik the Red” (written in the 13th century). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saga_of_Erik_the_Red


If what they mean by “America” is the knowledge that there is a continent in between Europe and Asia, then the headline is incorrect again, since Galvaneus did not make such a claim. 


All this is evidence that people don’t understand Columbus’ discoveries, so let me explain. But first, let’s take a look at the claims made by Galvaneus, the Genoan monk. 


I’m writing the following under the premise and assumption that there is no forgery on this Genoan document. The reason for mentioning this is because many elaborate hoaxes have been used in the past (and in recent years), trying to discredit Columbus. I wrote an entire chapter on this subject in my third book “Christopher Columbus and the Christian Church” titled, “Hoaxes, Forgeries and Crimes.”


One of the articles above, written by Taylor and Francis Online, contains excerpts from Galvaneus’ account known as “Cronica universalis.”  The account doesn’t contradict Columbus at all, but confirms what we already knew about the subject. For example, the Cronica mentions Marco Polo, whom Columbus was inspired after. Marco Polo’s accounts are about the Indies, or Asia, the east side of the world. Then the Cronica talks about the west side of the globe, when it mentions Yslandia (Iceland) and Grolandia (Greenland). The Cronica does not mention anything of another continent in between Asia and Europe. Though it mentions “Marckalada” [Markland], which it’s believed to be in North America today, the article acknowledges “the news about” it was vague, nothing “for sure.” In fact, the ancient cosmographers did not know that there was a continent in between Asia and Europe. Maps ended with Iceland and Greenland which they called “Tile” or “Thule.” Cartographers added imaginary islands on maps in this area because, as stated and confirmed by Galvaneus, “no sailor was ever able to know anything for sure about this land or about its features.”


Columbus himself had visited Tile (Iceland) 15 years before his discoveries. He wrote, “In the month of February, 1477, I sailed one hundred leagues beyond the island of Tile [Iceland]...” Source: The Life of the Admiral by Ferdinand Columbus, Chapter 4, p. 11.


The only “new” thing here is that Markland is mentioned in the Cronica. But even that is not new either, since the article acknowledges Markland was mentioned by the aforementioned Icelandic sagas. What the article finds “exceptional” is that Markland is mentioned here, outside a Nordic saga.


Though I discussed it many times before (in books, blogs and videos), I’m forced to repeat myself here to explain the difference between Columbus and the “Vikings,” or Norsemen (the explorers of the Nordic sagas):


The Norsemen were not trying to reach the Indies, or Asia, as Columbus intended. When one looks at a world map, one will see that on the north side of the globe there are many lands in between Europe and America. That includes England, Ireland, Iceland and Greenland. People believed that after Thule (Iceland/ Greenland) there was nothing but water. All the Norsemen did was what everyone else had done before them: Sail from land to land. Land that is close to each other. They sailed from the continent to England, to Ireland, to Iceland, till one day one of them, Erik the Red, found Greenland, which is next to Iceland. They lived there, which was where the maps ended. Later, as some of them were returning to Greenland, the waves took them further to the lands next door, which are part of North America. Source: The Saga of Eirik the Red, pp. 23-24.


They never thought they were on the Indies or in a continent in between. According to scholar Paolo Emilio Taviani, “Greenland and lands beyond were for them simply other lands of Europe.” Source: The Grand Design by Taviani, p. 90.


As for Columbus, he intended to pass Thule until he reached the Indies (Asia). But unlike the Norsemen, he left from the center/ south side of the globe, where there are no close lands to make stops, as one can do on the north. He literally sailed into the unknown. The sea route was known as “the Sea of Darkness.” His sailors initially rigged twice one of the ships; they wept when they could not see the land anymore; they complained every day; they threatened Columbus’ life a few times, but in the end they reached land because he was right. 


If sailors knew that America was close, why did they give Columbus a hard time? 


We all know that Spain helped Columbus with his enterprise. But most people don’t know he had lived in Portugal and made his first request to fund his enterprise there. Portugal denied his request and ridiculed him. Columbus moved to Spain where he was ridiculed again. Some people think he also requested Genoa for assistance, but they also said “no” to him. Columbus sent his brother Bartholomew to lobby for him in England. After waiting for seven years for a response, Spain denied Columbus as well, so he made his way to France when the Queen of Spain had a change of heart and sent for him to return. 


The point here is that if people knew about “America,” why then did Columbus have a hard time getting support and received so much ridicule instead? Why did Portugal deny him help when Portugal was the leading force of discovery during Columbus’ residence there? Why did England not respond to his brother right away? If “Italian sailors knew about America” before Columbus, why did Genoa not help him? If people knew about America, why then did the Spanish council mock Columbus and tell him there was no land (or people) where he wanted to go?


Someone might say that “perhaps Columbus knew about America because of the Genoan monk and his Cronica.” That would be a conspiracy theory and not history. Besides, Galvaneus’ Cronica was unfinished and unpublished. Again, that is assuming the Cronica is not a hoax. As for the Nordic sagas, Columbus never mentioned them, nor did he need them since they never claimed the Norsemen were trying to reach the Indies, nor that they did, or that they found a “new” continent. Columbus’ ideas were based on the great cosmographers of the past, including Ptolemy, Pliny, Marinus, Aristotle, Strabo, Pierre d’Ailly, Capitolinus, etc. They all either believed that the Earth was smaller than it is, and/ or that Indies were not far from Spain or Europe. There was also a contemporary cosmographer named Toscanelli who had written to Columbus saying the same. Source: The Life of the Admiral by Ferdinand Columbus, Chapters 6-8. 


The “professionals” who made fun of Columbus seem not to be aware of this kind of information. They also have their share of myths and unproven hypotheses. It was Columbus who took the risk against all odds. Once he proved that it was safe to sail west, other explorers followed and finished the maps he started. This eventually led to the realization that Columbus’ discoveries were bigger than anyone thought; and here we are today.


Before someone makes the usual snarky comment that “Columbus discovered an insignificant island in the Caribbean:” He actually explored most, if not all, of the Caribbean, and he later reached and explored the continent in Central and South America. North America was reached due to him, when England heard of his success. In addition, one of his men (Juan Ponce de Leon) explored Florida in North America.


I would suggest the readers to read Columbus’ primary sources to see and understand more of what people believed about cosmography at the time. “The Life of the Admiral” by Ferdinand Columbus is a good start. My books go into great depth on this subject as well. 


As we can see, real history is more complex than people may think today. Many people are not reading history,  but guessing “history,” making conclusions based on modern-day perceptions. 


In summary, there is no document claiming or proving that people knew that “America” existed before Columbus. That is fake news. It is just clickbait rooted in misunderstanding, error, and sensationalism.


#GenoanMonk #GalvaneusFlamma #Markland #AmericaBeforeColumbus













Wednesday, March 17, 2021

Book Review on the Bobadilla's Report


 

If you haven’t read any of my blogs, you should read this one, since it’s about the book of the so-called "lost document" from the 16th century that historians found claiming Columbus was a "tyrant" toward the Spanish colonists. This news went viral and it is the “source” used by many mainstream historical, biographical and educational websites to support that claim. The book is titled La Caída de Cristóbal Colón: El juicio de Bobadilla ("The fall of Christopher Columbus: The Judgement of Bobadilla") by Consuelo Varela. The book is divided into two parts. The first one, the author gives some context on the circumstances where the document was written, and the author tells us what’s in it. The second part of the book is the transcription (made by Isabel Aguirre) of the actual report. 

The original report, or document, was written by Francisco de Bobadilla, whom the King and Queen of Spain had sent to Hispaniola to investigate complaints that Spanish colonists were making against Columbus and his brothers during the third voyage. The report is a copy of the original, and it’s 25 "folios" or pages long. The first page is missing. 

Twenty-two "witnesses" answered the questions by Bobadilla, which were divided into three questions: 

1. Did Columbus plan to attack the investigator (Bobadilla) when he arrived, with an army of Spaniard colonists and natives?  

2. Did Columbus and his brothers stop the evangelization of the natives? 

3. Was Columbus and his brothers unjust toward the colonists?

There is a second part to the report at the end, which is ten pages long, and it’s a summary of the last question.

Though it’s fascinating to read a historical document, this one is no different than if someone found a historical document authored by those who hated and aimed to smear Jesus Christ. We know the story, and we know the accusations are false, but it would be an interesting read. So, it is with Columbus: We know the story, we know the accusations are false, we know Bobadilla arrested Columbus and his brothers without due process and sent them in chains to Spain. We also know the King and the Queen of Spain cleared Columbus and his brothers of the charges because they did not believe the accusations. Instead, they sent another investigator to investigate Bobadilla, who then was justly removed from the governorship’s office. As for the "witnesses," who were engaged in rebellion, they were sentenced for mutiny. Source: The Life of the Admiral by Ferdinand Columbus, Ch. 86.

I can’t believe that the author, being a historian who had read the very same Spanish primary sources that I have read, believes the report. Even though she acknowledges that the accusations by the colonists were fueled by malice, hate, and envy. She even admitted that Bobadilla was excessive in his behavior and that most of the colonists were cheats and hoodlums. 

Now, let’s take a quick look at the three questions on the Bobadilla report: 

Question 1. Did Columbus plan to attack Bobadilla when he arrived in Hispaniola? 

Answer: There is no primary source that says such a thing. In fact, Columbus and his brothers acted very civil with Bobadilla. (Source: The Life of the Admiral by Ferdinand Columbus, Ch. 86, pp. 222-223). But assuming this was true, it should not be surprising that Columbus would prepare a preemptive attack or a defense against a political coup. Prior to this episode, Columbus suffered several political coups and coup attempts from different people. The last agitator was Alonso de Hojeda, who made a stop at Hispaniola to harass Columbus telling him the queen was "at the point of death." Source: Select Letters of Christopher Columbus, p. 156.

The innuendo here was that Columbus’ only supporter in the court was about to die, thus he would be without any political protection of his titles and privileges. According to the Bobadilla report, Columbus’ Spanish servants compared Bobadilla to Hojeda. However, Columbus learned that the queen indeed had sent Bobadilla to meet with him. Columbus wrote, "When I heard this, I thought he [Bobadilla] must be like Hojeda, or one of the other rebels; but I held my peace, when I learned for certain, from the friars, that he had been sent by their Highness…" Select Letters, p. 161.

Whether this first claim was true or not (that Columbus planned an attack), we know Columbus received Bobadilla peacefully.

Question 2: Did Columbus stop the evangelization of the natives in Hispaniola? 

Answer: Anyone who has read Columbus’ letters or read from those who knew him, will see that he was a very devoted Christian. He is the reason why Christianity is here in the New World. It was one of his main goals for his journeys, therefore this claim is ridiculous. Also, the "witnesses'' contradicted themselves when they said Columbus required one to have a license to evangelize the natives. In other words, he was not stopping the spread of the gospel. What happened was that, according to the Bobadilla report, the natives wanted to "become Christians" in order to receive the gifts that Columbus often gave away to them. All that Columbus wanted was to make sure that the natives really understood what Christianity really meant.

Question 3: Were Columbus and his brothers unjust and cruel toward the colonists?

Answer: This is where we get that Columbus and his brothers were indiscriminately punishing colonists by cutting off their "ears and noses, parading women naked through the streets and selling them into slavery." That one "man caught stealing corn had his nose and ears cut off, was placed in shackles and was then auctioned off as a slave. A woman who dared to suggest that Columbus was of lowly birth was punished by his brother Bartolomé… was stripped naked and paraded around the colony on the back of a mule… Bartolomé ordered that her tongue be cut out… Christopher congratulated him for defending the family." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/aug/07/books.spain

According to the Guardian (where the citations above comes from, quoting from Consuelo Varela’s book), "... the Spanish monarchs... became worried by growing rumours of Columbus’ barbarity and avarice." The irony is that neither Consuelo, nor the Guardian, said anything of the Spanish Inquisition. Was that barbaric too? Or is this a case of selective moral outrage?

One of the tactics that Columbus detractors often use is to remove him from the historical context he lived in. During this era some crimes were indeed punished with torture, cutting ears, noses, floggings, hangings. By the way, the natives used the same, similar, or worse punishments for their criminals. The question here is not if Columbus punished people, but if the people he punished were innocent or guilty of crimes. The claim from the colonists on the report was that Columbus was punishing them for "cosas livianas" or "little things." Was it? The answer is no.

This group of colonists were mutineers and rebels who disobeyed Columbus’ orders to respect their native neighbors, who were his allies. They harassed, assaulted, murdered and raped natives just because they could. The queen herself had ordered Columbus to severely punish any person or persons who would mistreat them. Source: Journals and Other Documents on the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus by Morison, p. 204. 

All Columbus did was to follow instructions. He punished them according to the laws of the time. According to the primary sources, some of them were flogged, others were hung for mutiny and high crimes. Source: Historia General de las Indias by Gómara, Cap. XX, p. 56. Historia General by Herrera, D. I, Lib. IV, Cap. VIII, p. 110.

No primary source says anything of women’s tongue being cut off by Columbus’ brother. This must be one of the charges Columbus referred to in a letter to a friend (Juana de las Torres) as "never invented in hell," meaning, not even hell would invent such accusations. Source: Select Letters, p. 163. 

The mutineers were just trying to minimize their own actions on the report by pleading a lesser crime, like stealing corn just because they were hungry, and so forth. If you have any doubts, this kind of abusive behavior intensified after Columbus was out of office, where many colonists commit all sorts of atrocities, marking a dark chapter in history. Just read A Brief History of the Destruction of the Indies by Fray Bartolome de las Casas and you will see. I would suggest as well reading my books Christopher Columbus The Hero and Christopher Columbus and the Christian Church since some people have and keep misusing Las Casas’ quotes for propaganda purposes.

In the meantime, I’m planning to write a book (2021?) on the Bobadilla report, with all the details that I can’t use here due to space; otherwise this post would be too long. Details like the specific names of the “witnesses,” their specific claims, contradictions, unintended admissions, since the more they talked, the more they incriminated themselves with non "cosas livianas." 
 
To conclude, the people who were cruel here, were the mutineer colonists and not Columbus or his brothers. Columbus and his brothers were just protecting their Taino allies and punishing those who mistreated them. The Bobadilla report is full of half-truths, innuendos, double-talking, slanders, lies, etc. As for Consuelo’s book, I will give it a three-star rating just because the transcription of the document carries great historical interest. 


#ConsueloVarela #IsabelAguirre #LaCaidaDeCristobalColon #BookReview #Debunking #FranciscoDeBobadilla

 





Wednesday, January 6, 2021

Debunking Vox's Arguments Against Columbus



You can read "9 reasons Christopher Columbus was a murderer, tyrant, and scoundrel" right here: https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/8626918029300374028/7127096553079739973#


Though it’s becoming tiresome, I felt the need to debunk Vox’s claims, even though some are the same arguments revisionists often use. Like the first point (Columbus kidnapped a Carib woman and gave her to a crew member to rape), which I won’t address here because I already wrote about it in another article which you can read here:

https://www.officialchristophercolumbus.com/2018/08/did-columbus-rape-anyone-michele-de.html


Vox uses the claims from non-primary sources, or they use selected quotes from primary sources, but quoted by non-primary sources. This is no different than an atheist activist misquoting the Bible to Christians to prove there is no God. As usual, one of their “sources” is Howard Zinn, but this time they upgraded to include people like Laurence Bergreen, Benjamin Keen, and websites like the Oatmeal and Jacobin. Still, none of them are primary sources.


Vox’ second point (On Hispaniola, a member of Columbus's crew publicly cut off an Indian's ears to shock others into submission) is totally distorted. First of all, the “attack by more than 2,000 Indians” is vague. Second, though Columbus sentenced three natives to death, he ended up not killing them, but instead, he gave them a pardon. Funny how that was omitted. Also, the reason why Ojeda cut the ear of one of them was not because he, or the other two, refused to help them “fording a stream,” but because they stole some items, refused to return them, and their chief refused to punish them. Instead, the chief kept the stolen items to himself. Primary source: The Life of the Admiral by Ferdinand Columbus, ch. 53.


Cutting ears was the way theft was punished back then in different cultures. In the case of these Tainos, they punished theft, even petty theft, by impaling the thief. Another detail omitted by Vox. Primary source: Historia General by Oviedo, Lib. V, Cap. III, p. 139.


Point number 3 (Columbus kidnapped and enslaved more than a thousand people on Hispaniola) is false and convoluted. Columbus did not kidnap natives to enslave them. Enslaving people for no reason (as Vox is implying) was unlawful. Columbus made a treaty with a chief (Guacanagari) in Hispaniola to protect him from his enemies, including the Caribs. The Caribs were cannibals who were terrorizing the Caribbean, enslaving, killing, and sometimes wiping out entire islands of its inhabitants. Primary source: The Life of the Admiral, Chapter 24 through the end of the book.


These, and the enemies of his ally chief, were the only ones he was allowed to enslaved, and the slavery was temporary and suspended when Columbus was out of office. Not to mention that slavery was common and universal during this era and the natives were no exception to the rule.


Point number 4, goes together with the aforementioned. The payment of gold was a tribute, and paying tribute during this era was common as well. The “token” they were to wear was not a “symbol of shame” either, but rather their receipt that proved they paid the tribute. Fray Las Casas, who was the defender of the natives' rights, said the punishment for not paying the tribute was a “moderate” one. If the punishment was death, he would have not called it “moderate.” Primary source: Historia de las Indias by Las Casas, Tomo II, Libro I, Capítulo CV, p. 102.


Point number 5 (About 50,000 Indians committed mass suicide rather than comply with the Spanish) is false. Some of the enemies of chief Guacanagari, Columbus’ ally, destroyed the fields of Hispaniola so they could kill the Spaniards with starvation. As primary source, Peter Martyr says, this was “foolish” because though it killed many Spaniards, it also killed many natives. Martyr is the primary source. Not Bergreen. Primary source: De Orbe Novo by Martyr, p. 108.


Vox’s point number 6 is titled: 56 years after Columbus's first voyage, only 500 out of 300,000 Indians remained on Hispaniola. That is ridiculous. Notice how Vox magically increased the number of death, from 50,000 (in point 5 above) to 100,000. In addition, Columbus was out of office in Hispaniola in 1500 and he died 14 years after his discovery in 1492. The part that is true, is that some Spaniards abused many natives behind the backs of their Majesties in Spain AFTER Columbus was out of office. As long as Columbus lived, he was able to punish those who would abuse the natives in any way, as ordered by the queen herself. This goes together with Vox’s next point, number 7: Columbus was also horrible to the Spanish under his rule.


That accusation was made up by Columbus’ political enemies in order to remove him from office. Charges like Columbus torturing the Spaniards or punishing them for no reason were false. No one believed the charges. Not the king, or the queen. In fact, Columbus was never tried on any of these charges and his accusers were arrested for mutiny. Fray Las Casas even said that if the accusations were true (that Columbus was mistreating the Spaniards) they deserved those punishments since they were the ones mistreating the natives instead. Not the other way around. Primary source: Historia de las Indias by Las Casas, Tomo II, Libro I, Capítulo CLXXXIII, pp. 513-514. 


Not only that, but Vox's reference (from Bergreen’s book) is incorrect. Bergreen’s quote is not from pages 315-316, but pages 284-285.

  

Point number 8 (Settlers under Columbus sold 9- and 10-year-old girls into sexual slavery) is debunked here: https://www.officialchristophercolumbus.com/2018/07/debunking-snopes-and-columbus-imaginary.html


Point number 9 (Indian slaves were beheaded when their Spanish captors couldn't be bothered to untie them) is one of the many false accusations revisionists attribute to Columbus when the act was done by someone else, and/ or Columbus was out of office or was already dead. 


Vox quotes from Benjamin Keen, a historian from the 20th century, on how the Spanish chained the natives by the neck. But even Bergreen (page 214) acknowledged (as he quotes from Fray Las Casas) that the natives were not that innocent since they were slaveholders (long before European contact) who branded their slaves or broke their teeth as a mark of ownership. Columbus himself witnessed the natives carrying their naked slaves with ropes around their necks. Vox is silent about it. Primary source: De Orbe Novo by Peter Martyr, The Third Decade, Book IV, p. 317.


All this without mentioning how some Indigenous peoples, like the Aztecs, mutilated, tortured, dismembered, killed, and ate their slaves for human sacrifices to their gods.


Though Vox “upgraded” to use (mostly) Bergreen as a “source” for this article, they keep doing what revisionists always do: That is, to accuse Columbus of things he never committed, sometimes in places and timelines of history he did not live, or distorting the facts, or omitting important details and historical context with the intention to create false narratives. 


If you want to learn the real story of Columbus, I will suggest to read primary sources instead and skip the modern-day revisions. “The Life of the Admiral Christopher Columbus by his son Ferdinand” is a good start.


#Vox #DebunkingVox #Columbus




Thursday, October 22, 2020

Cristóbal Colón Sí Descubrió América- Respondiendo a El Financiero




Este es mi primer artículo en español. No es necesariamente un ataque a "El Financiero” o a el autor de “Cristóbal Colón no descubrió América”.  Sino, una simple respuesta a las falacias que se encuentra en él. 
https://www.elfinanciero.com.mx/opinion/marti-batres/cristobal-colon-no-descubrio-america

No culpo al autor ni al website, porque este tipo de ataque anti colombino se encuentra por ahí en todas partes. Así que empecemos a aclarar y a poner algunas cosas en su sitio:

Primero que nada, la palabra “descubrimiento” nunca significó “la primera persona en encontrar tierra desolada” en el contexto histórico de Colón. Él ya sabía que había gente aquí porque su propósito era llevar el evangelio de Cristo y establecer una ruta nueva para el comercio entre naciones. En otras palabras, el verbo “descubrir,” en el contexto colombino, siempre incluyó las tierras con gente en ellas. 

Colón tampoco estaba buscando ser el primer europeo en alcanzar las Indias. Colón estaba inspirado por otro explorador europeo llamado Marco Polo, quien ya las había alcanzado. Una de las razones porque decimos que Colón descubrió América, es precisamente porque él no estaba en las Indias, sino en un continente que el Viejo Mundo no sabía que existía. 

No se llamaba “América” hasta algunos años después que fue descubierta por Colón. América está en los mapas hoy a causa de las exploraciones iniciadas por Colón. El descubrimiento no fue sólo para España, Europa o el Viejo Mundo, sino para el mundo y la historia, incluyendo la historia de los indígenas. La mayoría de los pueblos indígenas no tenían historia escrita. Bien pocos (como los aztecas) tenían algo similar a los jeroglíficos egipcios. Mucho de lo que sabemos hoy de ellos es porque los exploradores europeos escribieron de ellos. La razón por la que sabemos que había indígenas con “conocimientos de medicina, ingeniería hidráulica, agricultura, astronomía”, etc, es porque los exploradores europeos escribieron de esto para generaciones futuras.  

La humanidad de los indígenas tampoco fue ignorada. Si así hubiera sido, Colon no hubiera pensado en traerles el evangelio de Cristo. Nuestra raza hispana viene por causa de la union de europeos con indigenas y negros. Colón vino a unir, y no a dividir, como los propagandistas anti colombinos hacen.

El autor menciona de una campaña militar que Colón estuvo envuelto en La Española, donde alguno de los derrotados fueron vendidos como esclavos. Lo que el autor no menciona es que la pocas batallas que Colón estuvo envuelto, fueron a la solicitud de otras tribus que estaban aliados con él para derrotar tribus enemigas.

El autor concluye con los conquistadores que vinieron después de Colon, apropiandose de riquezas, cometiendo genocidio y difamando a los indigenas como “salvajes”. Pero eso es falso. Contrario a lo que algunos piensan, América antes de 1492 no era el “Jardín del Edén”. El autor omite que muchas de las batallas hechas por los conquistadores, y los europeos subsecuentes, fueron hechas a la solicitud y con la asistencia de tribus indígenas aliadas con los europeos. Muchos grupos indígenas también estaban envueltos en canibalismo y sacrificios humanos, lo cual está confirmado por los indígenas mismos, incluyendo evidencia arqueológica. Si eso no es salvajismo y genocidio, entonces no se lo que es. El problema que tenemos es que estos autores anti colombinos son bien parciales en como nos cuenta la historia. “Mira esto, pero no mires lo otro.” Se pasan quejándose de los sentimientos “eurocentristas” mientras escriben en español, lo cual es un idioma de Europa. Estos malagradecidos no saben que hoy están en América por causa de Cristóbal Colón y su descubrimiento en 1492.



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" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD3dgiDreGc). 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. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tjfw2JwYM1A


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