Monday, August 27, 2018

Wikipedia vs. Columbus

What is wrong with Wikipedia's biography on Columbus? (

First, let me start with what they've got right:

Though long and boring, Columbus' biography on Wikipedia has a lot of scholarly accurate information there. However, it also has the usual revisionist innuendos and inaccuracies. 

For example, Wikipedia claims Columbus "founded the transatlantic slave trade." Yet, when you click the word/link "transatlantic slave trade" it says the "Portuguese were the first to engage in the Atlantic slave trade... In 1526, they completed the first transatlantic slave." 

Columbus was serving Spain, not Portugal. He was out of Office in 1499 and dead by 1506. Wikipedia numbers and assumptions won't match! If what they are trying to say is that Columbus sent slaves (enemy combatants) from the New World to the Old World, then that is what they should say.

Another thing is that Columbus did not invent slavery, nor the slave trade and slavery was practiced by natives too. The slaves he sent to Spain were defeated enemy combatants, and according to his own letters, he always intended to give them back their freedom in a few years. Wikipedia did not mention that.
Source: Historia de las Indias, Libro II, Tomo III, Capitulo XXXVII, página 190.

Some time ago Wikipedia used to claim Columbus was running some kind of child sex slavery ring. Apparently, they removed it, but now it resurfaces under "sexual slavery." If they take the time to read the letter they quoted as evidence of the claim, they will see there is nothing about sex with children in it. Rather, in the letter, Columbus was condemning the abuses of the Spaniards toward the natives. 

About the "Accusations of Tyranny" section, Wikipedia forgot to mention the accusations were false. 

The "Second Voyage" section gleefully mentions the rape of a native girl by Michele de Cuneo that he claimed Columbus gave her. Strangely enough, Wikipedia did not mention that the same letter says Columbus was rescuing Tainos from the Caribs, who were terrorizing the islands with kidnappings, rape, murder, and cannibalism. To read more about Cuneo's rape argument, click here:

Wikipedia also demonstrates they don't know what the word "Discover" means and keep repeating the usual fallacies, distortions and revisions propagandists keep repeating.

I have tried to edit Wikipedia myself, but someone put some kind of virtual "lock" and won't let me correct the propaganda there. Since there is nothing I can do to edit Wikipedia, I decided to write a more accurate biography of Columbus right here:


Wednesday, August 22, 2018

Did Columbus Discover America? What Does "Columbus Discovered America" Means?

Here is the answer from my book "Christopher Columbus The Hero" Chapter 3:

Chapter 3. Discover, not “Discover”

The traditional story of Christopher Columbus tells us that he discovered America. However, revisionists want to discredit Columbus, not only with lies and innuendo but even with semantics! They want us to spell the word discover in quotes. When speaking about Columbus, in 2017, The Encyclopedia Britannica website spelled the words discoverer and discovery in quotations:

Columbus “has long been called the 'discoverer' of the New World, although Vikings such as Leif Eriksson had visited North America five centuries earlier… According to the older understanding, the 'discovery' of the Americas was a great triumph, one in which Columbus played the part of hero in accomplishing the four voyages.” [1]

But when talking about Amerigo Vespucci, the same Encyclopedia Britannica website spelled the words discovered, discovery, and discoverer without quotations: Amerigo Vespucci “is believed to have discovered the mouth of the Amazon River… The voyage of 1501–02 is of fundamental importance in the history of geographic discovery in that Vespucci himself, and scholars as well became convinced that the newly discovered lands were not part of Asia but a 'New World' … the newly discovered world be named 'ab Americo Inventore… quasi Americi terram sive Americam' ('from Amerigo the discoverer… as if it were the land of Americus or America').” [2]

Bias? I think so.

In 2016, MTV News said that Christopher Columbus “didn't discover America,” that “he landed in the Caribbean and never actually set foot in what is now American soil,” and that “the Vikings landed in America almost 500 years before Columbus.” [3] But, in the next sentence, the host blamed Columbus for mistreating native Americans. Question: How could Columbus mistreat native AMERICANS, when, according to MTV News, he never discovered the continent or “set foot in what is now American soil”? Contradiction? I think so. And if natives lived on the continent before the Vikings, then by the same faulty logic they didn't discover America either! In addition, Columbus indeed discovered the South American part of the continent, even though he never reached North America or settled in South America. So, the question is, how can Columbus be responsible for any conflicts in places he never reached, or places he never discovered or settled?

The deal is, there is a BIG, BIG, misunderstanding with the word discover. The word discover never meant “the first person to find desolate land” in Columbus’ historical context. The fact that Columbus was looking for a straight route to the Asian continent for trade, and to send missionaries to the “Great Khan,” meant that he was looking for inhabited land.

From Columbus’ own Journal:

“In that same month, on the information which I had given Your Majesties about the lands of India and a ruler known as the Great Khan (which means in Spanish 'King of Kings').”

Note: A ruler rules over people! Columbus continued:

“... Your Majesties... send me, Christopher Columbus, to those lands of India to meet their rulers and to see the towns and lands and their distribution, and all other things, and to find
out in what manner they might be converted to our Holy Faith; and you ordered me not to go eastward by land, as is customary, but to take my course westward, where, so far as we know, no man has travelled before today.”
“The Voyage of Christopher Columbus” translated by John Cummins, Prologue, page 81.

So you see, Columbus was looking for land already populated. This is what primary historical source, Bartolome de las Casas, wrote: “I understand that when he tried to find a Christian Prince to sponsor him, he was already sure that he would discover new lands and peoples… Columbus did not name it the Indies because it had already been discovered before, but because it was the eastern part of India ultra Gangem which, going East, was to the west of us since the world is round. No cosmographer had ever marked out the boundaries of India except those of the ocean.”
“History of the Indies” by Las Casas, Book One, Chapter 5, pages 20-21. 

“India” was another word for Asia in Columbus’ time. Some people might be offended that Columbus called the natives, “Indians,” when they were not in “India,” or Asia; but Columbus might not be as wrong, as some may think, because those who were living in America before Columbus, somehow came here from “India,” or the Asian continent. I wonder why some people might be offended with Columbus calling the natives, “Indians,” but they are okay with the name, “Americans,” when that was not the name of the continent either! The name “America” came as a consequence of Co-lumbus’ discoveries, and Amerigo Vespucci (who the name “America” came from) was a contemporary of Columbus too.

All that Columbus wanted was to go straight from Spain to Asia, instead of sailing around Africa, like the Europeans were doing. That's basic children’s school history. I can't believe people forgot about that one. Columbus knew Asian land was already discovered by Asians, and he knew Europeans had traded there, which also means he was not looking to be the first European to reach India or Asia because again, he already knew Europeans had reached it. He was inspired by the travels of Marco Polo, so he knew a European already had reached China, in Asia. [4] So, those who bring Vikings to the conversation, don't know or understand what the word discover, or its historical context, means.

That's why it doesn't matter if Columbus knew about the Vikings reaching North America or not, because Columbus was aiming South, toward India, but also with the purpose of exploring the South Asian lands and islands Europeans had not reached yet, where, like Las Casas said, “no cosmographer had ever marked out the boundaries.” But of course, Columbus was not in South Asia, but in the Caribbean, and later on in South America. This makes him the first European to reach some of those places at such time.

So, what did Columbus discover?

1. Columbus discovered and proved, that one can sail safely and straight from Spain to the other side.
2. Because of him, and him alone, it was discovered later, that they were on another continent, and not in Asia.
3. Columbus is the one who brought two different worlds back together, after hundreds of years of lost communication.
4. He and those who follow after him discovered people and other lands Europe didn't know about for centuries.
5. Columbus was also the first European to explore the Caribbean, and probably the first European to reach Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Venezuela.

To those of you who still insist Columbus didn't discover anything, who want to discredit Columbus accomplishments by playing semantic games blended with ignorance, to those of you who say, the native Americans were the ones who discovered America, because they were here first, I want to ask you the following questions:

1. What was the name of the native person who reached American land first?
2. What native tribe discovered America?
3. What year?
4. When?
5. How did they get there?
6. What country did they come from?
7. Where did they settle first? North, South or Central America?

The fact is we don't know the answers to those questions, but we know the answers to the same questions when we are talking about Christopher Columbus. I also want to make a note about the Vikings: The Vikings sailed from Iceland and Greenland, which are very close to North America, while Columbus sailed straight west from Spain to America, which was farther and something people would not have dared to do back in those days. In fact, Columbus’ sailors were in tears, scared to death, as they left Spain into the unknown. They thought they were all going to die.
See “The Life of the Admiral Christopher Columbus by his son Ferdinand,” Chapter 18, page 48.

The Vikings quickly left America, not knowing they were on another continent. But let me tell you something, if the Vikings would have stayed there, impacting history like Columbus did, I would bet you, we would still be hearing the same complaints about the Vikings, as we hear today about Columbus. Remember, the Vikings were white, which is a crime to some revisionists; they also practiced conquest, war, raids, slavery, and rape; but the worst “crime” of all, was that the Viking who reached America, Leif Erikson, was a Christian! [5] Can you imagine the reaction revisionists might get once they find out this! They might stop bragging that the Vikings were the first doing anything! They might get a heart attack or something! They hate that “crime” more than any other. Like I said before, we would be still hearing the same objection today! On the other hand, I don't know why some people want to magnify the Vikings’ discoveries, which had no impact historically, and diminish Columbus’ discoveries, which have an actual historical impact.

In the words of Thomas A. Bowden: “Columbus did discover America--- for Europe. Prior to 1492, Europeans lived in total ignorance of the Western hemisphere and the people who inhabited it. Columbus and those who follow him lift that cover of ignorance--- they 'dis-covered' America. Once this knowledge had kindled Europe’s interest in the New World, European colonists came in growing numbers, bringing with them the wisdom of Western civilization in a vast westward movement, laying the groundwork for mankind's greatest political and economic achievement, the United States of America. Seen in this light, Columbus’s voyage is the one that truly made a difference historically.” [6]


“... it is significant that one never hears condemnation of the Vikings, or the Chinese, Japanese, Irish, or Welsh, or any other purported pre-Columbian voyagers, for having inaugurated centuries of 'ecocide' and genocide. By focusing all their attention on Columbus, his enemies confess their agreement that his voyage was the only one that mattered.” [7]

I would add to that, that we are here in the New World today, BECAUSE of Columbus and Columbus alone. Not because of natives, Vikings or anyone else, but because of Christopher Columbus.

1.Encyclopedia Britannica: Christopher Columbus Italian Explorer. Written by: Valerie I.J. Flint. Last Updated 1-14-2016.
2.Encyclopedia Britannica: Amerigo Vespucci, Italian Navigator, Written by: Roberto Almagià. Last Updated: 10-17-2011.
3.MTV News: “Columbus Was a Genocidal Rapist | Decoded |MTV News” Published on Oct 9, 2015.
4.“The Voyage of Christopher Columbus,” by John Cummins, Introduction, “The Orient and the Ocean Sea,” page 9.
5.“The Saga of Erik the Red,” Chapter “Eirik's family, and his son Leif's discovery of Vinland,” pages 23-27. Abela Publishing, London 2010
6.“The Enemies of Christopher Columbus” by Thomas A. Bow- den, page 27.
7.“The Enemies of Christopher Columbus” by Thomas A. Bowden, page 28.

Buy "Christopher Columbus The Hero" Book here

Wednesday, August 8, 2018

Did Columbus Rape Anyone? The Michele de Cuneo's Letter

Did Columbus rape anyone or give women away for that purpose? To answer the question I used excerpts from my book Christopher Columbus The Hero, Chapter 30 with some additions, modifications, and edits specifically designed for this article:

According to a letter Cuneo wrote to a friend, he “admitted” to raping a native girl that was supposedly given to him from Columbus. Revisionists love Michele de Cuneo’s rape story because, in their view, Columbus is guilty by association. This Cuneo’s rape story is in many of Columbus’ biographies out there as if Cuneo was Columbus himself, or his clone; or as if Columbus knew what his friend did and approved or applauded the assault!

Columbus wasn’t in the bedroom with his friend to know what he did. The reason why we know today Cuneo’s rape story is because he wrote about it in a personal letter that became public centuries later in 1885. This is assuming the letter is authentic in its entirety, since some scholars challenged it in the past due to “inconsistencies in style.” [1] Today it is accepted as genuine because it passed the test of paleography in the 19th-century. The original letter doesn’t exist and what we have today is a copy made around 1511. Of course, that doesn’t mean it’s fake, but it doesn’t mean it’s all true either. The fact is since Columbus became famous many forged letters, or authentic ones containing false information, have come to surface.

So let's look at some of the inconsistencies and falsehoods in Cuneo’s letter:  

He started the letter with, “In the name of Jesus and of His Glorious Mother Mary,” but a few pages later he rapes a native girl. Next, Cuneo seems to contradict himself when he said, “While I was in the boat I captured a very beautiful Carib woman, whom the said Lord Admiral gave to me.” Which is true? That Cuneo “captured” her, or that the Lord Admiral “gave” her to him? 

Cuneo claimed he took the Carib girl he raped to his cabin, where she screamed at the top of her lungs after he beat her for initially denying him intercourse. [2] If that is so, how come no one else heard the screaming? This was Columbus’ second voyage where there were 1,200 people on 17 ships!

Can you imagine the enemies of Columbus if they have heard a native woman screaming because "Columbus gave her away to be raped"? Columbus’ enemies would have a field day with such an accusation! 

Another falsehood by Cuneo is the existence of temples in the Caribbean when there were none. 

There were also two respectable persons who were on the same second voyage when the alleged rape happened. One was a doctor named Doctor Diego Álvarez Chanca, and the other was Guillermo Coma of Aragon. Neither Dr. Chanca, Guillermo de Coma, and I would add Ferdinand Columbus, Peter Martyr, Las Casas, Herrera, or any other credible source ever mentioned that Columbus was raping or giving women away to be raped. [3] 

Cuneo also said that when the native girl yielded to him, “she seemed to have been brought up in a school of harlots.” That means Cuneo knew what such a “school” would be like. So here we are taking the words of a sexual pervert as “gospel.” 

Cuneo was young, so it's possible that he made up this story, acting in a juvenile manner as he was writing to his friend. He himself gossiped about Columbus being in love with Beatriz de Bobadilla, the Countess of La Gomera in the Canary Islands. He is the only "source" for that claim.

During this second voyage, Columbus kept the Spaniards from native women. Strangely enough, those who hated Columbus, accused him of everything, except giving women away to be raped. In fact, one of the complaints against Columbus and his brothers by Roldán and his rebels (during the third voyage) was that they “made them observe the three monastic vows;” that is poverty, chastity, and obedience. [4] 

Columbus sent letters to the Spanish kings reporting that Roldán and his accomplices were harassing the native women. Historia de las Indias by Las Casas, Libro I, Tomo II, Capítulo CLIX, pp. 360-361. 

Columbus called these Spanish rebels, “debauchees, profligates, thieves, seducers, ravishers, vagabonds,” etc. De Orbe Novo by Peter Martyr, The First Decade, Book VII, p. 142.

“Debauchees” means “a person addicted to excessive indulgence in sensual pleasures; one given to debauchery.” The word “profligate” means “utterly and shamelessly immoral or dissipated; thoroughly dissolute.” “Ravisher” means “rapist.” [5]

It is clear Columbus wasn't pleased with the Spaniards, and he wasn't giving them women. It's also clear Columbus was not okay with rape. 

As one can see, Cuneo’s rape account raises more questions than answers. 

In the meantime, it is ironic how revisionists highlighted, and magnified Michele de Cuneo’s rape story, but avoided the parts in the very same letter where he confirmed that the Caribs depopulated islands with raids, slavery, rapes, murder, and cannibalism. Cuneo also tells us that Columbus was rescuing the Taínos from being kidnapped and raped by the Caribs. This is what he wrote: 

“In that island we took twelve very beautiful and very fat women from 15 to 16 years old, together with two boys of the same age. These had the genital organ cut to the belly; and this we thought had been done in order to prevent them from meddling with their wives or maybe to fatten them up and later eat them… there were three or four Carib men with two Carib women and two Indian slaves, of whom (that is the way the Caribs treat their other neighbors in those other islands), they had recently cut the genital organ to the belly, so that they were still sore.” [6] 

Where is the outrage against these kidnappings and castrations? 
Guillermo de Coma, who was on the same voyage as Cuneo, confirmed the rape raids by the Caribs in a letter:

“They hand over the female captives as slaves to their womenfolk, or make use of them to satisfy their lust. Children borne by the captured women are eaten like the captives.” [7] 

Any outrage against this? Why is that some websites are so willing to stain Columbus’ reputation with innuendos, by using selected portions of Cuneo’s letter, but skip the parts where Cuneo reported the natives were doing the same things revisionists pretend they lament? 

In addition, Cuneo's description of the natives was not positive either. He said the natives ate poisonous beasts, insects, reptiles, dogs, snakes, lizards, spiders, etc. According to him, the natives would cut their own father’s head off and then cook it, as told by their idols, if the father was sick with no hope to recuperate. The first woman to enter their temple would have sex with their “holy man.” They would have sex anywhere openly, with anyone, except with brothers and sisters; they were sodomites; they were cold-blooded people; they would live short lives, etc. [8] 

Should we take that as “gospel” too? In fact, the description of the natives above is another reason why I’ve been skeptical with Cuneo’s account. Whereas every primary source made distinction from Caribs and Taínos, Cuneo painted them all with the same broad brush. 

Samuel Eliot Morison, who translated Cuneo’s letter into English says Cuneo was not like Columbus or the “solem Spaniards who wrote on the early voyages.” Morison admitted Cuneo’s narrative is “somewhat confused.” 

Anyone reading Columbus’ accounts can clearly see that Columbus was very protective toward the native women. It is also clear that the rapists in Cuneo’s account, by his own admission, were him and the Caribs, and not Columbus. 

I’m not saying Cuneo’s account is a hoax, but I would not be surprised if the future reveals it to be one. I’m just saying there are a lot of problems with his side of the story and his account is unreliable. But as to the question, “Did Columbus rape anyone or give women away for that purpose?” The answer is NO!


1. Journals and Other Documents on the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus by Morison, p. 209.

2. Ibid, p. 212.

3. Ibid, p. 210 and 214 note 1.

4. The Life of the Admiral Christopher Columbus by his son Ferdinand, Chapter 74, p. 192. Also, Note # 2 from Chapter 74, p. 301.


6. Journals and Other Documents on the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus by Morison, pp. 211-212.

7. Ibid, Syllacio's Letter to Duke of Milan, p. 236.

8. Ibid, pp. 219-220.


Friday, August 3, 2018

Review: "Conquest and Cultures" Book by Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell writes about the history of conquest in both the Old and the New World in this book. My interest was to know what he would say about Columbus and his era. To his credit, he mentioned how the Columbus story had been distorted with revisionism and the romanticism of the natives with the legend of the Noble Savage. You can clearly see that brutality was common for both, Europeans and Indigenous People, at the time of the Spanish conquest. Since the author is an economist, he also talks about the economics of the world during the different eras of conquest.