In David A. Stannard's book, American Holocaust: Columbus And the Conquest of the New World, Stannard discusses the cruelty he says Christopher Columbus inflicted upon Native Americans and how it was comparable to the genocidal acts of World War II. This debate arose roughly thirteen or so years ago, and before then people thought Columbus could not have possibly done something so horrific. However, there is evidence to support the claims, and the idea that Columbus may have been crueler than previously believed is becoming less and less taboo.
Stannard accuses Columbus of being a religious fanatic with an obsession of eliminating non-Christians, by means of murder, conversion, or at the very least, enslavement. He claims that Columbus was in search of personal wealth and fame, one who was willing to step over others or even kill them to achieve it. On the other hand, the Captain's log of Christopher Columbus talks about how friendly he was to the Indians, and how kind they were to him. It's not hard to imagine that Columbus may have used more force than he admitted to, as Spain had said to not treat natives poorly. Furthermore, the whole fact of two different races, with different looks, languages, and culture suddenly bumping into each other would certainly strike up some fear and it would only be natural for the natives to defend themselves against what seemed as an invasion. Though, when analyzing these documents, the log presented by Christopher Columbus is actually a fist hand account, instead of a book written in 1992. It's very possible that Columbus's men had been the ones that inflicted the carnage (it's also believed that they nearly committed mutiny while on the ship) and he was just the one that received the blame, much like the President receives the blame (or praise) for the policy set by the Legislative branch. According to Columbus, he warned his men against taking advantage of the natives, as he had planned to eventually convert them to...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document