The evidence appears tainted by tradition from the onset. Largely relying on hearsay
and Chinese whispers to inflate the real renditions of a story is typical. Armesto talks
of this and the fact that Columbus is accredited with all American successes since.
This is true of many historical myths spreading across many nations. In Britain we
have the Spirit of the Blitz as our national psyche, yet its is never mentioned by
families who may have had deaths caused by the Blitz. Similarly with the Churchill
figure promoting the bulldog spirit of World War Two wouldn’t bode well with
conscientious objectors of that time who were imprisoned for there beliefs alone.
History plays a huge part in shaping a national identity, figures such as Columbus are
recognised as heroes or villains depending on the individual, in Marxist term in order
to understand the topic historians would have to look beyond the man himself and
more at the social conditions of the time in questions.
Historians such as Von Ranke enforced the ideal that the study of History was to;
“Simply to show it how it really was.”
By focusing purely on the facts that were cited from hard and relevant primary
sources, journals or accounts of what happened by the people that were there to
witness it, it was deemed a real or true reflection would shine through eliminating the
subjectivity that moulds history. This theory of empiricism was designed to purvey
the truth by facts alone explaining what events happened yet not explain why they did
or the effects the actions or events had on others. With examples such as Columbus
this would highlight the whole importance of fact-based history through the selection
of facts and the interpretation of the evidence. The accounts and diaries of Las Casas
would only serve the needs of supporters of Columbus, documenting victories and
reinforcing his role as a purveyor of civilisation. The accounts of the indigenous
people enslaved by Columbus would be in direct conflict with Las Casas. Seemingly
then there appears to be no middle ground. Historians such as Elton deem History to
be
“Dead reality, independent of the enquiry”
Basing all comments on the collection of facts through sources alone is flawed as
there is eventually the need to be a level of interpretation by the Historian and this is
where the level of objectivity is quashed.
The Historian Carr believed that Historians invented historical facts through the
power of selection. Carr’s history has the Historian as a hunter-gatherer figure
delving into a topic that conclusively amount to a portrayal of truth. Having such
emphasis on the Historian raises subjectivity and destroys a chance for an objective
view of the past. Facts themselves derive from sources and documents these accounts
and documents also lose their objectivity by the paradigms they are written within.
The conceptual framework of a source shapes and alters what may be fact into fiction,
Las Casas worked within the paradigms of progress, discovery, power and religion.
His audience would have included the King Ferdinand amongst top ranking church
officials and affluent members of society. Las casas wouldn’t have written about the
genocide of a race or agreeable people of foreign lands, rather the idolatrous and
savage ungodly natives who were in need of the civilisation Columbus bought with
him. The past and the relevance of the facts drastically warp the truth or crux of what
is being reported.
The reputation of Columbus was and is in the hands of the Historian. As in the article
by Armesto it is evident the divide surrounding him, whilst he is attributed with
genocide and the promotion of slavery to some he is also heralded with statues and
parades by others. Depending on ones own social conditions and opportunities will
shape the perception of history also. A Marxist perception of Columbus would pay
no detail to the man himself, he would be a mere tool produced by the social
environment he was privy to. Columbus would have been labelled as a cog in the
wheel of Globalisation.
The writings by Las Casas of Columbus were self-perpetuating and as Armesto claims
an original form of P.R. The legend of Columbus has warped the historical truth, as
we know it and raises an issue examined by Carr surrounding fact versus historical
fact. If something is deemed true is it a fact? Ultimately history is written to instil a
sense of nationalism or pride in ones home country. Spaniards from the legend of
Columbus are depicted as brave and challenging faced danger full on and showing no
fear, an image that sits well with the egos of people with strong nationalistic beliefs.
The flipside is that the oppressed can use the history to the their devices also
promoting an image of neglect an maltreatment as an answer for there problems in the
present day. History can never be left to tell itself therefore there is an essential role
of the Historian, these people can shape and change a persons reputation or life story
by manipulating what is deemed fact to there own cause.
Bibliography
Carr, E.H. What is History? (Harmondsworth: Penguin.1990, 2nd ed.)
Elton, G. The Practice of History (Fontana Press. 1990, 14th ed)
Tosh, J. The Pursuit of History (Longman. 1981)
