Was Christopher Columbus a Conqueror or Just a Douche

When Christopher Columbus set foot on Hispaniola, he encountered a civilization entirely different from his own. Although Columbus seems to be in awe and even respectful of the indigenous people, he is ultimately arrogant and ignorant in the assumption that converting to Christianity would make their lives better. In fact, Columbus’s statements are ironic given he seems to admire the generosity, kindness, and trusting nature of the people while simultaneously wanting them to become more like him and other Europeans. Although these excerpts of Columbus’s diary do not indicate any use of force, he can still be considered a conqueror in his patronizing attitude towards other people. Because Columbus conquers the spirit of the people, taking advantage of their kindness and trust, he can be considered a conqueror of the New World even if he did not use military force in Hispaniola.
Conquering usually connotes the use of force or military power, but there are more subtle methods of wielding power over others than resorting to the use of weapons. Columbus states that the native people “could be much more easily converted to our holy faith by gentle means than by force,” making it sound like Columbus’s intentions were innocent. Yet soon thereafter, the Genovese explorer states, “the people are ingenious, and would be very good servants.” To immediately conclude that the people would be “very good servants” implies that he wishes and intends to conquer the people of Hispaniola. He would prefer to avoid using force, instead conquering their spirits by imposing upon them a foreign faith that worships a dead god. Yet Columbus does intend to conquer them: to turn them into slaves or vassals to his European overlords. Moreover, Columbus does state the people “could be much more easily converted to our holy faith by gentle means than by force,” suggesting that he has already considered using force. He also discusses conversion to Christianity specifically as a means of social control.
Columbus does have reservations about his role as conqueror. For example, he admits “it seemed wrong to me” that the people were so generous to him even when they received what was basically garbage and scraps. The ethical problem with conquering remains unresolved; Columbus never goes so far as to question why he would want to conquer rather than learn from the people he himself describes as being of “very keen intelligence” and who were “giving their hearts” in everything. If Columbus were not a conqueror, he would have been more humble in his approach, asking the people of Hispaniola to instead teach him how to live a better life. He would have brought back representatives from the island to Europe not so that they could learn his language and his religion, but so that the people of Europe could learn how to be “so artless and so free with all they possess.” Learning kindness, trust, and generosity would have been a far more compassionate approach to the cross-cultural encounter than the methods used by Columbus. Columbus was a conqueror with or without weapons because he cultivated an attitude of superiority and instigated the decimation of whole societies.
In fact, Columbus even assumes that the people believe that he “comes from heaven.” The assumption that he is perceived of as a god is something that proves his arrogance. It is possible that the people did perceive of him as a god; it is also possible that the “wondrous timid” behavior and their occasionally fleeing in fear were signs that they simply were afraid of a man who obviously possessed the power, means, and intent to conquer them. Just because Columbus feels slightly guilty, and just because he does seem to admire the people, does not excuse his behavior. Granted, Columbus’s voyage was funded by those looking for a return on their investment, which is why he was so eager to return to Europe with slaves or at least a docile labor force in the New World. Columbus does participate fully in the process of subjugation of indigenous people.
The attitude of Columbus towards the people of Hispaniola is akin to the attitudes of a adult towards a child. Infantilizing the people he encounters, Columbus retains an air of superiority that allows him to overcome his guilt. He conquers the people of Hispaniola in even more nefarious ways than use of force: by systematically depriving them of their culture and community, and by automatically viewing the people as commodities that can be readily sold on the labor market because they are peaceful and trusting people. Columbus takes advantage of their kindness and trust by recognizing that he can conserve valuable resources and avoid using force. Conquering occurs within the same framework as patriarchy: assuming control and refusing to engage in mutual discourse. He focuses on the use of religious conversion and brainwashing as tools for conquering, knowing that by converting the people and teaching them his language, he can manipulate them and garner their cooperation for future business ventures.
Methods of conquering are not limited to the use of force. Weapons are only one tool in the arsenal of the conquistador. When a conqueror encounters people who are unarmed, peaceful, and timid like the people of Hispaniola, he has no need to use weapons. Columbus made a strategic decision to use nonviolent means of conquering the people of Hispaniola. Yet converting people to Christianity and selling them into slavery is not actually nonviolent at all; it is the wonton destruction of a society that is far more advanced in terms of morality and ethics. Some readers of Columbus’s diary assume that without weapons, Columbus could not have possibly been a conqueror. That assumption denies the power of cultural oppression and subjugation in conquering the spirit of a people. By conquering the people of Hispaniola, Columbus deprived the world forever of their wisdom.