I'm not exactly sure how to phrase the question I have in mind, but I think it'll become clear as I explain. It's a fairly broad question, and I'm happy to try and narrow it down if needed.
I enjoy history, but I'm no historian. Until about 5 years ago I always believed Columbus (hereon CC) was a good dude that wanted to explore and accidentally stumbled upon the Americas. Then I read a couple articles that suggested he was genocidal, a tyrant, and rotten to the core.
As Columbus Day or Indigenous Peoples Day is just behind us I wonder what parts of both narratives we can say are certainly true, and what parts can't be substantiated.
My understanding is that one side suggests some or all of the following:
On the other side, the narrative usually follows these points:
There may be other points that fit either or both narratives, these are simply the ones I'm most familiar with.
What can be said for certain about CC, and which things can't be substantiated?
People like to categorize things, black or white. Good or bad/evil. Square or circle, and put it into one box. For some reason we don't like grey areas, we don’t like things that fit into more than one category or sometimes fit into one category and other times fit into another. Which is why Columbus continues to confound to this day.
The fact of the matter is that Columbus's first voyage was a historically significantly event. He acted with courage, bravery, and confidence in his views (even if they were wrong, he was willing to die for them). And while the continents were of course first inhabited by the Natives (so he didn't exactly "discovery" them), and he was not the first European to land there (see the Vikings at L'Anse aux Meadows), as historian Dugard, Martin put it, "Columbus's claim to fame isn't that he got there first . . . it's that he stayed." (The Last Voyage of Columbus. Little, Brown and Company: New York, 2005.)
Then there are other primary “historian” or “eye witness” sources (not to say participatory primary sources, but witness testimonies) that are susceptible to the age-old problem many such suffer from: exaggeration. For example, Las Casas made the claim that Columbus caused the deaths of "millions" on Hispaniola. For a discussion of Las Casas' claims and exaggerated numbers see "Destruction of the Taino" by William F. Keegan in "Archaeology" (January/February 1992, pp. 51-56). Keegan essentially concludes that Las Casas was horrified by what he saw the Columbian explorers doing, which may have led him to claim that the Columbians killed "millions," when in reality, according to Keegan, they likely killed "thousands." Regardless of actual numbers, we know for certain that the Taino were essentially wiped out by Columbus and his fellow colonists within about 25 years. It was genocide in consequence if not intent. (See: Russell Schimmer, GSP, Yale University http://gsp.yale.edu/case-studies/colonial-genocides-project/Hispaniola.)
The most compelling evidence of Columbus's brutality, however, are his own words. He wrote in at least three different, independent, sources about his brutality or intent to brutalize the Native populations. These survive as a written confession of his deeds.
See his journal entry for October 11, 1492:
"Weapons they have none, nor are acquainted with them, for I showed them swords which they grasped by the blades, and cut themselves through ignorance. They have no iron, their javelins being without it, and nothing more than sticks, though some have fish-bones or other things at the ends. [...] It appears to me, that the people are ingenious, and would be good servants and I am of opinion that they would very readily become Christians, as they appear to have no religion."
See his journal entry for October 14, 1492:
"I could conquer the whole of them with fifty men, and govern them as I pleased."
(Journal sources: Fordham University's Medieval Sourcebook: Christopher Columbus: Extracts from Journal; Franciscan Archives: Excerpts from Christopher Columbus' Log, 1492 A.D.)
See his letter to Luis de Santangel:
"When I arrived in the Indies, at the first island I found I took some of them by force so that they could learn and give me information about what there was in those parts, and in that way they soon understood us and we them, whether by word or by sign; and they have been very useful to us."
These quotes demonstrate a clear intent to (1) enslave; (2) capture by force; (3) conquer; and (5) extract wealth. Those coupled with the fact that the Native population was essentially obliterated within 25 years show that he not only had a plan, but he obviously executed it with ruthless efficiency.
Columbus was not "black" or "white." He achieved and he also committed heinous acts of violence towards people--not unlike many of figures in the annals of the history of the Americas, or the world, for that matter.
Whether or not he deserves a "holiday" or a "statue" relies on personal opinions and beliefs. There is nothing written in stone that we have to celebrate this man. And it's obvious that the teachings in school and other celebratory items leave out many of the facts, which leaves the public to make uninformed decisions. On the other hand, there are plenty of other men who are celebrated and who did deeds that were just as dirty--if not more so--than Columbus.
The opinion is up to you. The facts are not...