Columbus’ movie adds to illegitimate ‘hero’ narrative
Karlyle Stephens
Mesa Legend
In honor of Columbus Day this month, I discovered a movie that I, nor anyone I know has ever seen or heard before. It’s called 1492: Conquest of Paradise. It’s all about Christopher Columbus’ voyage to the Americas. Come to find out, the movie was released in October of 1992- which was then the 500th anniversary of Columbus arrival to the island now known as the Bahamas. It’s the first time I’ve ever seen a motion picture adaptation of this controversial moment in American history. And the “Columbus as hero” propaganda was 10 times more potent than the one you typically receive early on through public school education. So I found myself for the first time having deep emotional support and admiration for Christopher. For his determination, courage, and fearlessness to do what at that time was the most daring thing a man could do. Travel across an unknown sea navigated only by faith, a bright orange disk in the distance and the shining night time stars.
You get to see him be the leader of three ships boarded with many, if not most its passengers carrying along a great deal of doubt in the captain’s vision. Which causes some conflict. But then you witness the arduous journey payoff and celebrate with Columbus and the crew as they reach the island he immediately feels entitled to name San Salvador. Before it went any further, already too deep into the trap, I begin to sympathize with the men for what I knew and expected them to do next. We’re taught that Columbus may be responsible for the atrocious deaths of mass numbers of indigenous people, but that it was only a necessary price to pay in progressing the new world. And what I’m saying here is there’s something about seeing the visual depiction of the voyage that made me subscribe to that notion like I never could before. But then I quickly woke up from Hollywood’s sentimental spell when the movie took a different route that intended to further mollify Columbus’ role in the destruction his arrival brought.
There’s a brief stand off when the visitors and the Native people meet for the first time. But then a chief Indian breaks out into laughter and what was almost war turned in to one big love fest. Columbus writes back to Spain telling of the friendly people and of how it felt as though he was experiencing something comparable to the Garden of Eden. He returns to Spain shortly after and introduces the royal family to some Indians he brought along that appear as his friends who couldn’t wait to gift the majesty with gold. This is where we have Howard Zinn to thank for providing a alternative narrative as he does in his infamous book “A People’s History of the United States.” From it we know Columbus did recognize the Indians great friendship and innocence, but saw it as a weakness and preyed upon it. He aggressively inquired about their gold and brought Indian people on board as slaves on that first return back to Spain.
But not in the movie.
It gets really funny when Columbus returns to the new world and finds his men brutality murdered by Indians at camp Navidad where he left them. So here it is made to look as though the Indian “savages” are the first ones to break the peace and commit murders. Therefore forcing Columbus in a position of self-defense and justifiable revenge. Cmon now. At that point I really knew I was watching some B.S. From then on this blonde hair Columbus (who in real life was supposedly Italian) is at war with a black haired dark Spaniard who is painted as the villain; the real one responsible for raping and murdering the Native people. The film was apparently a total flop at the box office. But I still found it interesting how it was another pop cultural effort to perpetuate the dominant narrative of Columbus as a European hero who’s undeserving of any genocidal blame. The funniest, but maybe saddest part about all this is how it took almost 50 million bucks-the budget for the film-in order to mix up my emotions towards this savage sailor
