Was Christopher Columbus an Imperialist?

People have argued this point for centuries, ever since he first step foot in the Caribbean Sea and It's come down to two arguments. On one side, Kirkpatrick Sale argued that he was an Imperialist and then on the other side, we have Robert Royal arguing his contrasting point. Let me just point out that from my point of view, Columbus was not an imperialist because it wasn't his goal when he set off to take over land, as he was just trying to reach India to start a trade route from the other direction.

Sale begins his argument by called Columbus by his full name and rank, which at that time was "Admiral Cristobal Colon." Sale then goes on to point out that Columbus encountered 6 islands when he reached land, and when he reached each island, he proceeded to take possession of them in the name of his homeland. By the end of his time on the islands, he had given names to 62 more islands and enslaved the native population. According to Sale, Columbus knew the islands original names and still proceeded to name them what he wanted. On October 15, Columbus went as far as to say "it was my wish to bypass no island without taking possession", and a month later, also said "In all regions, I always left a cross standing."

Next, Sale goes on to point out that Columbus had to be imperialist if he really thought that he was in Asia, because he disregarded the fact that Genghis Khan could overrun him at any time if he was in Asia. Columbus trivialized the natives of the land by convincing himself that they were a simple people because they didn't wear clothes and most of them painted themselves different colors. As Sale wrote, "Colon immediately presumed the inferiority of the natives, not merely because they were naked, but because they seemed to be so technologically backwards." Columbus was proven right of his assumption when he introduced the natives to weapons as he said, "They bear no arms, nor are they acquainted with them, for I showed them sword and they grasped them by the blade and cut themselves through ignorance." They had no possessions of any kind and lacked a coherent language, thus as Columbus had previously assumed, they were inferior and could easily be enslaved by Columbus and his men. Although, they lacked clothing, they had a highly advanced agricultural system amongst other things. Columbus single-handedly took over the Caribbean islands in the name of his homeland, enslaved the people, and did what he wanted in the area.

On the other side of argument, we have Robert Royal claiming that Columbus was not an imperialistic person and in fact, liked the native people. Royal starts off by blasting the historians who think that just because Columbus thought the natives were an easy to subdue race or because he was mad that he did not in fact find Asia, he had to be a greedy imperialist. Las Casas is Royals best defense against Columbus being an imperialistic type of person, as he claims that although Columbus's brother Bartolome was a good leader, he still lacked the sweetness and benignity of Christopher. Las Casas also claimed the while Columbus was a well intentioned person; he unwittingly laid down the stepping stones for a largely imperialistic regime in Spain.

After the Santa Maria went aground on Christmas of 1492, Columbus encountered people that were so friendly and so hospitable that Columbus thought the new relationship must "be part of a divine plan in light of the friendship that sprung up between the two peoples." Royal then brings up the three major charges that people have accused Columbus of being which supposedly label him as an imperialist which are; 1. He kidnapped natives and used them as interpreters, 2, He punished and enslaved natives who acted out, and the last one was a gold taxing system which was nearly impossible for the Indians to follow through on.

The charges are all true, but Royal brings some other factors along with the charges that might make Columbus seem like a better man. For one, while he did kidnap some Indians, he set one free as soon as he came back to Hispaniola. As for the second charge, Columbus was split between whether or not to take Indian as slaves and eventually, he ordered that they may only be taken as slaves during war time. And to tackle the last charge against Columbus, he actually believed they had enough gold to pay to the Spaniards.

After reading both these articles, I have come to the conclusion that Columbus was not an imperialist; he was just a power hungry evil man who didn't care about the value of human life as much as most.