What do you think?
Rate this book
1492 and All That
The 500th anniversary of Columbus's first voyage has launched a host of attempts to recast the history of the Americas. By reducing the past to a mere pawn in contemporary quarrels and using it to advance "politically correct" goals, many revisionists have profoundly distorted the historical record of Columbus and of the societies that sprung up in the wake of his exploration. For numerous groups the quincentenary is an occasion for rejection of Western culture and for repentance rather than celebration.
Robert Royal examines the available facts about Columbus and the Spaniards, their first New World contacts, Christian missionaries, North American Indian tribes, and early British and French settlements. His wide-ranging accounts of the complicated interaction between European individuals and institutions and their Native American counterparts suggest that little of the cultural mixing in the Americas can be characterized in strict black-and-white terms. Noting that anti-myths have largely replaced former idealizations of the great explorer, he warns that knowledge of other peoples in other ages requires effort and sympathetic understanding. The future depends on a truthful reading of the past unmuddied by facile romanticism of any stripe.
Robert Royal examines the available facts about Columbus and the Spaniards, their first New World contacts, Christian missionaries, North American Indian tribes, and early British and French settlements. His wide-ranging accounts of the complicated interaction between European individuals and institutions and their Native American counterparts suggest that little of the cultural mixing in the Americas can be characterized in strict black-and-white terms. Noting that anti-myths have largely replaced former idealizations of the great explorer, he warns that knowledge of other peoples in other ages requires effort and sympathetic understanding. The future depends on a truthful reading of the past unmuddied by facile romanticism of any stripe.
- GenresHistory
150 pages, Hardcover
First published August 27, 1992
64 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
June 27, 2020
When sharing my thoughts about 1492 and All That, it probably makes sense to get the obvious one out of the way first: this is unquestionably a top competitor for the worst-titled book of all time. Written to address the hullabaloo over the 500th anniversary of Christopher Columbus' discovery (always a contested term) of the Americas, the book offers a wide-ranging discussion of the myths and counter-myths regarding Columbus, his journeys, and the legacy of European contact with the New World. What a good title for this book would have been I can't say. But almost anything would have been better than the one that was chosen.
The book's subtitle is more revealing: "Political Manipulations of History." This really forms the crux of the author, Robert Royal's, approach to the question of Columbus. The book is not so much a defense of Columbus, or the more deleterious effects of his landing in the Americas, as it is a case study in how not to use history. Royal does, however, offer some exculpatory evidence for some of the more incendiary claims regarding Columbus' behavior and motivations. For instance, Columbus had friendly relations with some native tribes and instructed his men to treat them with kindness (though these instructions did not apply to all tribes, and were imperfectly followed at any rate). Nor was he simply motivated by a lust for gold. Indeed, Royal shows that Columbus' desire to reach India was motivated by his belief that this would enable the gospel to spread, and thus bring about the return of Christ. So, too, Columbus intended the gold he procured in the New World to be used primarily to fund religious institutions and excursions.
Royal does not ignore or condone the atrocities and consequences of Spanish influence in the Americas. He does, however, note that, as these relate to Columbus, they seem to have resulted from his failures of leadership rather than an intentional design to obliterate whole people groups. Royal believes that using the word "genocide" - which was casually thrown around in 1992, a behavior that continues today - to describe Spanish, and European more generally, behavior in the Americas is inaccurate, and indeed cheapens its meaning. He shows how debate sprung up within Spain regarding the treatment of native Americans, a debate which led to condemnation of the atrocities and the banning of certain practices such as forcing the natives into slavery. In this, the clergy played a key role in enunciating the common humanity between Europeans and Indians, and the rights due to all. Again, these concepts were not applied perfectly but they were developed sincerely - and Royal notes that the fact that they were developed at all is historically significant. Certainly there were ruthless Europeans who intentionally oppressed American natives, but there were also those who genuinely sought to live peacefully and reasonably with them.
Royal further casts doubt on the popular vision of pre-contact America as a place where people lived in harmony with each other, and with nature. Native cultures were often marked, rather, by mass human sacrifice, cannibalism, slavery, iner-tribal war, and imperialism. Expanding his scope a bit, Royal notes how some native tribes from South America to North America used up natural resources to such a degree that they were required to move their villages every few generations. Indian tribes, in many cases, could be every bit as patriarchal and culturally exclusive as European society is charged with being. None of this is intended to justify or explain away the atrocities against Indians, but rather shows that the stark contrast between the alleged peacefulness and equality of native cultures and the ruthlessness of the Europeans did not exist in reality and should thus not inform our analysis of the consequences of the contact of the cultures.
This gets to the heart of Royal's effort, for Columbus and his legacy (1492 and all that) are really just a case study for how history gets simplified, falsified, and utilized for modern political movements. In 1992, we find out, there were protests against remembering Columbus favorably, there were calls for the removal of his statues (which were erected a century before by Progressives), and there were denunciations of the legacy of Western Civilization. Writing from the standpoint of 2020, we can see how little things have changed - indeed, some of the same people and organizations that prominently decry our civilization today are featured in the same role in Royal's nearly 30-year-old book. All of this is vaguely comforting, as it reminds those of us who revere our tradition that the opposition it currently faces is nothing new, and even the arguments have been recycled.
The question of why history continues to be manipulated in this way, however, is not comforting. Modern Westerners - affluent, comfortable, bored, disconnected from each other, untethered from their past, devoid of faith in God or much of anything else - seem disaffected with their traditions and institutions, and cast about for something to attach their hatred of the present and their hopes for the future to. In this environment Western Civilization generally, and the United States in particular, become the prime villains in human history despite, as Royal says, that the actual historical record shows that "the United States - more than any other society in history - has at least been willing to grapple with the pursuit of justice for a wide variety of peoples."
In order to reach these conclusions, the evils of the West have to be juxtaposed against the glories of non-Western peoples, to create categories of good and evil on which to grind modern political axes. Ironically, this kind of history is unfair not only to the West, but to the very peoples who are alleged to have been the West's victims, who are now denied the dignity of being real (and thus flawed) human beings in order for moderns to develop self-serving narratives. According to Royal, this highly tendentious reading of history, by the very people who claim to respect native cultures, is "the final imperialism: redefining the historical facts to fit our own categories."
This redefinition might be useful for the modern project of flamboyantly castigating our society for its past failures, and thus denouncing our ancestors' sins while ignoring our own. But it is bad history. Indeed, it betrays the true purpose of history. As Edmund Burke wrote, "In history a great volume is unrolled for our instruction, drawing the materials of future wisdom from the past errors and infirmities of mankind." Believing that one people or society is more naturally good or evil is likely to obfuscate the lessons we should be learning. If we are interested in learning from history, as distinct from using it, we will understand it in its complexity, along with the institutions, traditions, and civilizational developments that have arisen to restrict evil. Burke believed that "Wise men will apply their remedies to vices, not to names; to the causes of evil which are permanent, not to the occasional organs by which they act, and the transitory modes in which they appear." But such wisdom originates in the knowledge that vices are the common lot of humanity, not the exclusive domain of certain groups.
Royal concludes, "There are no perfect societies in America's or any other region's past, and any attempt to realize such a fiction is a flight from both truth and from responsibility." The love of truth and responsibility is arguably in shorter supply today than when Royal penned these words. But the battle is not yet lost, and 1492 and All That, despite its terrible title, is a tremendous corrective to the modern fallacies of thought relating to historical fact and interpretation.
The book's subtitle is more revealing: "Political Manipulations of History." This really forms the crux of the author, Robert Royal's, approach to the question of Columbus. The book is not so much a defense of Columbus, or the more deleterious effects of his landing in the Americas, as it is a case study in how not to use history. Royal does, however, offer some exculpatory evidence for some of the more incendiary claims regarding Columbus' behavior and motivations. For instance, Columbus had friendly relations with some native tribes and instructed his men to treat them with kindness (though these instructions did not apply to all tribes, and were imperfectly followed at any rate). Nor was he simply motivated by a lust for gold. Indeed, Royal shows that Columbus' desire to reach India was motivated by his belief that this would enable the gospel to spread, and thus bring about the return of Christ. So, too, Columbus intended the gold he procured in the New World to be used primarily to fund religious institutions and excursions.
Royal does not ignore or condone the atrocities and consequences of Spanish influence in the Americas. He does, however, note that, as these relate to Columbus, they seem to have resulted from his failures of leadership rather than an intentional design to obliterate whole people groups. Royal believes that using the word "genocide" - which was casually thrown around in 1992, a behavior that continues today - to describe Spanish, and European more generally, behavior in the Americas is inaccurate, and indeed cheapens its meaning. He shows how debate sprung up within Spain regarding the treatment of native Americans, a debate which led to condemnation of the atrocities and the banning of certain practices such as forcing the natives into slavery. In this, the clergy played a key role in enunciating the common humanity between Europeans and Indians, and the rights due to all. Again, these concepts were not applied perfectly but they were developed sincerely - and Royal notes that the fact that they were developed at all is historically significant. Certainly there were ruthless Europeans who intentionally oppressed American natives, but there were also those who genuinely sought to live peacefully and reasonably with them.
Royal further casts doubt on the popular vision of pre-contact America as a place where people lived in harmony with each other, and with nature. Native cultures were often marked, rather, by mass human sacrifice, cannibalism, slavery, iner-tribal war, and imperialism. Expanding his scope a bit, Royal notes how some native tribes from South America to North America used up natural resources to such a degree that they were required to move their villages every few generations. Indian tribes, in many cases, could be every bit as patriarchal and culturally exclusive as European society is charged with being. None of this is intended to justify or explain away the atrocities against Indians, but rather shows that the stark contrast between the alleged peacefulness and equality of native cultures and the ruthlessness of the Europeans did not exist in reality and should thus not inform our analysis of the consequences of the contact of the cultures.
This gets to the heart of Royal's effort, for Columbus and his legacy (1492 and all that) are really just a case study for how history gets simplified, falsified, and utilized for modern political movements. In 1992, we find out, there were protests against remembering Columbus favorably, there were calls for the removal of his statues (which were erected a century before by Progressives), and there were denunciations of the legacy of Western Civilization. Writing from the standpoint of 2020, we can see how little things have changed - indeed, some of the same people and organizations that prominently decry our civilization today are featured in the same role in Royal's nearly 30-year-old book. All of this is vaguely comforting, as it reminds those of us who revere our tradition that the opposition it currently faces is nothing new, and even the arguments have been recycled.
The question of why history continues to be manipulated in this way, however, is not comforting. Modern Westerners - affluent, comfortable, bored, disconnected from each other, untethered from their past, devoid of faith in God or much of anything else - seem disaffected with their traditions and institutions, and cast about for something to attach their hatred of the present and their hopes for the future to. In this environment Western Civilization generally, and the United States in particular, become the prime villains in human history despite, as Royal says, that the actual historical record shows that "the United States - more than any other society in history - has at least been willing to grapple with the pursuit of justice for a wide variety of peoples."
In order to reach these conclusions, the evils of the West have to be juxtaposed against the glories of non-Western peoples, to create categories of good and evil on which to grind modern political axes. Ironically, this kind of history is unfair not only to the West, but to the very peoples who are alleged to have been the West's victims, who are now denied the dignity of being real (and thus flawed) human beings in order for moderns to develop self-serving narratives. According to Royal, this highly tendentious reading of history, by the very people who claim to respect native cultures, is "the final imperialism: redefining the historical facts to fit our own categories."
This redefinition might be useful for the modern project of flamboyantly castigating our society for its past failures, and thus denouncing our ancestors' sins while ignoring our own. But it is bad history. Indeed, it betrays the true purpose of history. As Edmund Burke wrote, "In history a great volume is unrolled for our instruction, drawing the materials of future wisdom from the past errors and infirmities of mankind." Believing that one people or society is more naturally good or evil is likely to obfuscate the lessons we should be learning. If we are interested in learning from history, as distinct from using it, we will understand it in its complexity, along with the institutions, traditions, and civilizational developments that have arisen to restrict evil. Burke believed that "Wise men will apply their remedies to vices, not to names; to the causes of evil which are permanent, not to the occasional organs by which they act, and the transitory modes in which they appear." But such wisdom originates in the knowledge that vices are the common lot of humanity, not the exclusive domain of certain groups.
Royal concludes, "There are no perfect societies in America's or any other region's past, and any attempt to realize such a fiction is a flight from both truth and from responsibility." The love of truth and responsibility is arguably in shorter supply today than when Royal penned these words. But the battle is not yet lost, and 1492 and All That, despite its terrible title, is a tremendous corrective to the modern fallacies of thought relating to historical fact and interpretation.
October 10, 2014
I read a lot of attacks of Christopher Columbus on social media especially when Columbus Day approaches. Biographical aspects of Columbus' life are often inaccurately portrayed in current textbooks, social media, media outlets, etc..., Columbus is frequently demeaned as a greedy, racist, malicious malefactor, and murderer of Native-Americans. This is not History, but “Fictory”. This false narrative in popular culture of Columbus predominantly comes from two sources, Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky. Native Americans are portrayed as a utopian society in harmony with nature. When in fact it was common for tribes to be at war with each other, own slaves, torture, offer human sacrifices, and consider women as inferior. Women were often sold in to slavery and abused.
This book provides a more balanced approach to the Columbus narrative, and his contact with Native American tribes.
This book provides a more balanced approach to the Columbus narrative, and his contact with Native American tribes.
December 20, 2023
Very evenhanded and well-reasoned. Lots of insights for anyone trying to think, write, or teach about history and historical judgments.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews