How the myth of Christopher Columbus was invented

[Innula Zenovka]

Short and highly informative (to me) thread, summarising a fascinating article far better than could I.

I knew that Columbus didn't have much connection with America, and wasn't really the sort of man with whom you'd want to claim a connection unless you had to, but I didn't know how he had come to be such an icon:

 

[Free]

I was born in a Columbus.

Learning the myths and legends are just that, that the real man was only a semi-competent navigator or whatever, was not the first European to land in the Americas (another naming with a very iffy provenance), was cruel, and honestly believed he landed in the East Indies until his dying day shows the absurdity of history in general, that we all believe things about ourselves or our place or our culture that aren't true.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing. At least not altogether. The OP article states:

Columbus-mania swept the nation beginning with the war, because he became, with the help of Robertson’s history and the flood of epic poems and odes to him, a symbol for the go-it-alone, trailblazing spirit of the American people. Adopting “Columbia” as an informal name for the budding nation implied that, like Columbus, the colonies were shedding the yoke of the Old World. Historical accuracy was irrelevant.

Americans wanted to create an identity separate and distinct from England. You might even say they in some ways needed it to help their new nation flourish. So they adopted a figure to aid in that, identifying him with qualities and aspects which brought out the ideals, ambitions and aspirations they held. Though yes, still held back by 18th century morals and principles.

Know the truth, but don't disregard the myths. They often hold importance, as well.

 

[Aribeth Zelin]

The story I heard was that Italian-Americans faced a lot of prejudice, so they pushed Columbus as an icon to make themselves more acceptable.

 

[Essence Lumin]

When I was young, I was taught about Columbus in grade school. I forgot all of that. The true story of Columbus which I remember was from Fraser & Debolt who sang me his story in Columbus Hits the Shoreline Rag.

Columbus made his living on a ship
Sailing on a deep dark sea
Working for the government looking for land
Sailing on a deep dark sea
He'd get so lonesome wandering around
He'd run to his cabin in tears
He'd say, "Lord, Lord, send me America,
I've got to get out of here."
"Lord, Lord, send me America,
I've got to get out of here."

For hours upon hours
He'd walk the deck
Sailing on the deep dark sea
Walking back and forth
with his glass in his hand
Looking at the deep dark sea
In the fog he was no good at all
His nerves were rather frayed
He'd say, "Lord, Lord, send me America"
That's how Columbus prayed.
"Lord, Lord, send me America"
That's how Columbus prayed.

Now to Columbus it was the USA
Sailing on the deep dark sea
To you or me it's something else
Sailing on the deep dark sea
In the long run Columbus hit the shoreline
And stuck in his flag
And the fiddler played a tune
At a quarter past noon
Called The Columbus Hits the Shoreline Rag

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

Adam to the rescue!

 

[Innula Zenovka]

The story I heard was that Italian-Americans faced a lot of prejudice, so they pushed Columbus as an icon to make themselves more acceptable.

Yes, I'd heard that, too, but now I come to think of it, the chronology doesn't fit -- who were the Italian-Americans responsible for the city in Ohio being called "Columbus," or Washington being in the District of Columbia?

 

[Soen Eber]

Francis Bellamy (the socialist minister better known for writing the Pledge of Allegiance)

Rather than fade, the mythologization of Columbus only intensified. Joel Barlow’s epic (and nearly unreadable) poem The Columbiad (1807), for example, was narrated by an angel.

The second key turning point in weaving Columbus into the fabric of American identity was the publication in 1828 of Washington Irving’s The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus. This stunningly inaccurate book...

As a Norwegian American, I am deeply grateful Leif Erikson was never chosen by these publicists.

And yet, there is a resonance with the modern era:

But the real Columbus—not the constructed myth—should resonate in contemporary America. Columbus set off to find Asia, landed in the Caribbean, and, until his death, insisted in the face of overwhelming evidence that it really was Asia. Rather than celebrate what he did achieve, admit that fortune had something to do with his success, or recognize the horrors he wrought, he unapologetically defended himself and blamed any suggestion of failure or incompetence on others. Americans of the 18th century rescued the then-obscure Columbus from the history of European imperial conquest for political reasons unique to that era.

He also ended up in prison.

(source: The Nation Magazine (subscription required).

 

[danielravennest]

Yes, I'd heard that, too, but now I come to think of it, the chronology doesn't fit -- who were the Italian-Americans responsible for the city in Ohio being called "Columbus," or Washington being in the District of Columbia?

Italians had nothing to do with naming the city. When the state was being formed, various places were arguing for them being the state capitol. They eventually compromised on a new city to be located in the center of the state. The existing settlement near that location was named "Franklinton" after Benjamin Franklin, but most people didn't like that name, so they chose Columbus instead. This was in 1812. At the time the new "State Capitol" was dense forest used for hunting. Most of the early residents who arrived afterwards were Irish and German.

Washington, D.C. the city completely fills the District of Columbia. The latter is named after the female personification of the United States, who in turn was named after the Genoese sailor. America is named after Amerigo Vespucci, an exporer and cartographer who popularized the "New World" as new continents, not as part of the East Indies off the coast of Asia. America eventually won out over Columbia as the name of the continents, although many features and places are named after the latter (British Columbia, the Columbia River, the nation of Colombia). The city of Washington, and the State of Washington are named after our first President, who has his own mythology.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

As a Norwegian American, I am deeply grateful Leif Erikson was never chosen by these publicists.

And yet, there is a resonance with the modern era:

He also ended up in prison.

(source: The Nation Magazine (subscription required).

Sorry, I didn't think to post a link to Evernote

The Invention of Christopher Columbus, American Hero | The Nation

Skip to content Facebook Twitter Instagram Donate James GlynnLog Out George Floyd Protests Coronavirus Climate Opp-Art Podcasts Politics World Culture Events Shop Current Issue Newsletters Subscribe S...

www.evernote.com

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I was born in a Columbus.

Learning the myths and legends are just that, that the real man was only a semi-competent navigator or whatever, was not the first European to land in the Americas (another naming with a very iffy provenance), was cruel, and honestly believed he landed in the East Indies until his dying day shows the absurdity of history in general, that we all believe things about ourselves or our place or our culture that aren't true.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing. At least not altogether. The OP article states:



Americans wanted to create an identity separate and distinct from England. You might even say they in some ways needed it to help their new nation flourish. So they adopted a figure to aid in that, identifying him with qualities and aspects which brought out the ideals, ambitions and aspirations they held. Though yes, still held back by 18th century morals and principles.

Know the truth, but don't disregard the myths. They often hold importance, as well.

The problem with seeing 1776 as a clean break from the past, though, is that it wasn't; when the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783, the newly-independent colonies had more or less lengthy histories, during which their social and economic structures had been created by English companies, and those structures remained in place and and determined so much of the new country's future development.

The men who signed the Declaration of Independence, and drafted the US Constitution were leading political and business figures in their respective colonies, and they owed their wealth and power to the way the colonies had been established and governed, and the way their respective economies had developed, before independence -- that's why they were leaders in their communities.

I hadn't really realised this until recently, but I've just finished reading White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America by Nancy Isenberg, and am currently jumping between End of the Myth by Greg Grandin, a history of the concept of the frontier in American History, and Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America by Ibrahim X. Kendi.

All three of them tell the same story from different perspectives, and all three of them start it with European colonial powers exploring West Africa, then the Americas, looking for gold and slaves, and then businessmen in London looking to develop colonies in North America for profit, using either slave labour or the English unemployed "idle poor" to bring the land under cultivation.

Looking at US history as part of a continuous narrative, beginning with the foundation of the different 12 colonies, and with the War of Independence as the second act in the drama, casts subsequent US history in a very different light from the way I'm used to seeing it (primarily mediated by American popular culture, I guess, and what I remember from school, where US history is taught primarily as how it impinges on British history).

 

[Veritable Quandry]

Yes, I'd heard that, too, but now I come to think of it, the chronology doesn't fit -- who were the Italian-Americans responsible for the city in Ohio being called "Columbus," or Washington being in the District of Columbia?

They are responsible for Columbus Day being a holiday in many states.

 

[Veritable Quandry]

The problem with seeing 1776 as a clean break from the past, though, is that it wasn't; when the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783, the newly-independent colonies had more or less lengthy histories, during which their social and economic structures had been created by English companies, and those structures remained in place and and determined so much of the new country's future development.

The men who signed the Declaration of Independence, and drafted the US Constitution were leading political and business figures in their respective colonies, and they owed their wealth and power to the way the colonies had been established and governed, and the way their respective economies had developed, before independence -- that's why they were leaders in their communities.

I hadn't really realised this until recently, but I've just finished reading White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America by Nancy Isenberg, and am currently jumping between End of the Myth by Greg Grandin, a history of the concept of the frontier in American History, and Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America by Ibrahim X. Kendi.

All three of them tell the same story from different perspectives, and all three of them start it with European colonial powers exploring West Africa, then the Americas, looking for gold and slaves, and then businessmen in London looking to develop colonies in North America for profit, using either slave labour or the English unemployed "idle poor" to bring the land under cultivation.

Looking at US history as part of a continuous narrative, beginning with the foundation of the different 12 colonies, and with the War of Independence as the second act in the drama, casts subsequent US history in a very different light from the way I'm used to seeing it (primarily mediated by American popular culture, I guess, and what I remember from school, where US history is taught primarily as how it impinges British on history).

Also makes a different light if you remember there were more than 12 colonies. There were 23 colonies as of 1775 (not counting Caribbean islands). Two southern colonies (the Floridas) and all of the northernmost colonies now part of Canada did not follow the Atlantic Coast colonies despite outreach from the Continental Congress. Part of Ohio was originally set aside for Canadians who joined the Revolution and lost their lands because of it.

 

[Veritable Quandry]

Italians had nothing to do with naming the city. When the state was being formed, various places were arguing for them being the state capitol. They eventually compromised on a new city to be located in the center of the state. The existing settlement near that location was named "Franklinton" after Benjamin Franklin, but most people didn't like that name, so they chose Columbus instead. This was in 1812. At the time the new "State Capitol" was dense forest used for hunting. Most of the early residents who arrived afterwards were Irish and German.

Washington, D.C. the city completely fills the District of Columbia. The latter is named after the female personification of the United States, who in turn was named after the Genoese sailor. America is named after Amerigo Vespucci, an exporer and cartographer who popularized the "New World" as new continents, not as part of the East Indies off the coast of Asia. America eventually won out over Columbia as the name of the continents, although many features and places are named after the latter (British Columbia, the Columbia River, the nation of Colombia). The city of Washington, and the State of Washington are named after our first President, who has his own mythology.

Columbus is the third capital city, after Chillicothe and Zanesville, both closer to the Ohio River where the first settlers came into the state. With the canal system taking shape and settlement on the Great Lakes underway (plus expelling the illegal British forts around Toledo after the War of 1812), they found a site on one of the canal routes (the Scioto River) and built a new town, incorporated in 1816. I live just a bit south of the original city limits.

Also worth noting that Canadians also used Columbia, and in the case of the Pacific Northwest, Canadians called it Columbia to contrast the Americans who called the territory Oregon (although the American ship that charted the Columbia River was named Columbia Rediviva, Vancouver noted the mouth of the river but the Americans were the first to sail up it). Hence the name British Columbia for the parts that went to Britain in the Oregon treaty. If you look at a map of the Cascades, anything named after a British figure (Mount Hood) was charted by Vancouver while the Americans named things after American politicians (Mount Adams).