National Review
Columbus Without Apology
By Joseph Filocomo
October 12, 2026 6:30 AM
The war on Christopher Columbus is unfounded.
In recent decades, Christopher Columbus has become a target of a sustained cancellation campaign. Statues of the explorer have been toppled, vandalized, or removed from public spaces across the United States and Latin America. Cities and states have replaced Columbus Day with Indigenous Peoples’ Day, and school curricula increasingly present him as the primary villain of the Age of Discovery. While legitimate debate over historical interpretation is healthy, much of this modern “war on Columbus” rests on simplified or distorted claims. A clearer understanding of the man and his achievements requires examining the most common myths that now surround him.
Christopher Columbus remains one of history’s most polarizing figures. Over five centuries, popular accounts have alternately cast him as a heroic discoverer who proved the world was round or as a genocidal villain solely responsible for the destruction of Indigenous peoples. Both caricatures obscure a more complex historical reality. A clearer picture emerges when examining several persistent myths: that Columbus was an incompetent sailor blundering across the ocean; that the Norse reached North America before him in a way that diminishes his achievement; that he personally orchestrated the mass killing of Native populations; and that he viewed the Indigenous inhabitants with unrelieved hostility.
The record shows a skilled navigator whose voyages initiated lasting contact between hemispheres, an explorer who landed on the mainland of both North and South America, an unintended vector of catastrophic disease, and someone whose early writings expressed admiration for the peoples he encountered even as some of his subordinates committed abuses.
One enduring misconception portrays Columbus as a near-incompetent mariner — sometimes mocked as little better than a baboon lost at sea — who simply stumbled westward by luck. The opposite is closer to the truth. By the late 15th century, Columbus was an experienced Genoese seafarer with years of Atlantic and Mediterranean sailing behind him. His decisive innovation was recognizing and exploiting the consistent northeast trade winds that blow from the Canary Islands westward across the Atlantic. Rather than fighting the prevailing westerlies farther north, he first sailed south to the Canaries and only then turned west. This route, combined with careful dead-reckoning navigation using compass, charts, and estimates of speed and time, allowed his small fleet to cross the ocean in a controlled manner and, crucially, to return home by a more northerly track that took advantage of the westerlies.
He completed four transatlantic voyages, a remarkable record of seamanship in an age when long open-ocean passages remained hazardous. While his celestial observations were sometimes inaccurate, and his estimate of the Earth’s circumference was too small, these errors do not negate his practical skill as a pilot and commander who repeatedly found his way across uncharted waters and back again. Samuel Eliot Morison’s Pulitzer Prize-winning biography, Admiral of the Ocean Sea (1942), portrayed Columbus as a master mariner whose seamanship ranked the best of his generation.
A second widespread claim is that the Norse reached North America before Columbus. This may be true in a limited sense, but it requires important context. There is no evidence that the Norse landed on the mainland of North America. L’Anse aux Meadows, where the Norse made landfall, is on the island of Newfoundland. Columbus landed both on mainland North America (Central America is part of the North American continent) and mainland South America (present-day Venezuela). Furthermore, the Norse settlement was temporary and of no consequence to world history. It produced no sustained contact, no demographic transformation, and no enduring link between Europe and the Americas.
Columbus’s voyages, by contrast, initiated continuous interaction between the hemispheres and permanently altered the course of global history. Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, on The Joe Rogan Experience, states that Columbus’s arrival was the greatest achievement of the human species. Historian Charles C. Mann, in his book 1493, goes even further and states that some ecologists consider it the most transformational event since the death of the dinosaurs.
Perhaps the most charged misconception is the claim that Columbus personally and deliberately killed the Indigenous populations of the Caribbean. The demographic collapse that followed European contact was catastrophic: Within a few decades, the Taíno population of Hispaniola declined by an estimated 80 to 90 percent or more. Yet the primary agent of that mortality was not systematic massacre ordered by Columbus but Old World diseases — smallpox, influenza, measles, and others — to which Native peoples had no acquired immunity. These pathogens crossed the Atlantic as an unintended consequence of the movement of peoples, animals, and goods.
Pandemics are part of human history. For example, the Black Death of the Middle Ages originated in Asia and killed roughly half the population of Europe. In the other direction, syphilis originated in the New World and was carried to Europe, where it had a devastating effect. Columbus himself never committed or ordered violence or atrocities against natives, though his men and later administrators did. This undoubtedly compounded the death toll. Yet the scale and speed of population loss point overwhelmingly to epidemic disease rather than deliberate extermination as the dominant cause. Modern historians generally reject the charge of intentional genocide against Columbus personally, while acknowledging that the colonial systems that followed his voyages were often brutal.
Columbus had a positive view of the Taíno, and quotes from his letters express this. He repeatedly described them as gentle, generous, and intelligent. He noted their lack of iron weapons, their willingness to trade, and their apparent openness to Christianity. “They are the best people in the world and beyond all the mildest,” he wrote, adding that they loved their neighbors as themselves and possessed “the softest and gentlest voices.” He saw them as potential converts and subjects who could be instructed in European ways. When he wrote that they would make good “servants,” he meant servants of God and the Christian faith, not chattel slaves. He even adopted a Taíno boy, whom he named Diego Colón (“Columbus” in Spanish), who became his interpreter.
The Spanish Crown was against slavery, and so was the pope. Royal policy emphasized the conversion and protection of natives as free subjects of the Crown, though exceptions were made for the warlike cannibals, the Carib. After Columbus’s death, Paul III’s 1537 papal bull Sublimus Deus would further affirm the rights and freedoms of natives as Christian subjects. Unfortunately, as the Spanish population increased, enforcement was weak. These positive assessments, however, coexisted with a hierarchical worldview typical of his time. Crimes were committed, contrary to policy, by gold-hungry and desperate men. They do not support the simple narrative that Columbus arrived with an unalloyed intent to destroy the peoples he met.
Taken together, these corrections do not turn Columbus into an unblemished hero. He was a product of late-medieval Europe, ambitious, devout, and capable of both insight and severity. But the true historical significance of 1492 lies less in individual virtue or villainy than in the irreversible connection of two previously separate worlds — a connection that brought both catastrophe and the foundations of the modern global order. Understanding Columbus accurately requires discarding the myths that have accumulated around him and confronting the more nuanced, and more human, figure who emerges from the evidence.
