Why Knights of "Columbus"?

[Tis_Bearself]

Because Columbus was Italian, and everyone wants to be Italian.

What am I missing here?

As an Irish person with serious Italian envy (to the chagrin of my mom), I got a chuckle out of this

 

[commenter]

Seriously - I don’t consider naming of religious groups the same as secular things.

Not wanting to start a dispute, just wondering if there was a reason.

It just would not have been my first choice, with the huge number of holy people we have to pick from that don’t have the mixed issues.

Again, keep in mind the purpose of the time: to remind people that Catholicism was not a novelty in America with supposedly foreign sounding immigrants, but that we had a presence in the Western Hemisphere even before any Protestantism. **They **had their Mayflower, well **we **had the Columbus expedition, the Mass was here before the Protestant Thanksgiving service. This is not the way Catholics or Protestants think nowadays. But then, yes.

I suspect any candidate you suggest would be labelled with “mixed issues” by anti Catholics - if not now, in the future. The way the media/academic establishment is going, the K of C would have to change their name every decade or so, as the current namesake gets labelled as unacceptable. In the future, any organization named after Christ Himself will get trashed as racist, anti women, homophobic, anti-Semitic, war mongering, etc, etc.

It all depends on who gets to label the “mixed issues”.

 

[amsjj]

When I was growing up, I thought he was Spanish. I was surprised to find out he wasn’t!

 

[MPat]

Of all the great people and saints out there to name something after, why did they pick Christopher Columbus?

He may have had some good, but he was also quite brutal, violent, and would be considered a criminal today.

Looking for a real answer, not just stirring the pot. It just makes no sense.

They themselves write (kofc.org/en/todays-knights/history/1882-1899.html): “As a symbol that allegiance to their country did not conflict with allegiance to their faith, the organization’s members took as their patron Christopher Columbus — recognized as a Catholic and celebrated as the discoverer of America.”.

That is, they were looking for someone who was 1) famous, 2) clearly a Catholic, 3) somehow connected with America, 4) respected by American nationalists. Sanctity was not required.

 

[Peter_J]

Trust me, they do not oppress anyone, but rather help people all over the world who are in need–physically as well as spiritually.

Exactly.

So why name them after someone who was just the opposite?

 

[patrick457]

Columbus the man was a product of his times. In some ways very good, as in navigation or his overall assessment of the shape of the planet.

Fun fact: almost every educated people and/or sailors in the Middle Ages actually understood and accepted the Earth was round. The whole idea of medieval people in general believing the Earth was flat - and that Columbus proved the Earth was round contrary to everyone’s expectations - was just a lie perpetrated by people during the Enlightenment (so-called) who wanted to portray the Middle Ages as the ‘Dark Ages’, when everyone was dumb and brainwashed by the corrupt Church.

What Columbus was trying to do was to beat everyone else trying to go to Asia, where all the spices and the good stuff were (remember, this was when the various kingdoms of Europe competed with each other for that), by finding a shortcut and getting there first. With much of the Middle East and central Asia under Muslim and Mongol control, going to the East Indies by land was dangerous, and the other alternative - sailing around Africa - took too long.

That’s why Columbus dubbed the indigenous peoples of the Americas indios, ‘Indians’ - he thought he had arrived in India.

 

[patrick457]

Exactly.

So why name them after someone who was just the opposite?

The Wikipedia article on Columbus says this:

Historically, the English had downplayed Columbus and emphasized the role of the Venetian John Cabot as a pioneer explorer, but for the emerging United States, Cabot made for a poor national hero. Veneration of Columbus in America dates back to colonial times. The name Columbia for “America” first appeared in a 1738 weekly publication of the debates of the British Parliament.[110] The use of Columbus as a founding figure of New World nations and the use of the word “Columbia”, or simply the name “Columbus”, spread rapidly after the American Revolution. Columbus’s name was given to the federal capital of the United States (District of Columbia), the capital cities of two U.S. states (Ohio and South Carolina), and the Columbia River. Outside the United States the name was used in 1819 for the Gran Colombia, a precursor of the modern Republic of Colombia. Numerous cities, towns, counties, streets, and plazas (called Plaza Colón or Plaza de Colón throughout Latin America and Spain) have been named after him. A candidate for sainthood in the Catholic Church in 1866, celebration of Columbus’s legacy perhaps reached a zenith in 1892 with the 400th anniversary of his first arrival in the Americas. Monuments to Columbus like the Columbian Exposition in Chicago and Columbus Circle in New York City were erected throughout the United States and Latin America extolling him.

And the article on KoC says:

The name of Columbus was also partially intended as a mild rebuke to Anglo-Saxon Protestant leaders, who upheld the explorer (a Catholic Genovese Italian working for Catholic Spain) as an American hero, yet simultaneously sought to marginalize recent Catholic immigrants. In taking Columbus as their patron, they were expressing their belief that not only could Catholics be full members of American society, but were instrumental in its foundation.[19] McGivney had originally conceived of the name “Sons of Columbus”, but James T. Mullen, who would become the first Supreme Knight, successfully suggested that “Knights of Columbus” would better capture the ritualistic nature of the new organization.[20]

Of course, at the time, Columbus was still the hero who ‘discovered’ America. It’s only later that historians reassessed Columbus as a tyrannical colonizer.

 

[patrick457]

As pointed out, he was a product of his time, but I must have missed the evidence that he was either brutal or violent. Where I live, every November the pressure is building to cast the Pilgrims as brutal violent racists also (anti-Catholic I grant). and to discourage traditional Thanksgiving observances insofar as they reference Plymouth and the Pilgrims. Same school of agenda-driven revisionist history.

There’s this gem here: a contemporary report sent to King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain collecting the testimonies of 23 people - both supporters and enemies of Columbus - who had seen or heard about the treatment meted out by Columbus and his two brothers during his seven-year rule in Hispaniola.

 

[Della]

The Catholic Encyclopedia’s article about Columbus is here: newadvent.org/cathen/04140a.htm. The CE is filled with solid, unbiased, unflinchingly accurate information in all its biographies.

 

[Brassring]

A better question would be “How much bad can a person do and still be remembered for the good?”

St. Paul was a Christian persecuting Jewish Zealot, after all. We know he played some part in the martyrdom of St. Stephen. He’s still a saint and apostle.

Christopher Columbus did (or, I believe more accurately, failed to prevent) a lot of very regrettable things. The fact of the matter remains that he argued for and led the voyage that led to lasting European contact with the Americas. He changed history in a grand and irrevocable way. That is a great accomplishment. The subjugation and depopulation of native peoples was horrible, but not unique. The same things happened to the Celts and native Britons during the Roman invasion, and again during the Saxon invasion. It happened countless times before that. Civilizations clash, and sometimes one society disappears.

The difference in the Americas is that we’ve actually taken steps to preserve some semblance of native cultures. We were late to that game, but it happened. The only reason we’re even having this argument is because enough native culture remains for us to sympathize with.

Mistakes were made. But, we learned from them. Human society has evolved on this issue. We no longer find the subjugation and eradication of entire cultures acceptable. A lot of the credit for that evolution belongs indirectly to Christopher Columbus.

 

[JanetF]

The 2 names - “Columbus” and “Knights” - which could be considered controversial as well - reflect a certain moment in history. In the late 1800s every Christian group was trying to link themselves back in time. Catholics were getting labelled as newcomers to the US, with no roots here, like Real American Protestants. Naming something after Columbus shows Catholicism was in the Western Hemisphere early. But it also shows a unity with all North and South America, we are all, in a way, grand nephews and nieces of Columbus.

Columbus the man was a product of his times. In some ways very good, as in navigation or his overall assessment of the shape of the planet. In some ways very bad, not only against Native Americans but sometimes against Europeans who accompanied him. (He was about to execute some disobedient European sailors until he was stopped). He was a dreamer, someone who persisted and persisted and persisted. He died poor, apparently was trying to follow the ideals of Francis of Assisi in his later years.

I bet there were many American men in the late 1800s who would have trouble relating to an organization named after a European saint, and back then almost all the saints were European. There were very few well known American Catholics they could have named the organization after, and almost no laity. (Columbus wasn’t American, but had American connotations).

The K of C includes deeply religious men, but also attracts average men, including myself. There are loads of movements that attract only those who are already religious, but the K of C tries to bring the **average **man closer to God.

Columbus had bad points, by 2017 standards. He also had virtues - he was a dreamer, he was incredibly persistent, he took incredible risks - that are almost unheard of today.
People who live today in comfort and security, who never needed to take any real risk, who have the globe already safely mapped out for them, and 100 advantages Columbus did not have, will condemn Columbus - and to some extent rightly so.

He would not be someone you should name a religious order after. He might, plausibly, be an appropriate namesake for a movement aimed at the **average **man, judging him by the standards of his time, now ours; though even in 2017 dreamers, persistent men, and risk takers, are also in very short supply.

Very well said!!!

 

[JimG]

It seems to me that our 21st century western culture has become in some ways one of the most judgmental and intolerant cultures in history, judging thousands of years of human history and peoples by our own parochial standards. How will our own culture be judged by those 200 years in the future?

 

[commenter]

It seems to me that our 21st century western culture has become in some ways one of the most judgmental and intolerant cultures in history, judging thousands of years of human history and peoples by our own parochial standards. How will our own culture be judged by those 200 years in the future?

The problem is that everybody thinks the current assessment (or what the media/academic industry says) is the complete, final assessment. They assume prior assessments of anyone and anything were inferior, culturally biased, and now obsolete. They never imagine that the current assessment of Columbus, the biblical interpretations, the Crusades, John Kennedy, WW2, and so on will be thrown out as worthless some day.

Every bible study I ever heard of described earlier assessments of scripture as culture bound, biased, based on incomplete info, etc, - but now, we have the final, the full story, we are objective, unlike earlier provisional studies. They never admit that the current assessment will be on the trash heap someday, that cultural bias was operative in right now. Same with assessment of Columbus.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Although I guess we can argue “we should hold Catholic groups to a higher standard than the government”, if we want to be consistent, then shouldn’t the District of Columbia be renamed? The “Washington” part of “Washington D.C.” is problematic too since it’s named after a slave-holder. Not to mention the very liberal state of Washington. Or colleges named after him.

It seems the idea was to name the KOC after a historical figure that can be argued as the “first Catholic in the New World” and I am fairly sure that at the time Columbus was seen as a hero who made a world changing discovery.

I don’t support essentially editing history by changing names, removing statues, etc. Way too Orwellian for me. I think we can accept that “Historical figure X accomplished Y and deserves to be honored for that” without accepting everything they did.

On the other hand since I don’t accept the “horizontal” moral relativism of liberals, that we can’t judge actions of people in the present, I can’t bring myself to accept the “vertical” moral relativism of conservatives, that we can’t judge actions of people in the past but accept “that’s just the way it was back then” as an automatic absolution for everything sinful that happened in the past, either. Note that this would certainly include the persecution of Catholics for much of US History.

 

[joeybaggz]

The Kof C was founded by Fr. McGiveny in the very early 19th century (about 1820 I think). The understanding of Columbus and his discovery of the New World was quite different back then. To the Italian immigrants to America, this was a blessing and revelation. Columbus was, as one poster has already said, more universal than say, the Knights of Thomas More.

Shalom

Mea Culpa. Founded 1882. I was thinking of something else when originally posted.

 

[willymonfrete]

I don’t know why my comment was removed for denouncing spain’s crimes against native peoples.the point stands that if we were honoruing khaleed ibnu walid or some ottoman sultan or barbary pirate european catholics would expect us to denounce it.the fact is columbus was a european terrorist.he was responsible for the Genocide of the Taino people that welcomed him.he killed babies and slaughtered innocent people.

europeans love him because he spearheaded their genocide and forced conversion of millions of native people.Today these same so called christian europeans support people like Trump and european colonialism by trying to keep the mexican natives out.

I think many white catholics are proud of the spaniards/portuguese and their enslavement and forced jesuit conversions of native peoples.they like the bastard mongrel mixing we today called '‘latinos’'a native people without identity,but they would expect us ethnic catholics to denounce the muslims taking over spain or eastern europe and doing the same thing.

Yahweh is not on the side of europe,and especially since europe has left the faith.your crimes will be recompensed.I do not support the islamic takeover of europe but from a native or african perspective I can’t but help to think its schadenfreude.

 

[willymonfrete]

I don’t know why my comment was removed for denouncing spain’s crimes against native peoples.the point stands that if we were honoruing khaleed ibnu walid or some ottoman sultan or barbary pirate european catholics would expect us to denounce it.the fact is columbus was a european terrorist.he was responsible for the Genocide of the Taino people that welcomed him.he killed babies and slaughtered innocent people.

europeans love him because he spearheaded their genocide and forced conversion of millions of native people.Today these same so called christian europeans support people like Trump and european colonialism by trying to keep the mexican natives out.

I think many white catholics are proud of the spaniards/portuguese and their enslavement and forced jesuit conversions of native peoples.they like the bastard mongrel mixing we today called '‘latinos’'a native people without identity,but they would expect us ethnic catholics to denounce the muslims taking over spain or eastern europe and doing the same thing.

Yahweh is not on the side of europe,and especially since europe has left the faith.your crimes will be recompensed.I do not support the islamic takeover of europe but from a native or african perspective I can’t but help to think its schadenfreude.

EDIT:WHY DO THE MODS KEEP DELETING THIS COMMENT,ARE YOU COMPLICIT WITH GENOCIDE?WHY MUST YOU CENSOR THE TRUTH?

 

[willymonfrete]

WHY do the mods keep deleting any exposure of columbus’s and iberian crimes against millions of native peoples?is this a white nationalist website?

what is the difference between the muslim rape and genocide of spaniards and estern europeans in turkish times.and the spaniard’s rape and genocide of the Taino people?

is concubinage,sex slavery and slavery allowed in catholicism?why is the medieval spaniard empire considered catholic?because they forcibely converted millions of native people who call themselves latinos now?what is the fruit of that history?most latinos today are irreligious and the ones that do believe are becoming pentecostals.how did that forced conversion work out in the end?

 

[tryphon]

The problem is that everybody thinks the current assessment (or what the media/academic industry says) is the complete, final assessment. They assume prior assessments of anyone and anything were inferior, culturally biased, and now obsolete. They never imagine that the current assessment of Columbus, the biblical interpretations, the Crusades, John Kennedy, WW2, and so on will be thrown out as worthless some day.

Every bible study I ever heard of described earlier assessments of scripture as culture bound, biased, based on incomplete info, etc, - but now, we have the final, the full story, we are objective, unlike earlier provisional studies. They never admit that the current assessment will be on the trash heap someday, that cultural bias was operative in right now. Same with assessment of Columbus.

This is an excellent post. If one only reads the books that Columbus himself wrote, one would see how deeply religious he was. He felt that he was serving God. Today’s assumptions and evaluation of his life are all too imbibed with modern-day politics and political correctness. Same applies to the Crusades: read the contemporary texts, not today’s PC books and you will see that there was a reason for the behavior of the Crusaders (with some obvious exceptions…).

 

[willymonfrete]

This is an excellent post. If one only reads the books that Columbus himself wrote, one would see how deeply religious he was. He felt that he was serving God. Today’s assumptions and evaluation of his life are all too imbibed with modern-day politics and political correctness. Same applies to the Crusades: read the contemporary texts, not today’s PC books and you will see that there was a reason for the behavior of the Crusaders (with some obvious exceptions…).

you are an apologist for white supremacism and european genocide against small children and the rape of millions of women.I don’t know how you think you’re a Christian supporting a demonic child killer who enslaved and killed the very people who welcomed him.

I’m betting you would think native christians would be on your side when the muslims complete their long jihad to take over europe,think again.