It might be safe to write that every American ever born knows the name Christopher Columbus. When I used to teach American History to college students, the combination of Columbus and 1492 was one of two things I assumed every student knew about history. (The other? The name of the current president. Which, come to think of it, is only sort of history, anyway.)
However, every American ever born is wrong.
No famous navigator named Christopher Columbus ever lived. The person we call by that name lived, of course. But he was an Italian, from Genoa. So, why don’t Americans refer to him by his real name, Christoforo Colombo? Or, given that he made his voyages to the Americas under the Spanish flag, at least call him Cristóbal Colón?
Likewise, with fellow Italian John Cabot. He was, recall, the first English mariner to visit North America that we know of, arriving in 1497. (It’s debatable whether fishermen from Bristol had fished the waters off the coast of North America earlier in the 15th century.) Except, as you’ve guessed already, he wasn’t English, and his name wasn’t John Cabot. Hailing from (we think) Genoa, just like Colombo, his name was Giovanni Caboto. At least in Caboto’s case he was sailing for England, so one might make a case for Anglicizing his name.
Please Click Here to Subscribe to My History Blog!
Why Not Call Him Colombo?
I’ve always been curious why Americans feel the need to Anglicize Colombo’s name and not others. After all, we don’t refer to the French explorer Jacques Cartier by any other name. The Spanish explorer Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca isn’t known as Alvar Head of the Cow. So, why Colombo?
Well, I don’t know that I have the answer, or even if one truly exists, but this bothers me a bit, nonetheless. I think it holds some importance. Not in the sense of trying to keep a scorecard of the achievements of any particular nationality or ethnic group in American history. But why not be accurate?
Changing someone’s name is, after all, an act of power. The names we use for tribes of Native Americans in the US are nearly all names given to native people by Europeans, some of them quite unflattering. The Gros Ventres come to mind. The name is French for “big bellies.” I’ve never read that the Gros Ventres were especially fat historically, yet Europeans and Americans demeaned them with a derogatory name.
This is, I realize, probably water under the bridge. It’s unlikely Americans will make the change I’ve suggested, simple as it is. But I feel like they should. Both for accuracy and for common decency.
So, I’m curious what my readers think on this question. Important, or not? Please comment with your constructive thoughts.
Please Subscribe!
If you enjoyed this blog, please sign up to follow it by scrolling down or clicking here, and recommending it to your friends. I’d love to have you aboard! You can also follow me on Facebook by clicking here.
Hi Rob–This is actually quite fascinating. The Anglicization of names has historically been a method of assimilation and integration of one people group into another. French individuals moving to London the early modern period, for instance, often changed their names to more English sounding versions (John Calvin, for example, was Jean Calvin). Immigrants to the United States also frequently changed either the spelling or pronunciation of their names to facilitate ease of communication and/or to fit in with their new community. My own last name was changed by my Swedish family so that the pronunciation would be easier for English speaking people. I still have students from minority groups who either select a more American/English sounding name they are called in classes or spell their name differently in class (Robert, rather than Roberto, for instance). I usually try to use their birth name out of respect for their culture, but sometimes students are resistant to their original name’s use. I do think it is important to know the “real” names of individuals, but also believe that it is common for people to accept changes to their names (or be forced to accept changes) so that they can fit into a dominant people group. I think this is an important question, because names matter and language tells a story. The use of Christopher Columbus rather than his Italian or Spanish name may only be common among English speakers. Do you know how he is referred to in Spain? Or Italy? Nevertheless, the way that we were taught to refer to this problematic colonizer seems to reflect a specific Anglo-centric narrative of colonization.
Hi Jennifer – If I could read Spanish or Italian, I might be able to answer your last question. 🙂
But I agree that the whole idea of changing names to fit in can be a type of cultural appropriation. If people want to do it, okay. But if they do it because they fear some kind of blowback for not doing so, that is problematic. With CC I think there is a different kind of appropriation at work. I’m not sure it’s quite like racism (making CC seem more English or white) but with CC the appropriation came long after the fact and he had no say in the matter. It leads me to think this was an intentional act on someone’s part, but I’ve never learned who or why.
This is a great point, especially nowadays. Why should his name be changed? We need to recognize, and even celebrate, his personal roots. We didn’t change Ponce’ de Leon, why did CC’s name change? It’s never too late to right a wrong! Thanks for pointing this out, Rob.
Thanks for your thoughts, Sue. I agree that recognizing the diversity is important. Not in the sense of trying to rank the achievements of different groups, but just to acknowledge their existence and that we’re remembering them correctly.