A historian, clear about what they say about Columbus and the diseases he brought to America after discovering it.

For centuries, a simplified and biased view of the discovery of America has been repeated ad nauseam. In this narrative, Christopher Columbus's arrival on the shores of the New World was an unprecedented tragedy: slavery, looting, extermination, cultural destruction, and the introduction of diseases that devastated a previously "pure" and healthy indigenous population. This image, however, has been fueled by an ideological current known as the Black Legend , which is not faithful to historical facts . Because, while it is true that there were consequences after the collision between the two worlds, many of the claims circulating today are more fabricated than scientifically rigor .

One of the most manipulated aspects is that of disease . According to popular belief, Columbus and his men brought viruses and bacteria with them that practically exterminated the indigenous people . However, this view, in addition to being erroneous, completely erases the historical and scientific context of the time. Historian Ana Velasco, in her weekly contribution to the program "Herrera en COPE," sought to bring order to this debate by debunking some of the big lies that still circulate about Christopher Columbus and the effects of his arrival on the American continent.

In the program, the expert noted: "Columbus, who was very intelligent, realized that pre-Columbian peoples already used techniques to protect themselves from the sun, such as covering their skin with clay or cocoa oil." These types of observations, she explained, not only reveal the Genoese navigator's keen sense of observation, but also show a deep respect for indigenous customs . Faced with the idea that the Spanish arrived scorning everything they saw, the truth is that many chroniclers of the time were surprised by the knowledge, customs, and ways of life of the native peoples.

"This was interpreted by the Spanish as a sign of cleanliness, not filth, as the Black Legend later sought to portray it," he confessed. In fact, many of the accounts written by the conquistadors and missionaries themselves show a fascination with the social organization, religious rituals, and hygiene customs of the indigenous people. However, it was in the 19th century, with the rise of Anglo-Saxon nationalism and ideological wars between empires, that this distorted narrative emerged, portraying the Spanish as dirty, barbaric, and carriers of disease.

Another of the great lies debunked by the historian is the one that accuses the Spanish of having traveled in absolutely unsanitary conditions . In this regard, she recalled that, on ships of the time, "strict hygiene standards were already maintained," especially on far-reaching expeditions like those led by Columbus.

The idea that Spanish ships were floating pigpens doesn't stand up to a rigorous analysis of the sources. In reality, captains knew that poor sanitary management on board could ruin the voyage . Scurvy, dysentery, and fever were real threats and were combated with whatever was at hand: vinegar, fruit when possible, and even improvised quarantines.

The historian was forceful in pointing out that this supposed moral and hygienic superiority of the indigenous people is a romantic fantasy projected by later European thought, particularly the French Enlightenment and Rousseau's ideal of the "noble savage." "The idea that the indigenous people were pure and the Europeans were filthy responds more to an ideological construction of the 19th century than to what actually happened," she declared. There is no real evidence that pre-Columbian societies lived free of disease . In fact, according to various studies, many of their own conditions, such as certain forms of syphilis, intestinal parasites, or local infections, were already widespread throughout the continent before 1492 .

For the expert, the problem lies in the political use that has been made of the figure of Columbus. "When we talk about Columbus, we must put aside the clichés. He neither brought new diseases, nor did he come from a dirty world. All of that is disproved by looking at the details," she noted, emphasizing that each generation has sought to see him as a hero, a villain, a colonizer, or a symbol, but that almost never has anyone sought to understand his role from the realistic perspective of his time. History, as historians reveal, cannot be judged by the moral categories of the present. And even less so by misinformation and myths .

Because while it's legitimate to debate the discovery , it's not legitimate to rewrite the facts to fit an ideological narrative . Columbus wasn't a bringer of death. He was, above all, the protagonist of an encounter between two worlds that inevitably generated conflict, but also represented an exchange, a fusion, and a transformation the world had never experienced before .