Columbus and Campany walk into a bar...

Robert Ford Campany wrote an article entitled "On the Very Idea of Religions (In the Modern West and in Early Medieval China)" in which he argues that religion as a construct is discursive and metaphorical, and understanding of what is called "religion" is highly contextualized. Through an analysis of metaphors used to describe religious practices from the modern Western and early medieval Chinese perspectives, Campany's work reveals the former to be overly reifying and the latter less concrete, perhaps more true to the way traditions exist in the world. Because of this Western desire to reify, there was a disconnect well into the 19th century about what traditions were considered religions (Campany, 287).

Columbus declared in his journal upon first meeting the native people: "I am of opinion that they would very readily become Christians, as they appear to have no religion [emphasis mine]" (Columbus, 11 October). However, this likely was not the case as Stevens-Arroyo discusses Pané's descriptions of Taíno "mythology and ritual [which] resembles patterns still found among some Amerindian peoples today" (Stevens-Arroyo, 625). Columbus' assertion of no native religion is consistent with the thinking of his time, and even into the 19th century, because there was not a native term for religion in early medieval china, many thought there not to be religion(Campany, 289).

My point in this mash up of citations, is not to prove that I have taken approaches (though I have, and you should too) but to say that when considering religions we must consider the source. Whether primary or secondary, each brings its own use of language and biases which in turn affects our understanding of the material. Citing J.Z. Smith, Campany reminds us that "'"Religion" is not a native term; it is a term created by scholars for their intellectual purpose'"(Campany, 289). As we study this thing we call "religion," whether the historical spread of Christian traditions via Christopher Columbus and other evangelizers, or the indigenous practices of those they met, it is critical to "religion" only exists insofar as humans practice it. One must beware the pitfalls of categorization, for all we really have in this study are the artifacts of said religions: buildings, texts, artworks, etc, and as Campany reminds us, religions themselves, reified as they might be in the Western mind, do not have inherent agency, rather their human actors do (Campany, 293). In closing, as we consider the writings of Columbus and his contemporaries, I would invite entertainment of the question: how do primary emic and etic perspectives on religion affect our understanding of the material? In more applied terms: How do the narratives in Columbus' journal change the way we understand the practices and situation of the Amerindians?