In the article, ”In Defense of Columbus, the author, Mary Ann Castronovo Fusco discusses the legacy of Christopher Columbus. She demits that it was a mixed one; on the one hand, he was a brilliant navigator who led a diverse group of sailors in dangerous waters in search of a new trade route to India. However he also encountered people different than the Europeans and in raciest manner, regarded them as inferiors. Fusco admits that Columbus did not discover America due to the obvious fact that there were people there before his voyages began. He was considered a Renaissance man, who applied new ideas in navigation in his quest for discovery. However, despite his intelligence and courage, Fusco states, “1”. Even if Columbus and his men did not personally slaughter the Indians or spread disease, he started the trend which allowed other Europeans from Spain and elsewhere to victimize the Indians and deny them social justice. It is interesting that Fusco is more of reporter than an analyst or historians, but she bases her article on interviews with historians such as William G. Connell at Seton Hall University and several Native American leaders. The article tries to justify the mass extermination of American Indians by stating that even if Columbus was a racist imperialist, he was a product of his time. Yet, that reason is faulty; it could be used to justify the institutions of slavery of blacks because, despite their obvious greed, the slaveholders wanted to civilize the black Africans. The same justification could be used for the in Inquisition, the Holocaust, and in recent times, the terrorism of the Talban and ISIS. It is true that Columbus himself did not implement slavery because he did not stay in America long enough. In fact, he never even tried to understand Indian customs, but just rejected them as being savage.