How is the question raised? The first issue of Historical Research 1977 published Comrade Yan's evaluation of Columbus. He held a completely negative attitude towards Columbus, calling him a "colonial pirate" and borrowing the words of bourgeois historians that he was a "madman" who could not think logically. In this way, Comrade Yan raised a serious question in the field of history: how to evaluate a historical figure like Columbus? Throughout the history of Chinese and foreign historians, the views on Columbus as a historical figure are actually very different. Some people added icing on the cake, while others totally denied him, denouncing him as a "Jiang Yang thief", "colonial robber" and "colonial pirate", and so on, which was extremely derogatory. Comrade Yan tends to the latter view. Can a historical figure like Columbus completely affirm or completely deny without analysis be regarded as a scientific evaluation of Marxism? In this regard, I think it is necessary to discuss it. It is obviously not a Marxist view to affirm everything about Columbus without analysis, to say that he is good everywhere, and even to say that his crazy slaughter of innocent Indians is a "good thing". On the contrary, it is not a scientific attitude to deny everything and scold it completely. Columbus is one of the typical representatives of historical figures in primitive accumulation of capital period.