"Discovery" of America - Correct use of word? (Putin, racism)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There was, in my opinion, a very good article about this issue. It's entitled "Who Discovered America?" I imagine most people won't read it, but it clearly states how I (and others) feel about this issue. If you'd like to debate the merits/evils of Columbus, that's a new thread. He simply wasn't the first European here. We can probably all agree that his arrival heralded enormous change, but he wasn't first.
I read the article in its (short) entirety and I thank you for the link. The unstated premise of the article was that the word discover has to mean discover for the first time ever and I do not agree with that premise. In other words, the Vikings were Europeans, hence Columbus did not discover the new world for the Europeans, as the Vikings had already done so (says the article). Well, it is my contention that since knowledge of the Viking discovery was not known in the rest of Europe, then as far as general European consciousness was concerned, the discovery of the New World was made by Columbus, and its consequences were momentous, not trivial. This is what I have always understood Colombus' discovery to mean, and nothing I have read on this thread has caused me to change my mind.
To the OP: It's the conceit in which the word discover is used as written in American history books. It portrays the Indigenous and our many different governments, laws, towns, and culture as insignificant to Columbus stumbling upon an inhabited continent.
I wish you guys could read your posts on Native Americans through my eyes. Some of you speak as if we are only relics of history. We're still here. Yes, all of the 564 tribes left in America had a history on this continent, but we still exist in the current world. Most of the tribes have maintained their language and culture to chagrin of those who attempted to annihilate us through genocidal actions. We are 564 sovereign nations within a nation.
That's fine from a western European standpoint. I am not a western European. I am an American. As such, I know better than to perpetuate the myth that Columbus was the first European to see the New World or interact with the inhabitants therein. When I was in elementary school in the 1980's, the textbooks still taught that Columbus was the first to set eyes on the New World, despite scientific & archeological discoveries during the 1960's. That's incorrect. It's a myth. When people insist that "Columbus discovered America", I give them the facts. Columbus was likely the first to discover riches in the New World, the first "modern human" to conquer the peoples of the New World, but he wasn't the first European to see it or to attempt to colonize it. My goal has never been to change your mind, simply to offer up an alternative view.
On a side note, as other posters had stated or alluded to, the word "discover" tends to have a positive connotation. You have argued several times that you don't necessarily agree with that so I'm not directing this negatively at you. The effects of Columbus' arrival were tremendous and wonderful to Europe but devastating to the indigenous people. To give a positive spin on Columbus' arrival is like giving a positive spin to Hilter's accomplishments or Osama's without qualifying the statements.
Someone posted essentially that the victors write the history books. This is true. I do not (and others do not) laud the all works of all victors. Columbus falls into this category for me. I can give him props for the positives but will not inflate them to include things he did not accomplish, and I fully recognize the negatives. There's a strong insensitivity that many people have toward the history of American Indians. In my opinion, perpetuating the Columbus discovery myth contributes to the insensitivity. Clearly, others disagree, which is fine. I'm keenly aware of this.
I have answered, to the best of my abilities, my reasons for accepting the term "discover" in regards to the original peopling of the continents and to the first Europeans. I have also stated as clearly as I know how my view of the "Columbus discovery". Perhaps others will share theirs.
To the OP: It's the conceit in which the word discover is used as written in American history books. It portrays the Indigenous and our many different governments, laws, towns, and culture as insignificant to Columbus stumbling upon an inhabited continent.
I wish you guys could read your posts on Native Americans through my eyes. Some of you speak as if we are only relics of history. We're still here. Yes, all of the 564 tribes left in America had a history on this continent, but we still exist in the current world. Most of the tribes have maintained their language and culture to chagrin of those who attempted to annihilate us through genocidal actions. We are 564 sovereign nations within a nation.
Thank you, Ecovlke. I'm so glad you shared your point of view. There is a documentary called "The Canary Effect", which was mind blowing to me. It was the first time I began to understand the conquering of the Americas through indigenous eyes. I have subsequently read up on the subject, much to my horror. I will never again view Columbus or the discovery of America the same.
Why all the "outrage" about the conquest of the Americas and the indigenous people? Isn't this the natural order of evolution among competing animal species. The weak are destroyed and the strong prosper.
The Native Americans were not strong enough to repel the invaders. Such is life at every level.
I'm guessing that the outrage is not about the conquest per se, it's the fact that the deed was and is celebrated as though it were something to be proud of. It's that fact of creating a historical icon out of someone who was simply a privateer, the word discover and the speculation as to it's correctness in this case was simply one part of the OP's comment, some have decided to address the outrage aspect of the post. I really don't think the protest over Columbus is really centered on this one word anyway, it is simply one of the many challenges to the entire historical account. I guess the thread title could have been along the lines of, why are some people miffed about the historical account of Columbus?
The people who discovered America were the Asians (and mammals/animals) who came through Alaska.
The European Vikings arrived to Greenland and mix with the native Americans.
The Vikings did not reach the American continent, and if they did, probably were a very few numbers (or were killed by the natives) and could not go back to Europe to spread the news of the new discovery.
Native Americans are quite homogenous and have no trace of Viking (Scandinavian) blood.
Modern Greenlanders are a mixture of Native Americans and Scandinavians (Green/blue/brown eyed multiracials) and native Americans do not look like Greenlanders.
Colon is the only European who succesfully returned to Europe to spread the news of the new world.
The people who discovered America were the Asians (and mammals/animals). . . .
True!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edu983
The Vikings did not reach the American continent, and if they did, probably were a very few numbers (or were killed by the natives) and could not go back to Europe to spread the news of the new discovery.
This is not true. In the 1960's scientists discovered archeological evidence of the Vikings in Newfoundland (wiki article - Colonization of the Americas). It is also false that the Vikings died with their knowledge of the New World. The first written mention of Vinland (probably Newfoundland, as opposed to Labrador) is in roughly 1075. In the 13th & 14th centuries the Icelandic Sagas were written. It's hardly the Viking's fault or problem that no one believed them until the 1830's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edu983
Colon is the only European who succesfully returned to Europe to spread the news of the new world.
Again, see above.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 07-10-2010 at 08:02 AM..
Reason: Edited out reference to deleted post
That's fine from a western European standpoint. I am not a western European. I am an American. As such, I know better than to perpetuate the myth that Columbus was the first European to see the New World or interact with the inhabitants therein. When I was in elementary school in the 1980's, the textbooks still taught that Columbus was the first to set eyes on the New World, despite scientific & archeological discoveries during the 1960's. That's incorrect. It's a myth. When people insist that "Columbus discovered America", I give them the facts. Columbus was likely the first to discover riches in the New World, the first "modern human" to conquer the peoples of the New World, but he wasn't the first European to see it or to attempt to colonize it. My goal has never been to change your mind, simply to offer up an alternative view.
I have agreed right along that the Vikings were the first Europeans to set eyes on the New World, and I knew this before you posted it. You are twisting my position, which is not the same as your elementary textbooks in the 1980's. How can I make it any clearer?: While Columbus was admittedly NOT the first European to arrive here, he was, for the generalized European consciousness (not for the Vikings), the discoverer because he was the first one to their knowledge. Please re-read my last sentence. It is not "incorrect", and it is the consistent position I have held since I wrote the OP. What is so incredible after all these exchanges is that our ONLY disagreement is not about any facts, but about whether it is correct to apply the word "discovery" to those facts.
And just for the record, in case it is not clear to anyone, I do not, and have never, put a positive spin on Columbus or on the horrendous results of his arrival in the New World.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 07-10-2010 at 08:03 AM..
Reason: Fixed quote code for clarity
To the OP: It's the conceit in which the word discover is used as written in American history books. It portrays the Indigenous and our many different governments, laws, towns, and culture as insignificant to Columbus stumbling upon an inhabited continent.
I wish you guys could read your posts on Native Americans through my eyes. Some of you speak as if we are only relics of history. We're still here. Yes, all of the 564 tribes left in America had a history on this continent, but we still exist in the current world. Most of the tribes have maintained their language and culture to chagrin of those who attempted to annihilate us through genocidal actions. We are 564 sovereign nations within a nation.
In my personal view, there is absolutely no connotation that the native peoples and their cultures were somehow "insignificant". This may have been the overall impression given by history books, especially if you go back more than 20 years, and I join you in deploring that impression. My OP was not a post "on Native Americans". Rather, it was about the correct, or incorrect, formulation of words to describe the arrival of Colombus in the New World. I don't know a single person who is "chagrined" at the continued survival of your peoples together with their cultures. On the contrary, that survival is a welcome proof that the attempted genocide was less than totally successful. Let's not mis-use certain buzz words (like discovery) to make these long connective leaps.
In my personal view, there is absolutely no connotation that the native peoples and their cultures were somehow "insignificant". This may have been the overall impression given by history books, especially if you go back more than 20 years, and I join you in deploring that impression. My OP was not a post "on Native Americans". Rather, it was about the correct, or incorrect, formulation of words to describe the arrival of Colombus in the New World. I don't know a single person who is "chagrined" at the continued survival of your peoples together with their cultures. On the contrary, that survival is a welcome proof that the attempted genocide was less than totally successful. Let's not mis-use certain buzz words (like discovery) to make these long connective leaps.
I understand your OP was not on Native Americans, but I think anyone would grasp why any discussion of Columbus and his 'discovery' of N. America would be incomplete without some inclusion of the original Americans. I answered your question from the only eyes I have: those of a life that has lived as an American Indian.
My intent was to say that Americans from the past had the desire to annihilate us NDNs, not people of current day. The American government's policies changed throughout our American history, but it went fluctuated from attempted genocide, to attempted cultural genocide to complete assimilation. It went well into the 1950's and I can discuss further, but it takes us too far off topic. I think most people are quite happy and proud to have the many different tribal cultures as a part of America. Just wanted to clarify that point.
Personally, I don't get too hung up on Christopher Columbus and his so called discovery of this continent. For me, he's insignificant because my tribal elders pass down our history.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
