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.
I think when most people say they "discovered" a new restaurant, they do not mean it in the official sense of the word.
For historians to conclude that Columbus "discovered" anything in an official capacity is absurd on 2 levels: (1) Humans already lived there, had settlements, etc. and (2) Columbus believed he "discovered" Asia, not the West Indies.
Columbus never discovered anything, and you didn't "discover" that cool sushi place on 35th street.
I don't see the absurdity on either level. Euopeans didn't know about the existence of North and South America. What does humans already living here have to do with it? Yes, it is well known that Columbus was confused about where he was. But he was the first person known to the literate world to sail west and reach something; even if the Vikings had done it, no one knew about it. The only absurdity here is your semantic hair-splitting. It is also well known that Leibnitz and Newton independently (without the other's knowledge) discovered differential calculus at approximately the same time. Should we also quibble about which one was really first in order to discredit the work of the other? Or should we quibble about whether they developped it or discovered it, which would revolve around the issue of whether the mathematical ordering of reality is pre-existing?
Columbus' voyages of discovery are of enormous significance for world history, as they led to tremendous changes for both the discoverers (Europeans) and the discovered (native inhabitants of North and South America, which includes the Carribean Islands). Some of these changes were cruelly negative, of course. These voyages were a giant steptowards creating a true world-view for human kindfor the first time ever. By world-view I mean the knowledge and awareness of the landmasses and the inhabitants thereof of the entire earth. Of course it was a long process before that view was reasonably complete; after all the Lewis and Clark expedition was to come about 300 years later, and some remote tribes in New Guinea had their first contact with outsiders more than a hundred years after Lewis and Clark explored the Louisiana Purchase.
I don't see the absurdity on either level. Euopeans didn't know about the existence of North and South America. What does humans already living here have to do with it?
Actually, this is untrue. There is ample evidence to support the vikings landing on Newfoundland prior to Columbus. Vikings are technically from today's "Europe".
There is also some evidence that African/Phoenician tribes paddled to South America, and that even Japanese or Chinese explorers traveled the Pacific and visited Peru, Chile, etc.
Quote:
Yes, it is well known that Columbus was confused about where he was. But he was the first person known to the literate world
Your assertions are choc-full of bias. What does "literate" mean? Reading English? This is the problem with Euro-centric educations; it creates ignorant westerners like you, who believe something is only real if non-slanted, white eyes view it.
Quote:
even if the Vikings had done it, no one knew about it. The only absurdity here is your semantic hair-splitting.
No, it's absurd to visit a restaurant and then claim you "discovered" it. You only "discovered" it for yourself. That is not objective "discovery."
Quote:
It is also well known that Leibnitz and Newton independently (without the other's knowledge) discovered differential calculus at approximately the same time. Should we also quibble about which one was really first in order to discredit the work of the other? Or should we quibble about whether they developped it or discovered it, which would revolve around the issue of whether the mathematical ordering of reality is pre-existing?
I have no idea what this has to do with the conversation at all.
Quote:
Columbus' voyages of discovery are of enormous significance for world history,
Okay, so he went on a "voyage of discovery". I'll sort of agree to that, and I'll agree his voyages were very signficant, sure. But that's not the debate.
Quote:
as they led to tremendous changes for both the discoverers (Europeans) and the discovered (native inhabitants of North and South America, which includes the Carribean Islands).
Again, "discovered" is used here very subjectively. By virtue of your contorted version of the definiton of "discovery", I "discovered" the NYC subway when I visited in 2005. That may be fine for casual discussion, and everyday vernacular, but it is not proper to say in an official capacity. And yes, Columbus arriving somewhere that had a population of 10 million people applies to this analogy perfectly.
Quote:
Some of these changes were cruelly negative, of course. These voyages were a giant steptowards creating a true world-view for human kindfor the first time ever.
I don't know what this means, but it sounds vaguely like a nebulous Glenn Beck-ism--as if Columbus should be glorified for his landing in the West Indies, and his subsuquent slaughter and enslaving of its inhabitants. It sounds like you're making a qualitative judgment about Columbus's voyage. In truth, his voyage brought intense, horrific pain to a great many people. But I also won't judge it negatively. History isn't about good or bad, it's about what happened. And Columbus only "discovered" something from the point of view of himself, and his own culture. And he was grossly inaccurate in describing what he "discovered."
Quote:
By world-view I mean the knowledge and awareness of the landmasses and the inhabitants thereof of the entire earth.
Sure, I'll agree that it enhanced/altered the world view of those involved with the voyage. That has nothing to do with "discovery". If you agree that discovery is a rote-subjective term, then we can end this quibble.
Quote:
Of course it was a long process before that view was reasonably complete; after all the Lewis and Clark expedition was to come about 300 years later, and some remote tribes in New Guinea had their first contact with outsiders more than a hundred years after Lewis and Clark explored the Louisiana Purchase.
Okay. Did they discover us? Or did we discover them?
Actually, this is untrue. There is ample evidence to support the vikings landing on Newfoundland prior to Columbus. Vikings are technically from today's "Europe".
There is also some evidence that African/Phoenician tribes paddled to South America, and that even Japanese or Chinese explorers traveled the Pacific and visited Peru, Chile, etc.
I mentioned the Vikings in my post. My point is that there was no general knowledge of the Vikings landings in Newfoundland. It was Columbus and his landings which came to be generally known.
Your assertions are choc-full of bias. What does "literate" mean? Reading English? This is the problem with Euro-centric educations; it creates ignorant westerners like you, who believe something is only real if non-slanted, white eyes view it.
No, being literate has nothing to do with reading English, or any other specific language . It means being able to read and write in general, in any language. The discoveries of Columbus are important historically in part because they are documented in writing. Why have you felt it necessary to descend into name-calling ("ignorant"). I am most definitely not ignorant. Your paragraph contains wild flights of fancy; I do not in fact believe the things which you impute to me. Ad hominen attacks do nothing to butress your case - quite the opposite.
No, it's absurd to visit a restaurant and then claim you "discovered" it. You only "discovered" it for yourself. That is not objective "discovery."
I have no idea what this has to do with the conversation at all.
It was a further exploration of the ways in which the word "discovery" is used, using a specific example.
Okay, so he went on a "voyage of discovery". I'll sort of agree to that, and I'll agree his voyages were very signficant, sure. But that's not the debate.
Again, "discovered" is used here very subjectively. By virtue of your contorted version of the definiton of "discovery", I "discovered" the NYC subway when I visited in 2005. That may be fine for casual discussion, and everyday vernacular, but it is not proper to say in an official capacity. And yes, Columbus arriving somewhere that had a population of 10 million people applies to this analogy perfectly.
I don't know what this means, but it sounds vaguely like a nebulous Glenn Beck-ism--as if Columbus should be glorified for his landing in the West Indies, and his subsuquent slaughter and enslaving of its inhabitants. It sounds like you're making a qualitative judgment about Columbus's voyage. In truth, his voyage brought intense, horrific pain to a great many people. But I also won't judge it negatively. History isn't about good or bad, it's about what happened. And Columbus only "discovered" something from the point of view of himself, and his own culture. And he was grossly inaccurate in describing what he "discovered."
I am indeed making a qualitative judgment about Columbus's voyage but only as to its importance. If you can be troubled to go back and re-read my post, you will note that I mentioned the negative consequences to the indigenous peoples. "Glorified" is another of your flights of fancy - it's not something I said.
Sure, I'll agree that it enhanced/altered the world view of those involved with the voyage. That has nothing to do with "discovery". If you agree that discovery is a rote-subjective term, then we can end this quibble.
As for the question just below, which relates to remote tribes in New Guinea, the answer would depend on who was moving into whose area. It might have been a mutual discovery - I don't know any of the specifics involved.
Okay. Did they discover us? Or did we discover them?
What I find interesting about this discussion, in addition to its particulars, is the overall feeling tone. On your part, the tone seems to be one of hostility, an emotional tone as opposed to a rational tone. "Ignorant westerners like you" is an example. Being western has no bearing on the matter; there are ignorant people everywhere, as well as scholarly ones. I much prefer to stick to the substance of the discussion.
Ignore it when someone says Columbus "discovered" civilizations that already knew they, themselves, existed?
Actually that Columbus discovered the inhabitants of the New World rather than the New World itself might be more PC. Afterall, the Indians knew the New World was there but no one else knew the Indians were there. But then the Indians didn't know the Old World was there either, did they? Had they gotten in ships and ventured forth they could've discovered the Old World. But for various reasons they didn't.
Not necessarily. There is evidence that Asians and Africans visited the new world prior to Europeans, but didn't turn it into a visit of conquest.
Also, the natives in the New World all migrated from Asia. And let's face it, the oppressors of the natives were almost exclusively European.
There's little evidence of Asians and Africans reaching the New World and they were as ignorant of it as the Europeans when the Age of Discovery began. Note that chilis were introduced into Asian cooking not long after the Spanish conquest of Mexico.
I will agree though it's good thing Maoris didn't invade Peru, and you think the Spaniards were hard cases.
Actually that Columbus discovered the inhabitants of the New World rather than the New World itself might be more PC. Afterall, the Indians knew the New World was there but no one else knew the Indians were there. But then the Indians didn't know the Old World was there either, did they? Had they gotten in ships and ventured forth they could've discovered the Old World. But for various reasons they didn't.
If they had, we wouldn't say they "discovered" Europe, would we?
There's little evidence of Asians and Africans reaching the New World and they were as ignorant of it as the Europeans when the Age of Discovery began. Note that chilis were introduced into Asian cooking not long after the Spanish conquest of Mexico.
I will agree though it's good thing Maoris didn't invade Peru, and you think the Spaniards were hard cases.
There's actually a great deal of evidence. Artwork that's dated to well before the Columbian era in Mexico and South America depicts faces resembling inhabitants of Africa. In fact, the artwork is so prevalent and widespread, there's a strong belief that Africans came to the new world and settled there for centuries before Columbus. There is also evidence that natives told Columbus himself that people (most likely Africans" visited in boats from the Southeast: Columbus' own journal says this.
Given the proximity of west Africa to South America, it makes more sense that the Africans would be the first to make contact with the New World.
Artwork that's dated to well before the Columbian era in Mexico and South America depicts faces resembling inhabitants of Africa. .
Or if you are Erich von Daniken, they depict ancient astronauts.
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.
