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.
This is America. You have the freedom of putting statues and portraits of Christopher Columbus all around your property if you wish. You can even pool money with other people and buy an empty parcel of land and build a monument to Columbus tall enough to touch the heavens.
oh bull -- all of you over the age of 20 were taught Christopher Columbus discovered America, USA....1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue......was not written about discovering the Bahamas. He didn't get to VEnezuela until much later -- his third trip I think...the second was to Haiti.
Why not statues for the Vikings.....Bjarni Herjólfsson landed in the Americas in 985 or 986 and then Leif Erickson not long after. And they are finding historical proof Vikings were in the 'AMERICAS' years before Christopher Columbus landed in the Bahamas (and I have never heard of the Bahamas called the Americas).
No -- the implication and the story has always been Christopher Columbus 'discovered' America. And the only America we know now is USA.
And Wikipedia can be edited by readers so some kind historian adjusted America to Americas....pffft.
Doesn't change the fuss over the historical statue of someone credited for years of 'discovering' the USA and having never set foot on it.
Despite the efforts to deny it, Columbus was certainly a significant historical figure, even if what he's significant for was unintentional. Much of what people think of is certainly untrue. He was not looking to discover new lands; he was searching for a route to the East Indies. He did not have to overcome superstitious people who believed the earth was flat; it was well known that the earth was round. He was not even right about what he was arguing. Columbus argued that sailing west to get to the East Indies would work because the earth was smaller than what was typically believed. He was wrong and everyone else was right. Columbus could never have made the voyage he intended to make given the ships he had available; he and his crew would have run out of food and water long before he reached the East Indies. He got lucky, sailed into the Caribbean and found land.
Despite all of this, he's still significant. His voyage was the start of European colonization and permanent settlement of the Western Hemisphere. That's why his voyages are more significant than those of the Viking explorers. It is undeniable that those explorers reached Canada, but those voyages did not lead to a permanent European presence in America. Columbus' voyages did. Would it have happened without Columbus? Probably, but that's beside the point. Columbus' voyages were the start of it all. The same could be said for most advances; they probably would have happened without the person who did it. The electric light bulb probably would have been invented even had Edison not existed. That doesn't stop us from recognizing Edison's significance, nor should it stop us from recognizing the significance of Columbus. The world undeniably changed because of the European settlement of the Western hemisphere, and Columbus' voyages were the start of it.
The difference is that earlier voyages to the Western hemisphere did not result in permanent colonization by the society making the voyage. Either people simply migrated to America without maintaining ties with their home societies or the settlements died out or returned home. Columbus' voyages led directly to the first permanent settlement and colonization of the Americas by an old world society. The entire course of world history changed as a result, and that's why we regard Columbus' voyages as significant.
Despite the efforts to deny it, Columbus was certainly a significant historical figure, even if what he's significant for was unintentional. Much of what people think of is certainly untrue. He was not looking to discover new lands; he was searching for a route to the East Indies. He did not have to overcome superstitious people who believed the earth was flat; it was well known that the earth was round. He was not even right about what he was arguing. Columbus argued that sailing west to get to the East Indies would work because the earth was smaller than what was typically believed. He was wrong and everyone else was right. Columbus could never have made the voyage he intended to make given the ships he had available; he and his crew would have run out of food and water long before he reached the East Indies. He got lucky, sailed into the Caribbean and found land.
Despite all of this, he's still significant. His voyage was the start of European colonization and permanent settlement of the Western Hemisphere. That's why his voyages are more significant than those of the Viking explorers. It is undeniable that those explorers reached Canada, but those voyages did not lead to a permanent European presence in America. Columbus' voyages did. Would it have happened without Columbus? Probably, but that's beside the point. Columbus' voyages were the start of it all. The same could be said for most advances; they probably would have happened without the person who did it. The electric light bulb probably would have been invented even had Edison not existed. That doesn't stop us from recognizing Edison's significance, nor should it stop us from recognizing the significance of Columbus. The world undeniably changed because of the European settlement of the Western hemisphere, and Columbus' voyages were the start of it.
In 1992 (coinciding w/Columbus' first voyage quincentenary), Claudia Bushman released a book chronicling Columbus' reputation with Americans. How he was rarely acknowledged the first few hundred years, how he became a popular hero thru the 1800s, and how he had become an object of cultural-Marxist' scorn by the 1990s.
Bushman's book is basically an objective overview of Columbus' waxing & waning reputation. But I thought her best commentary came in her closing line: What we think of Columbus reflects what we think of ourselves.
I find Americans who hate Columbus, or solely see his voyages as evil acts.. generally have a dim (often self-hating) view of the West and it's historical expansion. Conversely, ppl who admire Columbus have a generally positive view of the Western world, man, etc. It's purely subjective; the debate over Columbus is about deeper self images.
That is a very odd finding.
I find that folks that appreciate and have a positive view of their life & the Western world, man, etc. -- tend to be people with a positive outlook -- and they may or may not think highly of Columbus.
But I'll wait for the findings from your statistical analysis on this -- lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biker53
There are not any historical figures that can pass muster with today's far left social justice correctness. None. Are we to live in a society that honors nobody?
I agree with Babe_Ruth and Biker53 and disagree with moneill. Since the dawn of man people or even their immediate predecessors have had wanderlust. See Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors by Nicholas J. Wade. Those peregrinations had real consequences and birthed real accomplishments. The tragic part is that primitive cultures almost invariably yielded to more advanced ones. In the case of European migration to the Americas and Australia, smallpox and other diseases aided the decimation. See 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus by Charles C. Mann. People move. As a result people either fail in their movements, i.e. the Vikings into "Vinland", now more often called Newfoundland, where they were killed by the "Skraelings" (or maybe that was in Greenland) or the migrants succeed, supplanting the local people, i.e.: (1) Europeans over Native Americans; or (2) Europeans over Aborigines in Australia. The explorers showed great bravery and initiative. People with those characteristics succeed remarkably often.
To me this is the funniest bit of irony in that Columbus never set foot on American soil. Did not 'discover' the USA -- he was in Bahamas, Haiti, Venezuela, etc. but never touched foot in the Americas. But now we have a bunch of Americans fighting to keep a statue which represents one of the biggest lies in USA history.....
It's hilarious. And people are worried about statues coming down erasing history.
Maybe they should study some history first......and then talk about it....lol.
Despite all of this, he's still significant. His voyage was the start of European colonization and permanent settlement of the Western Hemisphere. That's why his voyages are more significant than those of the Viking explorers. It is undeniable that those explorers reached Canada, but those voyages did not lead to a permanent European presence in America. Columbus' voyages did.
No question about it. I couldn't rep you again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stremba
Would it have happened without Columbus? Probably, but that's beside the point. Columbus' voyages were the start of it all. The same could be said for most advances; they probably would have happened without the person who did it. The electric light bulb probably would have been invented even had Edison not existed. That doesn't stop us from recognizing Edison's significance, nor should it stop us from recognizing the significance of Columbus. The world undeniably changed because of the European settlement of the Western hemisphere, and Columbus' voyages were the start of it.
Even so, whoever had those accomplishments, whether Columbus, Edison or reasonable facsimiles thereof were critical people, who we rightfully celebrate. The people who oppose them historically are not progressives; they are reactionaries using progressive rhetoric.
Ummm, Columbus was born in Genoa. He was EMPLOYED by the Spanish monarchs, Isabella and Ferdinand. He was most definitely Italian, not Iberian.
I don't have time to argue with people who want Columbus to be Genoan but just a little tidbit he married a Portuguese woman Noble ancestry at a time when Portugal was at it's height(I've heard some try to explain this away but they are ignorant of the society at the time). If you want to believe that the son of a Genoan weaver would have been an acceptable husband keep on believing, it just wouldn't happen in those days. How does the son of a Genoan weaver also gain access to Royal families on the Iberian peninsula? He wouldn't.
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.
