we remember his daring feat, not necessarily because it was the first visit by a european to the new world but because i
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Christopher Columbus: The Discovery
anticaria — 14 years ago(November 20, 2011 01:10 PM)
we remember his daring feat, not necessarily because it was the first visit by a european to the new world but because it was the first of its kind with regards to its well-known stated goals of finding a direct route to the indies and 'permanently' settling and evangelizing new lands.. NO ONE had previously attempted such a bold feat, let alone done so by cutting straight through the mid-atlantic as columbus' original expedition did..
most importantly, there was the issue of the monumentally cataclysmic cultural exchange columbus' voyage set in motion, the 'columbian exchange,' a swapping of cultural, intellectual, technological, artistic and dietary commodities across the globe which constituted the greatest and most pervasive cross-pollination of ideas humanity has ever seen, and one which essentially catapulted the human race from the middle ages into the modern age..
this is why we celebrate columbus today: for his role as a modern visionary in helping to transform the known world.. and those who conveniently choose to ignore such a monumental legacy simply because the man was not a 'perfectly pc' individual are simply doing themselves and history a great disservice.. i.e., we cannot judge historical figures by modern moral standards but rather by the standards and CONTEXT of their own age and we also cannot expect every one of history's great pioneers to have been 'perfect' in every way, for NONE were.. men are primarily a product of their times, a fact which does not diminish in the least their ultimate worth and significance as historically relevant figures nor their dramatic feats or role in shaping modern history..
yet, suddenly, the merry band of happily misinformed and judgemental anti-columbus nazis pretend to tarnish this man's modern image and reputation, by merely casting him as some kind of 'criminally racist, genocidal demon'.. a mere repeat of the same, old, tired and antiquated 'black legend' of yore..
legendary propaganda campaigns like the 'black legend,' merely aimed at tarnishing spain's role in the age of discovery should be things of the past for, this many years after the actual events and with the full benefit of research as well as hindsight, we should not allow ourselves to revert to the mere propaganda-mongering ways of centuries ago.. have we progressed not an inch since then? are our minds still so narrow that we are suddenly and completely unable to appreciate the monumental role that columbus and spain played in settling, evangelizing and bringing culture, technology and the arts to distant lands?
let us celebrate the man for what he was and for the supernaturally awe-inspiring feats he was able to accomplish, not for what he allegedly was not.. the same goes for the imperial power that sponsored him.. no empire has ever been perfect.. yet spain's stated evangelical goals made its crusade of discovery and colonization an infinitely more humane effort than would have been the case had a non-clerical, non-religion-based enterprise pioneered the vast discoveries spain's sponsorship of columbus pioneered.. case in point, let us simply look at the nearly extinct numbers of 'native americans' vis a vis individuals of european ancestry in north america versus the large numbers of native americans who still remain south of the border in central and south america and ask ourselves:- if the spaniards were supposed to be so degenerately racist and genocidally evil, how come so many millions of people of native heritage remain to this day in the former spanish colonies of the new world or asia compared to the united states, canada, australia, etc.?
- if the spaniards were supposedly only interested in raping and pillaging, how come the former spanish colonies in the americas and around the world still constitute the greatest and most complex and cosmopolitan grouping of monumental and artistically-important cities, universities, cathedrals and fortifications in the colonial world?
- if the spaniards were supposedly only interested in obliterating native cultures, how come such a voluminous number of native american archeological sites, monuments and artifacts remain in the former spanish colonies (especially in mexico and per) and in museum collections around the world?
- if the spaniards were supposedly only interested in obliterating native cultures, how come so much of what we now know about native american cultures stems from the early work of spanish missionaries in translating original mesoamerican and south american treatises from their native nahuatl and quechua into spanish and latin?
- how come the father of modern american ethnography was the XVI-century spaniard bernardino de sahagn?
- how come the father of 'universal' human rights was the XVI-century spaniard bartolom de las casas?
- how come the earliest and most significant colonial cities and foundations in north america, both north and south of the border, including the monumental colonial cities of mexico an
-
lemystere — 13 years ago(February 23, 2013 05:17 PM)
Those points are all Eurocentric. How can someone "discover" a land when there were already people there? And colonialization only benefits the colonizers. I don't think the Native Americans are all that grateful to Christopher and his "discovery," seeing as how there aren't many of them left. SMH
-
LesterFester — 11 years ago(October 14, 2014 01:44 PM)
by lemystere Sat Feb 23 2013
Those points are all Eurocentric. How can someone "discover" a land when there were already people there?
The one thing you fail to do is define what a "discovery" is and why the Columbus expedition does not succeed in fulfilling the definition. You have chosen the easy way out by making a blanket statement and coming to the conclusion that all who disagree are wrong.
So the first thing we must do is define the key word Discover or Discovery A very simplistic definition is To be the first, or the first of one's group or kind, to find, learn of, or observe. This is simplistic because it fails to state the other elements of a discovery. Yes it is true that in order to be classified as a discovery it must be new. But there are two other elements which also must be present. In addition to being "new" it must be communicated to others and the discovery must in some fashion be replicated.
Given the definition we can now proceed to list those things which can be classified as discoveries.
Medical Antibiotics, Drugs (Viagra) have a discovery at its base.
Inventions which came to being during the industrial revolution all have a discovery at its base.
Cotton gin, auto, trains, planes
And last but not least "Land" Yes new land can be classified as a discovery as long as it adheres to the definition set forth. Does it matter that there were people already living there? NO
Prior to 1492 European knowledge of the Western Hemisphere was "0". What Columbus did was to shine a light on the unknown and bring the knowledge back to Europe.
Why does it matter not that there were people there already? Because they themselves had no knowledge beyond there king's or chief's domain. They might as well have been living on an island not knowing of anything beyond the surf.
The communication of the discovery back to Europe spread like wildfire and the voyage was replicated over and over.
Could the Indians have discovered Europe and communicate such a find back to North and South America? No They did not have the writing skills required the navigational skills required or even the political development required. From the first migration down from the Northwest during the ice-age (were there ancestors Europeans - food for thought) till 1492 there advancement (political, economic, philosophical) was negligible and would have remained so had Columbus not arrived.
So yes Columbus did DISCOVER America
Note: I am part Native American
Nothing's too good for the man who shot Liberty Valance