NationStates Jolt Archive

This programme makes the same errors as the lunacy that Columbus proponents have been making for half a millennia.

Just how, pray tell, does one claim to "discover" a land that is already inhabited?

The aboriginal peoples of the western hemisphere didn't come along AFTER the fact, you know.

They didn't need to be "discovered".

They knew full well where they were.

They have suffered beyond measure since their "discovery".

I would hardly call it something to celebrate or honor.

Sigh.

I'd rather celebrate the viking discovery of America, although I still respect Columbus's accomplishments for what they were.

For China it was discovered because they didn't know about it just like it was discovered for Europe by Columbus because they didn't know about it.

For the native population it wasn't discovered, but when we talk of discovery it's not in the context that no one knew about it but rather the country making the record didn't know about it.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the point of the semantic argument. There is a continued marginalization of the native population that is so ingrained it's hard to address fully.

But it's important not to get so carried away with the semantic argument that you lose the point of it to begin with. It actually ends up marginalizing the issue into semantics, sort of counter productive.

This programme makes the same errors as the lunacy that Columbus proponents have been making for half a millennia.

Just how, pray tell, does one claim to "discover" a land that is already inhabited?

The aboriginal peoples of the western hemisphere didn't come along AFTER the fact, you know.

They didn't need to be "discovered".

They knew full well where they were.

They have suffered beyond measure since their "discovery".

I would hardly call it something to celebrate or honor.

Sigh.

semantics. you see, the claim is that 1421 is when China discovered America. Not that America was first discovered. same that Columbus 'discovered' America. yes, he did. not that America was discovered first by Columbus.

I discovered a new store the other day. Granted that store was operating for years, but I didn't know about it till a coupld of days ago. so for me, it was a discovery.

same with all these claims.

I'd rather celebrate the viking discovery of America, although I still respect Columbus's accomplishments for what they were.

Demonstrating that the Earth was not pear-shaped, which everyone but him knew already?

This programme makes the same errors as the lunacy that Columbus proponents have been making for half a millennia.

Just how, pray tell, does one claim to "discover" a land that is already inhabited?

The aboriginal peoples of the western hemisphere didn't come along AFTER the fact, you know.

They didn't need to be "discovered".

They knew full well where they were.

They have suffered beyond measure since their "discovery".

I would hardly call it something to celebrate or honor.

Sigh.

The whining from the ash heap, is anything less relevant?

When did the indians fly to the moon or cure any epidmic diseases?

Is it indian atomic bombs which secure the peace of the world?

European civilization found itself able to take much better advantage of the new world than did the various indians.

It's like that, and that's the way it is.

If you think about it, Columbus was one of the biggest screw-ups in history. When he left, he didn't know where he was going; when he got there, he didn't know where he was; and when he got back, he didn't know where he'd been.

If you think about it, Columbus was one of the biggest screw-ups in history. When he left, he didn't know where he was going; when he got there, he didn't know where he was; and when he got back, he didn't know where he'd been.

Thats why we don't live on the North Columbian continent today...

Demonstrating that the Earth was not pear-shaped, which everyone but him knew already?

For making a great journey across the Atlantic and reaching a land no mainland European had reached before?

The whining from the ash heap, is anything less relevant?

When did the indians fly to the moon or cure any epidmic diseases?

Is it indian atomic bombs which secure the peace of the world?

European civilization found itself able to take much better advantage of the new world than did the various indians.

It's like that, and that's the way it is.

This rant was brought to you by the letters R, A, C, I, S, and T. The aboriginal peoples of the Americas didn't do these things because they were subjugated and were not permitted to devlop their society.

If you think about it, Columbus was one of the biggest screw-ups in history. When he left, he didn't know where he was going; when he got there, he didn't know where he was; and when he got back, he didn't know where he'd been.

If you think about it, a lot of our celebrated heroes can be far less than what we think of them, if you turn a historical eye on them, for example, Lincoln, the great emancipator, did soe for political reasons, and did not support equality either way, the number of 'heroes' who are more sham than anyhting else are extraordinary (Ford, the great American pioneer, and businessman, was rapibly anti-semitic, and a source of great inspiration for Adolf Hitler)... Ahh, heroes....

Not to mention the fact that what is known as the "Aboriginal" peoples, didn't even discover it... Homo Erectus were here before the Aboriginal's Homo Sapien ancestors arrived.

The whining from the ash heap, is anything less relevant?

Only pathetic attempts at ignorant sarcasm.




When did the indians fly to the moon or cure any epidmic diseases?


Who is to say that they would not have? In particular, their grasp of astronomy was far superior to anything the "Europeans" had even dreamed of. Their reward for posessing such insight and knowledge? Their people slaughtered and their books burned by religious zealots.


Is it indian atomic bombs which secure the peace of the world?


Nuclear weapons do NOT make the world a safer place. I will remind you of that when a religious lunatic manages to smuggle one into a major American or european city and incinerate a few million people.


European civilization found itself able to take much better advantage of the new world than did the various indians.

It's like that, and that's the way it is.

Again, who is to say that they wouldn't have done better? You can't exterminate a series of civilizations, destroy their civic and scientific works and then make intellectually honest claims about what they may or may not have been able to do.

Furthermore, and back to the OT, who is to say that the western cultures didn't "discover" the eastern peoples? With their libraries burned out of fear, religious zealotry and ignorance by those from the east, how can we ever know?

They may very well have known of "Europe" and "Asia" and decided that those people were too backwards and barbaric to bother with and as such just stayed home.

Those from the east certainly proved the barbaric part of the hypothesis very nicely, it would seem.

This rant was brought to you by the letters R, A, C, I, S, and T. The aboriginal peoples of the Americas didn't do these things because they were subjugated and were not permitted to devlop their society.

Pray tell, who was it that "subjugated" the Indians?

Why, pray tell, wasn't it Indian ships landing at Wales in 1492 and putting the Celts to ruin?

I'll give you a hint - it has nothing to do with race, genetics, or skin color.

This rant was brought to you by the letters R, A, C, I, S, and T. The aboriginal peoples of the Americas didn't do these things because they were subjugated and were not permitted to devlop their society.

Historical/scientific theories actually give them about 15,000 years, thats a pretty long time....

I'd rather celebrate the viking discovery of America, although I still respect Columbus's accomplishments for what they were.

As a descendant of the vikings, I hereby declare America my own. :D

As a descendant of the vikings, I hereby declare America my own. :D

Someone who sees it my way! Wouldn't America be so much cooler if it had descended from the Vikings rather than the British?

Historical/scientific theories actually give them about 15,000 years, thats a pretty long time....

Prove that they're genetically incapable of society, or take your racist crap elsewhere.

As a descendant of the vikings, I hereby declare America my own. :D

hmmm, so... what? Now I live in North Zaheranica? Crap, now I have to remember something new....

Historical/scientific theories actually give them about 15,000 years, thats a pretty long time....

Using that logic, the upper african/mediteranean peoples must be nearly worthless in your estimation, as they have been at the civilization game longer than anyone else, yet still struggle with basic sustinence.

Is that what you really think?

Prove that they're genetically incapable of society, or take your racist crap elsewhere.

Umm, that had nothing to do with race, but rather a combination of technological, societal, and material (resources) shortfalls....

hmmm, so... what? Now I live in North Zaheranica? Crap, now I have to remember something new....

Don´t worry. All who don´t remember the new name will be shot. Twice. :mp5:

Someone who sees it my way! Wouldn't America be so much cooler if it had descended from the Vikings rather than the British?

A pretty large portion of British genetics are acquired from the Vikings. We were invaded by everyone at some point.

Someone who sees it my way! Wouldn't America be so much cooler if it had descended from the Vikings rather than the British?

Being someone who does not care much for historical G.B. yes, yes I do, think about it, instead of 'road rage' they could call it 'road berserkergang' and it would be much more brutal... but legal... :D

Don´t worry. All who don´t remember the new name will be shot. Twice. :mp5:

Hmm, at least you provide motivation to remember North Ame... Zaheranica's... new name.... :p

Only pathetic attempts at ignorant sarcasm.




Who is to say that they would not have? In particular, their grasp of astronomy was far superior to anything the "Europeans" had even dreamed of. Their reward for posessing such insight and knowledge? Their people slaughtered and their books burned by religious zealots.



Nuclear weapons do NOT make the world a safer place. I will remind you of that when a religious lunatic manages to smuggle one into a major American or european city and incinerate a few million people.



Again, who is to say that they wouldn't have done better? You can't exterminate a series of civilizations, destroy their civic and scientific works and then make intellectually honest claims about what they may or may not have been able to do.

Furthermore, and back to the OT, who is to say that the western cultures didn't "discover" the eastern peoples? With their libraries burned out of fear, religious zealotry and ignorance by those from the east, how can we ever know?

They may very well have known of "Europe" and "Asia" and decided that those people were too backwards and barbaric to bother with and as such just stayed home.

Those from the east certainly proved the barbaric part of the hypothesis very nicely, it would seem.

A) Try again.

B) History says they didn't - it was europeans ships landing in the new world, not indian ships landing at wales.

C) The devestation would be a mere scratch compared to the horrors of a world where great nations fought with modern weapons. The soviet-western war that never happened was avoided by nuclear weapons - it is nuclear weapons that make Europe possible.

D) History proves beyond any doubt that they couldn't have done better - or else they would have! There are reasons that the Europeans took over the new world rather than vice versa, and none of them are racial, genetic, &c.

You're degenerating into incoherence in the last couple parts. If you are trying to make claims about historical reality, what evidence are you calling into the argument?

A) Try again.

B) History says they didn't - it was europeans ships landing in the new world, not indian ships landing at wales.

C) The devestation would be a mere scratch compared to the horrors of a world where great nations fought with modern weapons. The soviet-western war that never happened was avoided by nuclear weapons - it is nuclear weapons that make Europe possible.

D) History proves beyond any doubt that they couldn't have done better - or else they would have! There are reasons that the Europeans took over the new world rather than vice versa, and none of them are racial, genetic, &c.

You're degenerating into incoherence in the last couple parts. If you are trying to make claims about historical reality, what evidence are you calling into the argument?


Arguing with a racist is like mud wrestling a pig. You just end up getting filthy, in dire need of a shower, and the pig enjoys it with a sick intensity.

Have a nice day, and I truly hope that whatever city becomes a "mere scratch" doesn't hold anyone you have any cares for.

Arguing with a racist is like mud wrestling a pig. You just end up getting filthy, in dire need of a shower, and the pig enjoys it with a sick intensity.

Have a nice day, and I truly hope that whatever city becomes a "mere scratch" doesn't hold anyone you have any cares for.

Yeah, I feel bad for New Granada too, having to argue with a racist like they did in their last post....

(yes, I realize the exchange is between you two, and yes, I am tkaing his side...)

You claim people from the East proved the 'barbaric' label that you assigned them, yet you have given no evidence to support that other than yourself, saying it about them, which is so ridiculously far from proof... before you call others racist, make sure that you yourself aren't first....

You're over-reacting. There's no value-judgement inherent in the assertion that North American natives didn't form advanced technological civilisations and sails the seas conquering new lands. It's simply true.

And anyway, the Vikings did it before the Chinese, who did it before Columbus.

Go Vikings!

This rant was brought to you by the letters R, A, C, I, S, and T. The aboriginal peoples of the Americas didn't do these things because they were subjugated and were not permitted to devlop their society.
You're over-reacting. There's no value-judgement inherent in the assertion that North American natives didn't form advanced technological civilisations and sails the seas conquering new lands. It's simply true.

And anyway, the Vikings did it before the Chinese, who did it before Columbus.

Someone who sees it my way! Wouldn't America be so much cooler if it had descended from the Vikings rather than the British?

Of course it would. Free mead, fights and much cooler gods...

Decency leads me to assume that you merely can't read English and understand it.

:D more decency than I showed, lol

Arguing with a racist is like mud wrestling a pig. You just end up getting filthy, in dire need of a shower, and the pig enjoys it with a sick intensity.

Have a nice day, and I truly hope that whatever city becomes a "mere scratch" doesn't hold anyone you have any cares for.

Decency leads me to assume that you merely can't read English and understand it.

Gravity and electricity were around before they were discovered.

There was life everywhere before humans arrived.

Almost every holiday has something wrong with it, stop ignoring an excuse to party.

Yeah, I feel bad for New Granada too, having to argue with a racist like they did in their last post....

(yes, I realize the exchange is between you two, and yes, I am tkaing his side...)

You claim people from the East proved the 'barbaric' label that you assigned them, yet you have given no evidence to support that other than yourself, saying it about them, which is so ridiculously far from proof... before you call others racist, make sure that you yourself aren't first....

I'll have to agree with new granada as well. I mean, the native americans were pretty much still in the stone age if my understanding is correct. The main theory for this is that the America's or oriented more "vertical" if looking at a typical map where as asia and europe are aligned in a similar latitude. Temperature and therefore much of the environment is determined by latitude (as well as alot of other factor of course). My point is that this allowed for what worked in one place to be spread to other places and so forth more easily than would have normally been possible. The result is an accelerated rate of development, that has, as said by NG and others nothing to do with race.

Also, don't be so quick to think that the Native Americans were in some fairytale society, there were wars, slavery subjugation etc. just like everywhere else.

I'll have to agree with new granada as well. I mean, the native americans were pretty much still in the stone age if my understanding is correct. The main theory for this is that the America's or oriented more "vertical" if looking at a typical map where as asia and europe are aligned in a similar latitude. Temperature and therefore much of the environment is determined by latitude (as well as alot of other factor of course). My point is that this allowed for what worked in one place to be spread to other places and so forth more easily than would have normally been possible. The result is an accelerated rate of development, that has, as said by NG and others nothing to do with race.

Also, don't be so quick to think that the Native Americans were in some fairytale society, there were wars, slavery subjugation etc. just like everywhere else.

It wasn't quite stone age, but they did have a lack of worked metals, they did indeed have some VERY advanced astrology... but they WERE still technologically lacking, in addition to not having immunities to many of the germs and diseases that the Europeans carried with them... that killed a lot of them....

Edit: w00t, 300 posts!

What! I then hereby declare gravity dead.
I join your theory. From now on, every day in Zaheranica is a holiday. :D

Help! Help, I'm floating away!!!

Gravity and electricity were around before they were discovered.

There was life everywhere before humans arrived.

Almost every holiday has something wrong with it, stop ignoring an excuse to party.


What! I then hereby declare gravity dead.
I join your theory. From now on, every day in Zaheranica is a holiday. :D

I'll have to agree with new granada as well. I mean, the native americans were pretty much still in the stone age if my understanding is correct. The main theory for this is that the America's or oriented more "vertical" if looking at a typical map where as asia and europe are aligned in a similar latitude. Temperature and therefore much of the environment is determined by latitude (as well as alot of other factor of course). My point is that this allowed for what worked in one place to be spread to other places and so forth more easily than would have normally been possible. The result is an accelerated rate of development, that has, as said by NG and others nothing to do with race.

Also, don't be so quick to think that the Native Americans were in some fairytale society, there were wars, slavery subjugation etc. just like everywhere else.

Ding ding ding! we have a winner repeat We-Have-A-Winner

Not everyone in the world began with an equally good start in the zero-sum race to civilization. There are winners and losers, and it isn't because the people were bad, it is because in the lottery of birth, they were spawned into a lousy setting.

It wasn't quite stone age, but they did have a lack of worked metals, they did indeed have some VERY advanced astrology... but they WERE still technologically lacking, in addition to not having immunities to many of the germs and diseases that the Europeans carried with them... that killed a lot of them....

Edit: w00t, 300 posts!

Yea, while in a materials sense they were in the stone age, still, they had more advanced mathematics and astronomy (and thereby, astrology, as well) than their European invaders. But, there is also a lot we just simply don't know about the cultures since the Spanish thought it would be a great idea to burn all their fucking history when they arrived to ease the Christianization of the region. Thinking about that complete disregard for accumulated knowledge frustrates me so much. *sigh*

But, it's also to remember that these cultures simply didn't have access to the same kinds of materials as easily as Europe and Asia. The reason the peoples were subjugated has nothing to do with the merits or their civilizations but rather with the unfortunate combination of gun powder technologies and the divergent evolution of diseases in the "Old World." The cultures of the Americas were, to say the least, incredibly unique as compared to European and Asian cultures and the violent destruction of those cultures is indeed a very sad thing.

There is archeological evidence that before the asian-like native americans arrived (those that we know today), at some 11000 years ago, there were african-like native americans, which have arrived some 13000 years ago by canoes all the way from Australasia, and were possibly decimated by the arriving asian-like peoples (from whom the native americans of today descent), as they already had bows and arrows, while the others fought only with the spears, their only weaponry.Regardless of that, they had naval skills, coming to America from Oceania and all, but those were no useful against mongolized archers coming from Eurasia.
No one is right or wrong in a clash of civilizations.It is unfortunate that some eventually end, but it's merely a consequence of an inevitable clash (competing for resources between asian-like and african-like native americans, or the need of economic expansion that triggered the conquest of americas.) And it doesn't proves that one was better than the other, only that one had better warfaring conditions than the other.

European civilization found itself able to take much better advantage of the new world than did the various indians.

no, they didn't, unless you mean to use 'advantage' in the pejorative sense.

Ding ding ding! we have a winner repeat We-Have-A-Winner

Not everyone in the world began with an equally good start in the zero-sum race to civilization. There are winners and losers, and it isn't because the people were bad, it is because in the lottery of birth, they were spawned into a lousy setting.

Just to start being philosophical about things, but I don't see anything particularly compelling about our current western civilization. Sure, we've taken new and inventive ways of killing each other to incredible heights, and we've done some pretty amazing things scientifically, but overall I'm not sure if our damage to the world hasn't been worse than what we've done for it.

Basically, sure the Europeans were more technologically advanced, and definitely brutal and expansionist enough to conquer, but who says that's the measure of the best thing? We're now in a culture completely dominated by European history - even America, which was 'discovered' way back when, is still recorded as discovered. An interesting mental exercise is to look at something like China and reverse the opinions and ideas you have about it - looking out on the West from a Chinese perspective, not out on China from a Western perspective. I grew up in different cultures, and I find it an incredibly hard mindset to break out of, the civilized West bringing light to the barbarians.

This is somewhat incoherent, as it was written while doing homework, but hey, I found it interesting.

Basically, sure the Europeans were more technologically advanced, and definitely brutal and expansionist enough to conquer, but who says that's the measure of the best thing? We're now in a culture completely dominated by European history - even America, which was 'discovered' way back when, is still recorded as discovered. An interesting mental exercise is to look at something like China and reverse the opinions and ideas you have about it - looking out on the West from a Chinese perspective, not out on China from a Western perspective. I grew up in different cultures, and I find it an incredibly hard mindset to break out of, the civilized West bringing light to the barbarians.


To be fair, as was said, there were some fairly brutal aspects of Native American culture, too. In terms of sheer brutality, all human cultures tend to share similar quantities of this distasteful human trait. The fighting between the Inca and the chachapoyas was supposedly extremely violent, as just a small example. I don't think I even need to mention Mayan human sacrifice or the raids they went on to secure some of their victims. People have this weird tendency to dichotomize these kinds of debates into this culture was perfect and this one was evil incarnate rather than look at both cultures' strengths and weaknesses.

To be fair, as was said, there were some fairly brutal aspects of Native American culture, too. In terms of sheer brutality, all human cultures tend to share similar quantities of this distasteful human trait. The fighting between the Inca and the chachapoyas was supposedly extremely violent, as just a small example. I don't think I even need to mention Mayan human sacrifice or the raids they went on to secure some of their victims. People have this weird tendency to dichotomize these kinds of debates into this culture was perfect and this one was evil incarnate rather than look at both cultures' strengths and weaknesses.

Yeah, I know that none of them were anywhere near perfect. I just found it intriguing to speculate on the complete Euro centrism of our current world, and on the common insistance that higher tech == better.

Just to start being philosophical about things, but I don't see anything particularly compelling about our current western civilization. Sure, we've taken new and inventive ways of killing each other to incredible heights, and we've done some pretty amazing things scientifically, but overall I'm not sure if our damage to the world hasn't been worse than what we've done for it.

Basically, sure the Europeans were more technologically advanced, and definitely brutal and expansionist enough to conquer, but who says that's the measure of the best thing? We're now in a culture completely dominated by European history - even America, which was 'discovered' way back when, is still recorded as discovered. An interesting mental exercise is to look at something like China and reverse the opinions and ideas you have about it - looking out on the West from a Chinese perspective, not out on China from a Western perspective. I grew up in different cultures, and I find it an incredibly hard mindset to break out of, the civilized West bringing light to the barbarians.

This is somewhat incoherent, as it was written while doing homework, but hey, I found it interesting.

Well, I'd say vaccinations are probably one of the top inventions as far as benefit to humanity with little harm done to nature. It is true that some bad thing have come out of the European way of doing things (pollution for example), however I see no reason why any other culture wouldn't have progressed to the exact same end. A lot of people talk about the native american's respect for the land, but I think it was Aztec culture that used the slash and burn method of farming leaving the land useless after a few years of use. And those Native American's who did respect the land did so for selfish reasons, if one were to hunt like crazy and generally destroy nature while your survival still rested on the balance provided by nature you'd be done in a few years. In the end culture is just the best way for humans to survive given the tools and resources available to them.

Also, I think the reason Columbus's discovery of America is treated so much more importantly than all the other discoveries because it resulted in huge changes in the western hemisphere and started the eventual rise of an American democracy which is the preeminent power in this (or according to some, the previous) age.

Help! Help, I'm floating away!!!

That´s very illegal. Your punishment will be to drink 1 litre of booze every day and wear a stupid hat. :D

The whining from the ash heap, is anything less relevant?

When did the indians fly to the moon or cure any epidmic diseases?

Is it indian atomic bombs which secure the peace of the world?

European civilization found itself able to take much better advantage of the new world than did the various indians.

It's like that, and that's the way it is.

Wow, it's the person that post-colonialism forgot! What euro-centric rock have you been hiding under all this time?

Someone who sees it my way! Wouldn't America be so much cooler if it had descended from the Vikings rather than the British?

It would have been better if it had been descended from the Greeks and then become a new Byzantium. See New Smyrna.

What is so great about vaccination?

All that manages to do is short-circuit natural selection and perpetuate faulty genetics, leading to an overall weakening of the species.


And "technology". Why is that any great measure of a society? So what if some "mastered" steel while others didn't. Look what they did with it. That makes it better?

Sometimes the way civilizations are measured as "successes" or "failures" is left sorely wanting.

This programme makes the same errors as the lunacy that Columbus proponents have been making for half a millennia.

Just how, pray tell, does one claim to "discover" a land that is already inhabited?

The aboriginal peoples of the western hemisphere didn't come along AFTER the fact, you know.

They didn't need to be "discovered".

They knew full well where they were.

They have suffered beyond measure since their "discovery".

I would hardly call it something to celebrate or honor.

Sigh.

Programme? What Programme? I heard of the book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1421:_The_Year_China_Discovered_The_World), but what programme are you talking about?

This programme makes the same errors as the lunacy that Columbus proponents have been making for half a millennia.

Just how, pray tell, does one claim to "discover" a land that is already inhabited?

The aboriginal peoples of the western hemisphere didn't come along AFTER the fact, you know.

They didn't need to be "discovered".

They knew full well where they were.

They have suffered beyond measure since their "discovery".

I would hardly call it something to celebrate or honor.

Sigh.

2007: Year EchoVect Discovered Useless Semantics.

Programme? What Programme? I heard of the book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1421:_The_Year_China_Discovered_The_World), but what programme are you talking about?

A local Public Broadcasting station is currently running a 2 part video documentary on the subject.

I'm beginning to wonder about the state of some of this "research".

I've not seen this much bad science and questionable data manipulation since Al Gore's much bally-hooed overblown power point presentation.

Brainwashing at it's finest, to be sure.

2007: Year EchoVect Discovered Useless Semantics.

No, that would have been 1965.

I figure, what the heck?

The language is an atrocity, I might as well have some fun with it.

Just how, pray tell, does one claim to "discover" a land that is already inhabited?

This is a complaint about Columbus and European explorers I've never understood: "They didn't 'discover' the New World, there were people already here." While true, that has nothing to do with the definition of "discover," which is: "find (something or someone) unexpectedly or in the course of a search" (Oxford American Dictionary, 2001). The fact people had discovered America before Columbus or the Chinese doesn't mean they didn't discover the New World.
As to the Chinese theory itself: I read most of the book 1421, and that made a pretty convincing case for the China navy finding the western side of the Americas. I haven't seen any other historians refuting or supporting the idea, though, so I am unsure.

Didn't Vikings make it even earlier?

This is a complaint about Columbus and European explorers I've never understood: "They didn't 'discover' the New World, there were people already here." While true, that has nothing to do with the definition of "discover," which is: "find (something or someone) unexpectedly or in the course of a search" (Oxford American Dictionary, 2001). The fact people had discovered America before Columbus or the Chinese doesn't mean they didn't discover the New World.
As to the Chinese theory itself: I read most of the book 1421, and that made a pretty convincing case for the China navy finding the western side of the Americas. I haven't seen any other historians refuting or supporting the idea, though, so I am unsure.


It is the context in which it is usually used, as if to say the the place was a total unknown prior to them "stumbling" upon it.

As for the rest, the programme in question raises some very serious issues with the claims by either the Spaniards, Chinese and the Norse........

Mainly, it revovlves around the maps, and assertions/intimations that the maps they used ALREADY HAD certain geograhic features.....leading to the obvious question, where did they get their maps?

There are outstanding arguments that the Piri Reis map points to civilizations lost to time an history that we have yet to learn anything about.

Much like the argument that the Sphynx is far, far older than is currently popularly believed, that evolved societies have come and gone prior to this one, etc..........

Didn't Vikings make it even earlier?

Yeah, around year 1000, Leif Eriksson, son of Erik the Red, arrived in the Americas from Greenland with some vikings and settled around Terra Nova, which they called Vinland, but they didn't stand for long due to the "ferocious natives", which did a number on the vikings. By the time of Columbus they were already gone.

Yeah, around year 1000, Leif Eriksson, son of Erik the Red, arrived in the Americas from Greenland with some vikings and settled around Terra Nova, which they called Vinland, but they didn't stand for long due to the "ferocious natives", which did a number on the vikings. By the time of Columbus they were already gone.
The last Viking expedition to Markland (Labrador) happened around 1350. They made the trip from Iceland and Greenland to harvest timber.

D) There are reasons that the Europeans took over the new world rather than vice versa, and none of them are racial, genetic, &c.


No, the reasons are superior weaponry, biological warfare (smallpox blankets), broken compacts (trail of tears) and dehumanizing mentality.

In other words, they took it over because they were scum.

If you think about it, Columbus was one of the biggest screw-ups in history. When he left, he didn't know where he was going; when he got there, he didn't know where he was; and when he got back, he didn't know where he'd been.

By and large he was a bit of an incompetent, bumbling fool, who got really, mindblowingly lucky.

Yeah, around year 1000, Leif Eriksson, son of Erik the Red, arrived in the Americas from Greenland with some vikings and settled around Terra Nova, which they called Vinland, but they didn't stand for long due to the "ferocious natives", which did a number on the vikings.

well, after the greenlanders killed the first ones they came across. vikings = not so nice.

No, the reasons are superior weaponry, biological warfare (smallpox blankets), broken compacts (trail of tears) and dehumanizing mentality.

In other words, they took it over because they were scum.

Except smallpox wasn't introduced to the indigenous populations of the Americas through "smallpox blankets". The initial introduction was unintentional, and the result of an infected African slave being brought ashore from a merchant ship on the Mexican coast. This initial contact was the most devastating, the resulting infection spread like an firestorm. It killed apocalyptic numbers of people, likely 90% of the indigenous population. Nearly all of the indigenous population was totally dicked over before they even met a single European.

Things like the trail of tears, or the smallpox blankets occured well after this initial infection, and had little to do with the overall collapse of the indigenous population.

I'm a student of anthropology and Latin American History. The biggest mistake anyone can make in analyzing history is judging from one's own cultural perspective. To do so is ethnocentric. There is no such thing as better, more advanced, more civilized, etc. At the same time, it's silly to romanticize an oppressed culture. It's all just numbers and equations. Models and theories. Nothing more. Human beings are all the same. If you could be God and make a person be born to different parents in a different place, that person would be just like their original child would be, more or less. This discussion goes nowhere.

I'm a student of anthropology and Latin American History. The biggest mistake anyone can make in analyzing history is judging from one's own cultural perspective. To do so is ethnocentric. There is no such thing as better, more advanced, more civilized, etc. At the same time, it's silly to romanticize an oppressed culture. It's all just numbers and equations. Models and theories. Nothing more. Human beings are all the same. If you could be God and make a person be born to different parents in a different place, that person would be just like their original child would be, more or less. This discussion goes nowhere.
Oh, do you really expect us to be swayed by your facts? They are no match for the impenetrable Opinions of NSG.

Someone who sees it my way! Wouldn't America be so much cooler if it had descended from the Vikings rather than the British?

LOl, people now days think that America is overstepping her boundaries. Imagine if we had a "Viking" background. "Raid and Pillage" would be in the constitution.

Except smallpox wasn't introduced to the indigenous populations of the Americas through "smallpox blankets". The initial introduction was unintentional, and the result of an infected African slave being brought ashore from a merchant ship on the Mexican coast. This initial contact was the most devastating, the resulting infection spread like an firestorm. It killed apocalyptic numbers of people, likely 90% of the indigenous population. Nearly all of the indigenous population was totally dicked over before they even met a single European.

Things like the trail of tears, or the smallpox blankets occured well after this initial infection, and had little to do with the overall collapse of the indigenous population.

Nooo! Don't inject reason or facts into a discussion like this! You'll hurt someone.

The explanation as to how "smallpox blankets" and the "trail of tears" have anything to do with why new world people were unable to sail a fleet of discovery to Wales in say, 1491, is still forthcoming, at any rate.

It didn't have to be Smallpox. Chickenpox was enough and even the 'common cold' hit most natives like pneumonia. Early this year was a good National Geographic on Jamestown and they reckon the lethargy recorded, even given all its disadvantages that killed the settlement off except it got constant renewal, describes Malaria. Most of the settlers came for south-west England that was very poor and very swampy at the time. Malaria (The Ague) was endemic and if they took it with them, once one American mosquito got their blood, it went ahead of them.

The same is true of plant pests and even the way the European way of flattening forest to farm crops unsuitable to the climate while the natives opened it (settlers said they could gallop a horse through the forest) to encourage 'wild' crops and plant their beans and squash between the trees all contributed to destroying the infrastructure so that later Europeans were always complaining that 'towns' were a couple of shacks and 'villages' did not exist at all.

I think that the famous Plains Tribes may have been descendants of a few young hunters and children who survived plagues that went ahead of the white man and adjusted to a kind of post-holocaust survivalism with vague memories of more settled farming life, like the European Dark Age.

Things like the trail of tears, or the smallpox blankets occured well after this initial infection, and had little to do with the overall collapse of the indigenous population.

Maybe. But that doesn't excuse the behavior of European colonists that further exacerbated the situation.

I'm a student of anthropology and Latin American History. The biggest mistake anyone can make in analyzing history is judging from one's own cultural perspective. To do so is ethnocentric. There is no such thing as better, more advanced, more civilized, etc. At the same time, it's silly to romanticize an oppressed culture. It's all just numbers and equations. Models and theories. Nothing more. Human beings are all the same. If you could be God and make a person be born to different parents in a different place, that person would be just like their original child would be, more or less. This discussion goes nowhere.

Not a bad first post however if everyone looked at it in this matter then there would be no arguement.

One thing I have learned is people like to argue. In fact I will argue all day long that Columbus is a hero and the Natives took it in the ass because they couldn't defeat the Europeans. There have been countless cultures around the world that are on the ash heap of history you(Natives) are not special in this regard. That is just how it is. It also amazes me that Europeans were able to establish a foothold and then a nation that is a superpower in the world in the span of less then 400 years. I am using the English colonies as my starting point for this. How is it the poor Native Americans could not establish a society in 15,000 years or so of inhabitation that could defend themselves from the Europeans?


You lost your culture, your land and the majority of your languages because you could not put up a decent fight. That is what happened and there is not a damn thing you or I can do about it today. Live with it and move on.

The explanation as to how "smallpox blankets" and the "trail of tears" have anything to do with why new world people were unable to sail a fleet of discovery to Wales in say, 1491, is still forthcoming, at any rate.

How in all that is debatable did you make that connection? I was talking about the reasons why Europe smashed the native Americans, not the other way around.

You lost your culture, your land and the majority of your languages because you could not put up a decent fight. That is what happened and there is not a damn thing you or I can do about it today. Live with it and move on.

People always say that when they're on the top of the heap. Until the shoe is on the other foot. Then they whine.

People always say that when they're on the top of the heap. Until the shoe is on the other foot.

I am not going to disagree but sometimes people have to accept your role in life.

This programme makes the same errors as the lunacy that Columbus proponents have been making for half a millennia.

Just how, pray tell, does one claim to "discover" a land that is already inhabited?

The aboriginal peoples of the western hemisphere didn't come along AFTER the fact, you know.

They didn't need to be "discovered".

They knew full well where they were.

They have suffered beyond measure since their "discovery".

I would hardly call it something to celebrate or honor.

Sigh.


program?
I thought it was a book?
I discovered Best Buy?
Can I take all the stuff out of it and chop off the hands of the employees who don't just bring that stuff to my car?

I think that the famous Plains Tribes may have been descendants of a few young hunters and children who survived plagues that went ahead of the white man and adjusted to a kind of post-holocaust survivalism with vague memories of more settled farming life, like the European Dark Age.

well, their big civilization had started collapsing of its own accord starting a few hundred years earlier. but yeah, the plagues wiped out a lot of the remaining towns - the earliest spanish explorers got to see them or their ruins.

As to the Chinese theory itself: I read most of the book 1421, and that made a pretty convincing case for the China navy finding the western side of the Americas. I haven't seen any other historians refuting or supporting the idea, though, so I am unsure.
From what I've read of that book, the claims are tenuous to say the least.
One of the main bits of 'proof' appears to be a map which has some similar features to parts of the Americas.
Problem here is that the author of the book is fitting evidence to his hypothesis. I remember one claim is an island on one of the Chinese maps which is 'identical' to one off the coast of America somewhere.
Fairly identical in shape, yes, but there's no other islands around it on the map (but there are in real life) and it's orientation is off by 90 degrees (so it's pointing West intstead of North or vice versa). The author's explanation was that the Chinese didn't think the other islands were important and that they made a mistake in drawing. So they're skilled enough to sail 1/2 way around the world but don't know which way is bloody North?!
Is that really that plausible?
iirc said island (which is little more than a rectangle on the Chinese maps) is more identical to one in the Phillipines (somewhere in Asia at any rate) which faces the same way as was recorded on the map. The author ignored and dismissed this without giving a reason why, other than he just 'feels' it's more like the American island. Fact that the Chinese recorded travelling through that part of Asia is ignored as well.

Strikes me as someone desperately trying to make evidence fit his hypothesis. Still, it's done him no harm, prob made him quite a bit of money.


Even if the Chinese had 'discovered' America before Columbus - so what? They did nothing about their discovery. It didn't change, or have any impact on, World History and Society like 1492 did. It rates up there with the Vikings settlements circa 1000AD - nothing more than an interesting footnote in the pages of history.

From what I've read of that book, the claims are tenuous to say the least.
One of the main bits of 'proof' appears to be a map which has some similar features to parts of the Americas.
Problem here is that the author of the book is fitting evidence to his hypothesis. I remember one claim is an island on one of the Chinese maps which is 'identical' to one off the coast of America somewhere.
Fairly identical in shape, yes, but there's no other islands around it on the map (but there are in real life) and it's orientation is off by 90 degrees (so it's pointing West intstead of North or vice versa). The author's explanation was that the Chinese didn't think the other islands were important and that they made a mistake in drawing. So they're skilled enough to sail 1/2 way around the world but don't know which way is bloody North?!
Is that really that plausible?
iirc said island (which is little more than a rectangle on the Chinese maps) is more identical to one in the Phillipines (somewhere in Asia at any rate) which faces the same way as was recorded on the map. The author ignored and dismissed this without giving a reason why, other than he just 'feels' it's more like the American island. Fact that the Chinese recorded travelling through that part of Asia is ignored as well.

Strikes me as someone desperately trying to make evidence fit his hypothesis. Still, it's done him no harm, prob made him quite a bit of money.


Even if the Chinese had 'discovered' America before Columbus - so what? They did nothing about their discovery. It didn't change, or have any impact on, World History and Society like 1492 did. It rates up there with the Vikings settlements circa 1000AD - nothing more than an interesting footnote in the pages of history.
I don't remember the book that well, I just remembering finding it well-written enough for me to give it a second thought. But I do remember the author was not a professional historian, and that is why I remain skeptical.

well, after the greenlanders killed the first ones they came across. vikings = not so nice.

That`s right. That was one hell of a troubled expedition. Seems lik norse people don`t get along even with themselves..

This programme makes the same errors as the lunacy that Columbus proponents have been making for half a millennia.

Just how, pray tell, does one claim to "discover" a land that is already inhabited?


Maybe because the Americas are not directly linked to the Eurasian, African or Ocieanian landmasses. Thus the vast majority of the worlds population did not know about it. Hence discovery.

semantics. you see, the claim is that 1421 is when China discovered America.

The Chinese didn't reach America before Colombo, that map is a hoax.

linky:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1690917,00.html

By the way, this link states some unfounded facts, like "America" being called like that because of a Welshman: "everyone knows America got its name from Glamorgan's Richard ap Meurig (Amerik)", when I think that the correct story, and the most well-known one, is about America getting his name from Amerigo Vespucci's. Oh well.

Anyway, the historical importance of Colombo's voyage to the Americas isn't "being the first to go there by ship" (see St.Brendan, Madoc, Leif Eiriksson, even Egyptian claims iirc), but it is "the event that started the european colonization of the Americas".
All other trips didn't lead to a permanent foothold of the Europeans into the New World.

The problem is that commoners, such as Vespucci never used their first names when naming lands at the time; they always used their last names (so it would have been Columbia, or Cabotia, or Vespuccia). Also, bear in mind that John Cabot was the first confirmed European since Viking times to land on the American Continent (Columbus only got near the American Continent in 1498, his first two voyages were merely to the islands of the Caribbean).

Certainly there are other possibilities. Bristol fishermen may very well have landed on the American continent in the 1480s; they were fishing the Grand Banks, why not suddenly bump into the land; you had the myths of Brazil at the time. Columbus was important in that he started the race for the New World, however, we must not forget people such as Cabot.

Then of course, there are suggestions that Columbus got his ideas from Alonso Sanchez, who was blown into the Atlantic in the 1480s and could very well have discovered the Caribbean prior to Columbus.

There is archeological evidence that before the asian-like native americans arrived (those that we know today), at some 11000 years ago, there were african-like native americans, which have arrived some 13000 years ago by canoes all the way from Australasia, and were possibly decimated by the arriving asian-like peoples (from whom the native americans of today descent), as they already had bows and arrows, while the others fought only with the spears, their only weaponry.Regardless of that, they had naval skills, coming to America from Oceania and all, but those were no useful against mongolized archers coming from Eurasia.
No one is right or wrong in a clash of civilizations.It is unfortunate that some eventually end, but it's merely a consequence of an inevitable clash (competing for resources between asian-like and african-like native americans, or the need of economic expansion that triggered the conquest of americas.) And it doesn't proves that one was better than the other, only that one had better warfaring conditions than the other.


Actually, they have found human habitations in America going back (at minimum) 50,000 years (and possibly as far back as 61,000 years)... So there were humans here even before that.

I still haven't discovered America yet :(

I wasn't aware anybody actually believed that 1421 bullshit.

LOl, people now days think that America is overstepping her boundaries. Imagine if we had a "Viking" background. "Raid and Pillage" would be in the constitution.

Not necessarily. I mean, look at us Scandinavians today. We´re pretty pathetic. Not even a little raid. But the government maintains the proud tradition of pillage. It´s called "tax" nowadays. :D

The problem is that commoners, such as Vespucci never used their first names when naming lands at the time; they always used their last names (so it would have been Columbia, or Cabotia, or Vespuccia). Also, bear in mind that John Cabot was the first confirmed European since Viking times to land on the American Continent (Columbus only got near the American Continent in 1498, his first two voyages were merely to the islands of the Caribbean).


About Giovanni Caboto vs Cristoforo Colombo, let it be a matter of dispute between the Serenissima (Venezia) and the Superba (Genova)... ;)

about the naming, Vespucci himself never named those lands America:

wiki about Americas.

The earliest known use of the name America for this particular landmass dates from April 25, 1507. It appears on a globe and a large map created by the German cartographer Martin Waldseemüller in Saint-Dié-des-Vosges. An accompanying book, Cosmographiae Introductio, explains that the name was derived from the Latinized version of the explorer Amerigo Vespucci's name, Americus Vespucius, in its feminine form, America, as the other continents all have Latin feminine names.[12]

A few alternative theories regarding the landmass' naming have been proposed, but none of them has achieved any widespread acceptance.

Just how, pray tell, does one claim to "discover" a land that is already inhabited?

Obviously it must be possible or otherwise there are a number of tourist agencies that are outright lying. Discover (according to Webster): "to make known or visible."