Christopher Columbus and his legacy.

Greeting! I thought it would be interesting to start this post, as I am presently reading 'The Life of the Admiral Christopher Columbus by His Son Ferdinand'. I'm about halfway through it. As you can well imagine, Ferdinand portrays the Admiral in almost saintly terms. Those of us who know history know that that is not a very realistic portrayal. On the other hand, he wasn't (IMHO) the unreservedly horrid person with no redeeming qualities that the modern PC world makes him out to be. We all know that Columbus didn't prove the Earth was round. He, most educated persons, most or even all sailors knew it was round. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the Admiral's thought processes, both on the shape and dimensions of the Earth as well as on religion, politics, the New World he was just beginning to understand (at his death) was NOT India, and other topics that the thread may pick up. Broadly, if we could keep the discussion within the context of Columbus himself, and the European encounter with the New

World and the legacy of those things, that would be good.

What's to say?  He came to a land with lots of resources, showed Europe, and told everyone to dig in because the natives were just another resource.

I think any reasonable person will agree that what happened to the Natives was a combination of bad luck (in terms of them not being able to deal with European diseases) and outright brutality of an unforgivable degree on the part of Europeans. But I was thinking less about the Natives (which is NOT to say the subject isn't important), and more about Columbus the man. What motivated him? And I was thinking in terms of the pragmatic aspects of his voyages. He grossly underestimated the size of the Earth. It just so happened that America happened to be about where he expected Japan to be. Had it not been, he and his people would have been SOL. But it seems to me that there was more to Columbus (and indeed all European visitors to the New World) than just the motivation of the exploitation of resources, although that was clearly present. I know my thoughts on the matter. But yours? Fire ahead.

I think any reasonable person will agree that what happened to the Natives was a combination of bad luck (in terms of them not being able to deal with European diseases) and outright brutality of an unforgivable degree on the part of Europeans. But I was thinking less about the Natives (which is NOT to say the subject isn't important), and more about Columbus the man. What motivated him? And I was thinking in terms of the pragmatic aspects of his voyages. He grossly underestimated the size of the Earth. It just so happened that America happened to be about where he expected Japan to be. Had it not been, he and his people would have been SOL. But it seems to me that there was more to Columbus (and indeed all European visitors to the New World) than just the motivation of the exploitation of resources, although that was clearly present. I know my thoughts on the matter. But yours? Fire ahead.

He wanted gold and glory.  Its the motivation of most people.

True that, Lord Dave. And yet there was more than that. In his book 'The Book of Prophecies', he explained how he had fulfilled biblical prophecy by going to what he believed was India. He never quite admitted that he wasn't in India. So clearly he had religious impulses. And his son writes of how devout his father was.

outright brutality of an unforgivable degree on the part of Europeans.

The Spanish treated the Aztecs far worse.


You can't hold historical figures to account against modern day thoughts on morality.

If you could take a step back and look at our society, we do some stupid things. Like welcoming immigrants and encouraging women to work instead of raising children. These things are nonsense, but similarly there's no point in me trying to convince you that promoting homosexuality makes no sense at all. You were born in this age and you have grown up thinking the death sentence is wrong, religion is evil, slavery is terrible and all those other very modern day things.

You think that its all about being nice to people, but the world doesn't work like that. Its all about socialism for the masses and parting you from your wealth. Same game, different rules.

Thork trolling to the extreme!

1st, I'm a traditional religious Jew. 2nd, I believe in capital punishment. 3rd, although homosexuals should be treated with respect, and allowed to make their own choices, I do regard the practice as sinful. I shall cop to being rather left wing in fiscal matters. Before you open your yap, you might do well to know what you're talking about. I don't dispute that one century's values are different than another, but we can't just nod our heads at brutality in any age.

but we can't just nod our heads at brutality in any age.

Who are you to judge your forefathers?

Evidently, you've never heard of Bartolome de las Casas, a Bishop of the RCC who lived in the early to mid 16th century. His condemnation of the brutality waged on the Natives is far stronger than mine. Again, your yap is making you look the fool. I would advise shutting it. En una boca cerrada, no entran moscas. For the linguistically challenged, I'll translate. No flies enter a closed mouth. In other words, I shall repeat my advice. Shut your yap. Its making you look abysmally stupid. Some people are thought to be fools. Others open their pie-holes and remove all doubt.

Evidently, you've never heard of Bartolome de las Casas, a Bishop of the RCC who lived in the early to mid 16th century. His condemnation of the brutality waged on the Natives is far stronger than mine. Again, your yap is making you look the fool. I would advise shutting it. En una boca cerrada, no entran moscas. For the linguistically challenged, I'll translate. No flies enter a closed mouth. In other words, I shall repeat my advice. Shut your yap. Its making you look abysmally stupid. Some people are thought to be fools. Others open their pie-holes and remove all doubt.

Don't come to a forum if you don't want a debate. Prick.

I love debates. But the person I'm debating should have something betwixt his ears. You come and assume I am anti-religious, pro-gay, anti capital punishment, none of which are true, and then try to justify brutality that was condemned in its own day. Again, I'm all for debate. Look through the threads and you'll see that. But debate presumes the opponent has brains. Yours are questionable at best. Give me something to debate with! Or, shut your yap. The choice is quite binary.

The best way to avoid having your thread derailed into a pointless argument is to scroll past his posts without reading them.

The best way to avoid having your thread derailed into a pointless argument is to scroll past his posts without reading them.

You seem to contribute less and less as well.

Ok, where were we? Not that I minded that diversion. I actually found it quite entertaining. But, we were talking about Columbus as a man. His biggest fault, I think, was an inability to admit he was wrong. Even as he lay dying and Castile began to realise what they had found, he insisted that he had found Asia.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on October 21, 2013, 03:27:01 PM

The best way to avoid having your thread derailed into a pointless argument is to scroll past his posts without reading them.

You seem to contribute less and less as well.

I don't know, this kind of useful advice seems like a decent contribution to me.

It is good advice. But I don't mind going off topic a bit. Especially when someone makes it so easy to make them appear stupid. Actually, I didn't have to. He accomplished that on his own quite handily.

Greeting! I thought it would be interesting to start this post, as I am presently reading 'The Life of the Admiral Christopher Columbus by His Son Ferdinand'. I'm about halfway through it. As you can well imagine, Ferdinand portrays the Admiral in almost saintly terms. Those of us who know history know that that is not a very realistic portrayal. On the other hand, he wasn't (IMHO) the unreservedly horrid person with no redeeming qualities that the modern PC world makes him out to be. We all know that Columbus didn't prove the Earth was round. He, most educated persons, most or even all sailors knew it was round. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the Admiral's thought processes, both on the shape and dimensions of the Earth as well as on religion, politics, the New World he was just beginning to understand (at his death) was NOT India, and other topics that the thread may pick up. Broadly, if we could keep the discussion within the context of Columbus himself, and the European encounter with the New

Do you really think it's "PC" to view the actions of Columbus as horrid? Are we supposed to view rape,  slavery, kidnapping,  and torture as quaint or something? "PC" has been used so much that it has become a meaningless accusation. 

I have no idea what Columbus' thought processes were. I'm sure he was very excited by the prospects of finding gold, as were most of the explorers of his time.

Well, Columbus never personally committed rape, kidnapping, etc. Although he was a terrible Governor (the Crown would eventually have him arrested during the 3rd Voyage and brought back to Castile in chains), he never personally approved of such brutality. That it occurred is not an indictment of his character, but rather, his ability to govern. A first rate seaman and Admiral. A terrible leader off ship.

A first rate seamen and Admiral accidentally discovers an entire continent and mistakes it for a different continent?

Now Duck, be fair. The Admiral had no idea that something was between him and Asia on the route West. Nor did any European. Any Admiral from Europe would have made the same mistake.

It seems to me that just having the cajones to make the 1st Voyage gives the Admiral some points. And, he was very lucky America was where he expected to find Japan. I don't know how much further those ships could have gone, given his underestimate of the size of Earth.

Well, Columbus never personally committed rape, kidnapping, etc. Although he was a terrible Governor (the Crown would eventually have him arrested during the 3rd Voyage and brought back to Castile in chains), he never personally approved of such brutality. That it occurred is not an indictment of his character, but rather, his ability to govern. A first rate seaman and Admiral. A terrible leader off ship.

Are you saying Columbus didn't take natives as slaves? And you can't possibly know that he never personally committed rape. 

It seems to me that just having the cajones to make the 1st Voyage gives the Admiral some points. And, he was very lucky America was where he expected to find Japan. I don't know how much further those ships could have gone, given his underestimate of the size of Earth.

The Vikings made the voyage centuries before Columbus. The man's place in history is fairly skewed if you ask me.

It seems to me that just having the cajones to make the 1st Voyage gives the Admiral some points. And, he was very lucky America was where he expected to find Japan. I don't know how much further those ships could have gone, given his underestimate of the size of Earth.

So a fantastic seamen and Admiral underestimated the distance he needed to travel when they circumference of the Earth has been known since ancient Greece?  He was blindly lucky.

Actually, yes, I am saying that he did not take slaves personally. He tried to prohibit his men doing it as well. He also tried to prevent rape. Granted, what we understand as rape & what Castilians in the 1490's & early 1500's  considered rape were two different things. But here is where my earlier interlocutor (the one I advised to shut his yap) does have a point. Women, even European women, had far fewer rights then than they do today. Taking a wife from among the Natives was not at all considered rape then, by Europeans or even the Natives themselves. Judging them by their own standards, there is no evidence that the Admiral raped or condoned rape. He never took a Native wife either. He had a woman in Castile. Certainly, we would not condone me finding you desirable, & taking you to bed w/o a choice in the matter, & making you my woman. Then, however, women were treated that way by both the Natives and Castilians.

Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on October 21, 2013, 04:36:19 PM

It seems to me that just having the cajones to make the 1st Voyage gives the Admiral some points. And, he was very lucky America was where he expected to find Japan. I don't know how much further those ships could have gone, given his underestimate of the size of Earth.

So a fantastic seamen and Admiral underestimated the distance he needed to travel when they circumference of the Earth has been known since ancient Greece?  He was blindly lucky.

Perhaps Columbus thought there was an unknown expanse of Asia that he was discovering?

He was blindly lucky. But, the size of Earth was hardly a settled matter in 1492. You are right. The Earth had been measured correctly. But no one then was certain that that figure, or others, including the Admiral's was right. And the Norsemen were as lucky to find land as the Admiral was. They didn't know it was here either.

No, Rama, he thought he had reached the Cathay of Marco Polo, our Northeast China. He was blindly lucky. In that, Duck is correct. He was convinced at first that Cuba was the mainland. Later, he realised that was not the case.