Christopher Columbus and his legacy.

Where are you getting your information from? 

I have studied the Admiral's history rather extensively. Granted, the Natives made no records. But his son Fernando was with him on the 4th Voyage. And his book agrees with Bartolome de las Casas, who wrote 'The General History of the Indies'. As critical as he was of the Spanish generally and Columbus particularly, he did NOT accuse him of condoning or personally engaging in slavery or rape. And he does criticise the Admiral's abilities as a governor and as a sailor.

I have to go away for a bit. But I'm enjoying this immensely. Unlike my previous interlocutor, you all have brains. I shall be pleased to respond to anything more you write later tonight.

Hrmm, well okay then. Is it part of your act to always refer to Columbus as "the Admiral"?

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.

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

Without wishing to take a for/against position, touching soil is of far less significance than holding it. For better or worse, the Vikings came and went in the blink of an eye. Their NA expeditions had almost no lasting impact, to the point where their very occurrence was a point of debate. In contrast, Columbus' expedition had a massive, irreversible, and arguably terrible outcome. His place in history is skewed in some ways, but there is no doubt that his expedition has a far greater significance than that of the Vikings of Vinland (or wherever).

Lord Wilmore, you are correct, both in your observation and in your estimation of the results of Columbus's explorations having terrible (albeit unintended, at least in terms of the diseases that killed off the Natives; the Europeans had no idea they carried such) results. And the brutality that Columbus himself permitted, while approved in his day (and done in retaliation for the Natives' harsh treatment of Castilians, and their outright murder of some), would certainly be condemned by our value system. SPACE, the Columbus family included two sons and two brothers, all of whom were involved in the Enterprise of the Indies. At present I have mentioned only Fernando. Eventually, I may have to mention others. For ease of identity, I call him the Admiral, rather than using first name and surname. Since I am texting this on my phone, fewer letters is a blessing. Also, Fernando calls his father 'the Admiral' in his own book.

What interests me is the Admiral's own understanding of himself and his part in history. One thing I can candidly observe is that the man had a rather large ego. Even though my thoughts lean toward admiring the Admiral and his place in history, his oversize ego (almost to the point of narcissism) would have made him a difficult man to like, I think. But that's as may be. It doesn't take away from his achievements. It is said about some men that to accomplish things of great magnitude, an outsize ego is necessary. Any thoughts on that? And any opinions re: Columbus's accomplishment? What do you think? Its obviously changed the world. Would you say for the better or worse? How does Columbus fare when it comes to judgements of his character. A good man? A bad man? In between? Why?

What interests me is the Admiral's own understanding of himself and his part in history. One thing I can candidly observe is that the man had a rather large ego. Even though my thoughts lean toward admiring the Admiral and his place in history, his oversize ego (almost to the point of narcissism) would have made him a difficult man to like, I think. But that's as may be. It doesn't take away from his achievements. It is said about some men that to accomplish things of great magnitude, an outsize ego is necessary. Any thoughts on that? And any opinions re: Columbus's accomplishment? What do you think? Its obviously changed the world. Would you say for the better or worse? How does Columbus fare when it comes to judgements of his character. A good man? A bad man? In between? Why?

If it wasn't Columbus it would have been someone else.  The outcome would have been nearly identical.  Europe was full of war mongering, gold loving, God fearing pricks.  Any excuse to kill, conquor, get rich, or spread the word of God was taken on with gusto.

Even those fleeing persecution were total dicks and took land from the natives, believing that all the natives had to do was adopt the same lifestyle, which they(Europeans) felt was superior.


End result: America became founded on those people and their principals while the rest of Europe moved on.

Well, certainly in Anglo America, the oppressed became oppressors. In Latin America it was a bit different. 'The only good Indian is a dead Indian' was an Anglo American thing. The Spanish tried to turn the Natives into Spaniards. I wonder though. Other than Columbus, would others have considered sailing West to go East, or would N. and S. America have remained undiscovered for another century or so while everybody sailed around the Cape of Good Hope to go to Asia?

Well, certainly in Anglo America, the oppressed became oppressors. In Latin America it was a bit different.

Hrmm.

That's not how I understand things.

Well, consider the following: Anglo-American policy was to either corral the Natives on reserves, or exterminate them. The Spanish policy was multi-pronged. With 'civilised' tribes like the Aztec, Maya, and Inca, they intermarried with them, made Catholics of them, and taught them Spanish language and culture. 'Semi-civilised' tribes were left alone, as long as they were no threat. 'Savage' tribes were exterminated. Obviously, the degree of civilisation was decided by the Spanish. But in comparison with the 'kill them all' policy of Anglo-America...