It's certainly true if you had not taken the paragraph apart. But, alas, that short paragraph has only one meaning and that is the challenge question: Vikings may have settled but would they have been able to make America?

Anyway, I love America, and as I've asked "are you sure you're an 8th grader?" The question is merely a compliment.

Haha. And as I've stated, yes, I'm sure I'm an eighth grader. I might not seem it, but I am.

*deep breath* I have come to one last conclusion:
This debate could go on forever but there would never be one final answer. This is technicly a "What if..?" kind of debate. "What if's" have no final answer. But it is a very good debate with many very strong points. But.. who knows?

Edited. The last question means to compliment.

Oh yes, there are many what if's and opinions will take us a long way. It just depend on how each of us interpret facts and history.

So very true. Anything could come of this debate but the imediate question still remains. I guess if you dig deep into the debate, or at least of what you and I (meaning uninspiredfae and I) have made of it, the question would be, "What discoverer ultimatly made this country what it is today?" Am I wrong?

be he didnt' discover it for the civilized world...

he reached it for the civilized world, but alas, he didn't discover anything. the poor fool thought it was india...

Haha. I didn't know that.

What YOU say make everyone in history who lived before Columbus a fool. Not EVERY discovery was made by intent. In fact, there were MANY were made by accidents. If you mean to take credit from Columbus, might as well take it away from the other fools as well.

Mr. Acid, you could be so exasperating.

How do you know all tis?



Also, a friend of mine who saw this debate had a good input.

This debate has turned into another. The dabate could technicly be "The definiton of 'Discover'" Some people believe that it is the people who landed first and some people think it's who helped make America what it is today. What do you think?

From the internet Well, I remember reading these things here and there and I research them to reinforce my argument. Here's a type of website that helped to explained what Columbus thought and what people of his time thought: http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Scolumb.htm
It states that even the King, backed by educated scholars of course, doubted the journey thinking that India would be too far off. All he had was knowledge from different people who assumed the distance and the geography of the world. So, had Columbus not sailed, the people would still remain ignorant of the New World. They were ALL "fools", you see, until Columbus made them somewhat smarter (though he remained ignorant).



I think everyone had a hand in developing this country. I'm not going to take credit away from those who deserve credits because that would be demeaning their contributions, when in truth, without certain contributions, America wouldn't be America. However, the later contributions to the revolution, to form the Declaration... etc may not even have happened. We'll never know. I would even say the faulty information that Ptolomy indirectly passed on to Columbus was a contribution. I'm not about to say Ptolomy was a fool because he had to the wrong calculations, because that would mean everyone in history was foolish. A number of well-learned people thought like Ptolomy, you see. Maybe that's true. Maybe everyone IS foolish, but that doesn't make their contributions any less important.

Wow. Impressive. I'm way too lazy to research a debate topic on CB. It doesn't matter that much to me. lol.

hmm...

my definiton of discovery:

1. looking for something, and thinking you didn't find it, but really finding it.
2. looking for something, finding something else, and knowing it's something else.
3. looking for something, finding something, and knowing it's something.
4. looking at someone else find something, know it's not what they say it is, and say what it is.

did columbus do any of those?

Mr. Acid, let me ask you one last time, do you really think that every discovery ever made in history was by intent? Just answer that. Yes, I say the right word to use is still discovery. Your definition of discovery is rather limitted. We both know you're too intelligent to answer "yes" to my question. If you say no, then you'd have to discredit all those other "fools" who discovered things by accident and received credit.


Let me elaborate on the usage of the word discovery. A person can say that a child discovered that dogs are four-legged animals, but not all four-legged animals are dogs, and he/she wouldn't be wrong. It's correct by definition. The child wouldn't know what to call the dog until later on in his/her life, but we can undoutedly say that he/she discovered what to call them later.

In this case, Columbus didn't know what he discovered until it's too late. That doesn't mean that we can't use the word discovered to describe the fact that he 'uncovered' the New World for Europe.

It's really hard. I duno... I think discovering can mean multiple different things. Pretty much finding something. Either by intent or not. I believe there are branches of discovery, though. People who were the first to discover the land (in our case, the Vikings) or the people who made it what it is today (in our case, Christopher Columbus). I'm sure there are many other different ways to put it but those are the two easiest, I guess. There's a difference between land and country. The Vikings were the first to discover the land of North America (at least that I know of) but Christopher Columbus could be considered United States of America's true founding father because if it wasn't for him, discovery would have been held off till much later and maybe never be colonized by the Enlish - therefore making it what it is today. Sorry if that was confusing. I'll elaborate if requsted.

No, he didn't discover it! I don't remember but I know we learned something back in sixth grade about some other European actually discovering it BEFORE him...heh. not just the native americans. Plus, he thought had reached India.

I believe you are correct, once again. But, once again, allow me to share my opinions.


I think there are many ways to define "discovery." Two main ways, though.

Instead of making an expample out of something totally irrelivent to this debate (such as my dear friend, Fae ) I will put it in words relating to the topic:
I think, in this case, you could define it as, "First to walk upon the land (who wasn't native to the area)" or who braught it into the light of the "New World."

When the Vikings first walked upon the land, they decided to leave. They did not share their "discovery" with anyone because they did not believe it was of any importance so, even though they were the first foreigners to walk the grounds of present-day America, they did not make it what America is today.
If you would define "discovery" as the beginning off the New World, Christopher Columbus is the obvious candidate. He braught this new land in light with Europe. Therefore, beginning what it was today. Unless it was later discovered by the same people (which isn't highly likely), it wouldn't be colonized by the same people therefore not making it what it truely is to this day.

Wow.. that took a lot of thinking for almost 1 in the morning.

Read the whole thread before posting. It's a rule in the debates forum, thanks. This is one perfect example of redundancy.

I agree, rOckThISshYt, to your second post. I'll have to respond to the first later.



I'm practicing to find my way around New York (mahattan area) with maps. It's VERY confusing. Any native New Yorker wanna help?

Jesus Christ! Some people are so ignorant it amazes me!

Are you aware that Christopher Columbus was a European???? He did not just wake up one morning and said, "Okay. I'm going to discover some new land! " He was an Italian man who I believe was sent out by the English queen at that time. I'm not going to say my facts are all valid but, at least I'm making it clear that I'm not positive. I do know for sure that he was a European and he definatly was sent out by a noble. I know that for a fact.

hmm...

but you see, i do discredit all the other fools who didn't fill those qualities.

i can't think of many who really don't fill one of those requirements.

What qualities? What exactly are you talking about?

these...

i can't think of too many people credited with discovery that don't furfill one of those four...

anyways; the absurdity of crediting collumbus (to me) is like...

if, because i eat graphite, i cure myself of skin cancer (which i don't have)

however, i didn't know i cured myself of skin cancer, but instead told everyone i discovered the cure to aging.

later, after i die, someone else figures out that i cured skin cancer by eating graphite.

who is credited with the discovery?

For the first thing you said...
The definitons you gave are basicly all saying the same thing. Not much of a help. So no kidding someone furfilled one of those. But there's more depth to discovery than that.

To the last thing you said...
What the f*ck are you talking about???

The "knowing it's something else" is a knowledge bestowed bytime. You disagree with me on a most important point, and that is, you seem believe that everyone in Columbus' time would already know the New World for what it is... However, there was no known record of the New World before his journey. Even the King, and mostly likely the King's scholars, thought the journey impossible because India would be too far off. How was anyone to know that a great mass of land stands between CC and India?

I'm definitely not saying that he discovered the mass of land. As you, others, and myself have pointed out before, Columbus was certainly not the first to reach the land by sea. I AM saying that he was the first to bring its existence into a new light with the Old World. That is his importance. That is where credit must go. If he does not deserve credit for finding the New World for the Old, then no one can have credit for discovering America. Meaning, had Columbus not reached the Americas, there wouldn't have been a Ponce de Leon searching for "The Fountain of Youth", or the journey of the Mayflower. Timelines don't make sense without Columbus discovering the New World for the cilvilized one in 1942.

Had he sailed to the Americas, came back to Spain admitting that he failed to reach India and then someone else sailed and claim that it's a new land for all the world... then yes I would say Columbus wasn't the discoverer.

Though Columbus claimed he reached India until death, and though the intelligent world may have known that it wasn't India he reached, it still cannot hinder the fact that Columbus was the one who brought that knowledge to them, making him the discoverer of that knowledge.

The real definition for the word discovery is rather broad, by the way.

Okay. How about we do this...


First to live on land: Native Americans/Indians
First to "discover" land: Vikings
First to bring light of the land: Christopher Columbus and his crew membors.


Correct me if I'm wrong or if you have anything to add.

columbus did do something, yes. it was quite important, but he didn't discover it...

there are just too many ways in which he is less a candidate for the discoverer of america to count him as such- like, he didn't know it wasn't india.

columbus had a part. he created a record of the new world, although he didn't know it was new. His voyage helped spark the age of exploration. regardless of the achievements, it cannot be called a discovery.

Wait, so because he didn't know or understand what he found, he shouldn're receive credit?

You know, I used to be very routine, doing everything in succession. One day, after recovering from a slight depression that lasted a month or so, I did things so spontaneously. I did things I didn't know I would do, things that weren't planned or expected of me. I didn't even know that I was different, but I liked the feeling so I kept on.

But now, after 2 years and having a better understanding of "self", I realized what happened. That and my Mom told me that I changed for the better. I discovered a new me, someone that I could like. It was a discovery. My Mother made me realize that I was different. Had she not said anything, I wouldn't have made that revelation. So is she the one who should receive credit for my "new self" or should I receive credit? I found a new way to live. She simply pointed it out.

That's why I stress that time reveals all. Knowledge of geography was rather limitted, he couldn't have understand what it was he founded. He founded it and brought the knowledge that "India" was there. People simply pointed out that it wasn't India but retained the knowledge that there's land. I once speculated that he didn't dare deny that he never reached India because he feared the King and Queen, so he pressed that he had reached India until he died. Of course, that's not what history says, but one could speculate.

Anyway, I think I said all I could say in this debate, saying anymore will make me a broken record.

Again, I still believe it has to do with your definition of "discover." People could argue this point till we all drop dead. It wouldn't matter. What would matter is their opinions of discovery. Your definition of discovery leads to who you think "discovered" America.

saying he's the discoveror of america gives columbus full credit.

he should only recieve partial credit..

I said he's the one to bring knowledge of the new world to the civilized nations. So, whether or not that statement means "discovering America" is all perspective.

Now you're using my recent argument that it depends on the person's defintion of "discovery." I should copyright that.

Uh.. not really. I basically said that he could take what I said to be Columbus getting full credit or partial credit. It's his perspective. My argument stands, will not change; I haven't used any different argument. I still believe that Columbus found the New World for Europe. If someone wants to take my wording to be that Columbus found America, he/she will do so. It has nothing to do with perspective of the word discovery, but it has everything to do with perspective of my argument.

Err.. I was most definatly kidding.

But I do believe it has to do with the word discovery because, if you haven't noticed, peolpe have come up with different arguments based on what they think discovery really. They haven't argued on who was the first one to bring America into light of Eurpoe. It's varried based on their opinions of discovery.

I'm sorry. I don't like accusations of any sort about using the works of others, unless I really did the deed.
I was ignored. People tend to ignore my arguments in debate for some reason until I quote, and challenge them. Well, all arguments get ignored. That's why there are so many redundant posts. They could argue on the word discovery all day and it, most certainly, will not change what is fact: discovery can be explained in different ways. There isn't just one set of definitions for the word. Even if there is just one definition, interpretation could go a long way. Why argue about definitions when there are more to think about than simple words that can easily be defined in a dictionary?

Mr. Acid, I think I can compromise from here. Columbus shouldn't have all the credit. Actually, he shouldn't receive credit for finding America, he should just receive credit for what I said he did: bringing the New World into focus (though, to me, that is the same as discovering America). He simply triggered the later explorations.

Happy?

There we go... Now we can all give each other hugs!!


Sorry. I let my 8th graderness shine through.

Of all these, DaTruKataLYST is the only one who has really bothered to look at history. Everyone keeps saying 'European', but why does 'Europe' have the cachet in the history books? Other societies have contibuted tons to the human experience and they don't get the credit because they don't speak a Romance language? That's bunk.

All you who mentioned Native Americans and the migration over the Bering Strait, props!

The one or possibly two who mentioned the Chinese (or even the Japanese), huge props! They were in western Canada and the Pacific northwest before Leif Ericson was a twinkle in his mama's eye!

Here's another thing to ponder, illustrating the concept of 'why are Europeans all that?'

Gutenberg? A snail. Johannes Gutenberg is lauded as the inventor of a movable type printing press which brought about huge changes in Europe as far as the availability of books and information. Well, I learned this right before moving to Korea: Movable type printing presses existed in Korea before Gutenberg invented his, and before that, China had printing blocks!

So, not everything wonderful comes out of Europe and it pays to ask yourself who is telling you the story you're reading. History is written by the winners, and Koreans and Chinese certainly aren't the monetary benefactors of moveable type.

Huzzah to all those who know their roots

stop. this isn't about europeans and thier stuff. it isn't about chinese or koreans. it's about collumbus. if you want to make a topic saying how chinese and koreans are superior to europeans and have facts that can be argued, go right ahead. i won't object to it if you post it in the right place. (meaning, not in this thread)

Supporting details. I didn't say asians were superior. I answered the question with my opinion then backed up my opinion, the essential opinion being: modern society rarely gives credit where it is due.

But, just for you, I'll state what I said again, this time more clearly.

1 Native Americans: those people who crossed the Bering Strait and were probably of ASIAN origin first discovered America

2 Chinese or Japanes: visited and did not colonize-proof: artifacts found in the Pacific Northwest.

look, just post that as a new topic, if you must. but this debate is about collumbus, not about who was in the new world first.

alright?

yes, that is true.

we're only debating whether or not columbus should be credited for finding America. you guys are welcome to bring up the first people to come to the new world if you mean to say that the first to come to the new world should be credited instead of columbus. or else, what is the point of the history lessons if not to bring us off topic?

Chirsterphor columbus never set foot on america he found jamica/ bahamas area


vanguchi * i think * amerigo discovered america but while sailing towards spain *think its spain* all his his name but something like americo was washed off and it looked kinda like america so thats wat they called it

no, he went around to the other side where california is ..

by reading your sig i dont trust you

Read the thread? Yea?

if there were people there... before he went there...how in the world did he find it first? Columbus gets way to much credit.

... read the thread... read the thread... read the thread... no one is saying that columbus was there first.... read the thread.



< getting more and more frustrated...

Columbus, of course, was not the first person to live there. He was however, the first person to travel there and "discover" it since most people at that time believed that other lands did not exist. He opened a new path to exploration to a "new" continent and led others to come to the New World. He should be given a little bit of credit. Without him, things would be very different today.

You saved my sanity. Thank you.

Haha. You're welcome Fae. (I wish I knew your real name too ). It must be annoying to constantly read what people are writing when they don't even know what they are talking about because they didn't the whole thread (neither did I ).