Okay, so I searched for a topic on this, and couldn't find one so I decided to make one. If there is a topic on this, feel free to close this and smack me upside the head for my inability to find things.

Columbus is often known as the discoverer of America. He came across America during his exploration and shared his discovery with Europe. This caused more Europeans to explore and settle in America, helping make America what it is today. However, some do not think that Columbus discovered America because of the Vikings and Native Americans that were there before him and for many other reasons.

Should Columbus be the one credited for discovering America? If not, who should be?

agreed.
everyone deserves credit.

...
Everyone knows, or should know, that Natives are the first settlers in North America. What CC is credited for is discovering the New World for the Civilized World.

History does not reveal the name of the first discoverer of the Americas, however, we know of the one who brought its existence, and the importance of its existence to Europe and inspired many more expeditions. How is it unfair that he should have credit? Who else should the credit go to?

christopher collumbus discovered 'India'. He said it was India. he died thinking it was India.

so why should he be credited?

So you think everyone should have perfect knowledge of geography in that time period? What would be the point of the later expeditions, I wonder, if people already "know" that the land wasn't India. Come on now.

Like I have said before, Picasso wouldn't know that his art would be so popular and... well... expensive because he died before it happened.

CC die before knowing that what he encountered wasn't India. Why should the credit be taken away? Because he didn't, no one did, have knowledge of geography?

i think coloumbus should be given HALF of hte credit; but not all of it because afterall native americans were there before himand even with out him somehow probabaly the natives would have developed this land into some nation

So you all would take credit away because of what "could have been"?

Well, I could have been born a genius. Too bad things didn't turn out that way.

alexander fleming accedientally discovered pennicillian, right?

if he had said it was good for killing viruses, would he be credited with discovering bacterial antibiotics?

no.

christopher collumbus was a failure. he never got to inda. also, he commited mass genocide.

Alexander Fleming discovering penicillin by accident one day on his own is rather not accurate. There were others who made observations before Fleming and those previous observations made it possible for Fleming to conclude his research. However he was credited for its discovery nonetheless in textbooks. He glued everything together, just like Columbus did. And like Columbus, he did not know the importance of his "discovery" until later on in his life.



Just like Picasso was a failure during his lifetime, yes.


http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php...133&hl=columbus

Minda had something to say about that, too.

of course Mr. Columbus discovered America...well at least he actualized America ...or something like that.

It is impossible for everyone to get credit for a discovery..that is rediculous. If that was the case no modern day scientist would be able to claim their own theory of anything.
So if we discovered a planet with an alien on it, the alien should get credit for discovering the planet because it originated there? not our astronuats who risked their lives? seems strange

collumbus never realized he discovered a new contient, unlike fleming who knew he has something new.

picasso's goal was to create art- he succeded.

collumbus's goal was to reach india- he failed miserably. and wasn't even bright enough to pick up the consolation prize of discovering the new world.

It does depends on each person's definition of success then doesn't it? And once again:

In history there was always someone who stumbled on an idea, and someone else who made the idea better and famous. For example, the evolution theory existed before Charles Darwin. Anaximander, Xenophanes, Aristotle and a few more people have made assumptions about evolution, wrote about it and studied what they can about it with what knowledge of science was available during their lifetime. However, what we learned generally learn in school is that Darwin is much credited with formalizing the actual theory.

Why then must Columbus be looked down on if he wasn't the first to reached America? Like Darwin, he was only testing out his theory. Though miscalculated, know that the people of that era does not have firm knowledge on geography. What else do you expect from them? Perfection?

We're not talking whether or not Columbus was successful in his goal of reaching India here. We're simply discussing whether or not he should credited for discovering the New World for the civilized world. Though that wasn't his goal, he still succeeded in doing just that, didn't he? Yes, he did.

a man sets sail for india, lands there, doesn't find the prince of india, but still think's it's india. He then sails back to europe and says he found india. he dies saying he found india.

should, then, he be credited with discovering something that's not india?

((if he was the first, then he could be credited. If he were to first to realize it was new, he could be credited- but alas, he was neither)

Unfortunately, Columbus wasn't a geographical genius, nor were MOST men like him in that time period so I will say this: it's true, Christopher Columbus is famous because he found something he wasn't looking for, but he FOUND IT, nonetheless.

Lets break this down. Marco Polo recorded that Japan was about 1,500 miles east of China. Ptolemy said that the Earth was a lot smaller than it really was and wrongly predicted that Europe and Asia were actually a lot bigger than they really were. Therefore, CC had LOGICAL reasons to conclude that Japan was only 3000 miles away from Portugal. With limitted and very inaccurate knowledge, of course he would believe he arrived in India. How could anyone expect any more than that?

If anyone is to blame, Ptolemy and Marco Polo should share it. However, we must be realistic here. Geography isn't a knowledge given on a silver plater.



Again, history does not give the name of the first discoverer of that great mass of land. However, we do have the name of the one who brought its existence into a new light and inspired explorers, settlers... etc to venture into the new land. He shouldn't be credited as the first to arrive there because that would be untrue, just like it was untrue that Fleming found penicillin on his own one day. He should just be credited for discovering the new world for the civilized world. That's what I'm debating for.




Having a Queen on your back demanding that you bring back spice trade from India don't really help your peace of mind either.

but it was amerigo vespucci that said, look guys, this isn't india, this is a new contienet.

therefore, amerigo should get credit for the inspiration, not collumbus.

haha yes that would be soo sweet x) BUT THEN AGAIN... the native americans were there first and he also as someone already sed died before he knew it was America. and he also thought it was India that he found.. and got credit at that time.. so no and yes?

First, if it weren't for Columbus, Vespucci wouldn't be able to make that grand assessment. Second, Vespucci wasn't the one to bring its existence into light to those in the civilized world...< which is what I've been saying all along.

so what would you credit collumbus with?

he didn't discover it
he didn't realize it was new
he wasn't the first european

what would you credit him as doing?

For the umpteenth time, Mr. Acid:

Every other post I made in this thread has been answering your question, I believe. *pulls out her hair in frustration*. grrr.

I think the Native Americans have been in America since the dawn of time so I wouldn't consider them they "discoverers" of America. But I think the Vikings were.

They were the fist to discover and settle in America (that we know of and not including the NA). The only reason they left was because they didn't really feel the need to stay there with all the NAs declaring war on them when ever they tried to steal their land. So no.. CC wasn't the first to discover America.

He wasn't the first to walk the lands, no, but he was the first to brought its existence into light with Europe . Almost like how Darwin brought evolution into light.

Everything else said thus far is rather redundant. After two pages, we know the facts already. My argument stands. Please, someone refute it logically.

Very true and very good argument - well, it would be except the debate is about who was the first to disover it. Not who was the first who "braught its existence injto light with Europe".

In the words of my dear friend, uninspiredfae, My argument stands. Please, someone refute it logicly.


Edit:
Let me make a correction:
My brush-up on history isn't very good considering the fact that this was my first year of world history (I'm a mere 8th grader) so there might be facts stating that the Vikings weren't the first to discover America. But I know for a fact that CC definatly wasn't the first (as I have already clearly stated. ) because he hadn't even been born the first time it was discovered.

No my good friend. The topic is "should Columbus be the one credited for discovering America? If not, who should be?"

If you care to get into details or play with words, I will entertain you.

If Columbus didn't bring the new world into light, then would America really be America, or a different country altogether? And then, what would you argue for? That the Vikings were the discoverers? That may have been true, but then what exactly did they discover? America or simply the mass of land that we know NOW as America? I assure you, not just ANY mass of land can become "America".

My argument gives a clear answer to the first question of the topic. Read the whole thread.

Ahh.. I have very high respect for you now. You are a wonderful debater and I take my hat off to you. But I do also believe that I am right but you make an extremly good argument and I absolutly love this kind of chalange. This, my friend, is what makes a debate interesting and worth my time.

But, take a close look at this
The topic's title is "Christopher Columbus, The Discoverer of America?"
The topic is about America, the country. Not the actual name for the country. And if the the topic was based on the name, America and not the actual place, it still wouldn't be correct becase it was not known as America when he discovered it nor after he discovered it. It was a long while before it was called America. Technicly, the discoverer of America would be our "Founding Fathers," would it not? And not only that, Columbus didn't make America what it is today so your little segment on "If Columbus didn't bring the new world into light, then would America really be America, or a different country altogether?" isn't particularly valid, is it? At leats I don't think so because what America is today could be on any land. Not only what is today America. But any other part of the world that wasn't already civilized. (Well, any other part of the world that was weaker by those who later on civilized it because this America was already civilized by the "Native Americans" as I'm sure you know).

Should Columbus be the one credited for discovering America? If not, who should be?
That is the specific question, as you said. All CC did was discover the land, as did the Vikings. But the Vikings did first (at least before CC). And CC might have called the land mass "America" first (I do not know) but he didn't discover what is today America. He discovered the land. (I'm sorry if I repeated myself).

Founding Fathers.
I don't understand how my answer can be so vague, but I will clear things up. My argument IS, once again, that without Columbus, mayhaps the new world wouldn't have attracted much attention from the civilized world until later, or maybe not at all. Without such attraction, then HOW would there be such a thing as a "Founding Father"? So no, what I said about America wouldn't be America still makes sense if you look at the big picture. Again, the big picture is that Columbus brought attention to the new world and thus creating a series of events that later shaped the country as we know today. Founding Fathers and all.



I hate to speak in terms of "would have's" and "could have's", but America wouldn't be on just any land because then it wouldn't be called America. Amerigo Vespucci wouldn't have been inspired the name America had Columbus not make his journey.



I said more than that. I said CC brought attention to the new world. The Vikings merely walked on the land and then ignored it. Had the Vikings you said nurtured the land and settled on it and bringing it to its glory like that of today, then I would agree that the Vikings undoubtedly discovered America. But... such is not history.

Ah.. Not true. They did settle for a short period of time. But the NAs constintly battled them for invading their land. They decided it wasn't worth it and moved on. But, either way, I bow out. I hate this country either way, so why argue it? Mad props to you, my friend.