Christopher Columbus, the discoverer of America? Options

[panaginip13]

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?

[lolthissiteisfun...]

I don't think so. He might have "discovered it" for the Europeans, but the Native Americans had been there for centuries, and there is proof the Vikings found it first anyway, they just came a different way.

[sadolakced acid]

christopher columbus died without knowing he discovered a new continet.

he should not be credited.

[mizzkim]

i think he should be credited.. after all i wouldnt have to go to school on that one day lol

[*Solipsist*]

Yeah. Because we don't have a Lief Erikson day. And if he isn't credited, that means there will be school that one day..i dont know when it is.

- Solipsist

[Spirited Away]

I've written about this topic before:

"Though [he found his way] accidentally, he did forged a new pathway and inspired [further] exploration." Why not give him credit? If not for founding parts of the Americas, then for leading the way towards the finding.

[pandamonium]

well he didnt find this country he made it official he credited it and called it america. i think he should be credited. he just made it official.

[PinoyOtaku]

IMO I just remember him as the person that began/popularized the volleys of expeditions to America...

[iheartjohn]

He didn't actually discover America. It's a known fact that Chris Columbus never even set foot on America.

As far as I know, the Native Americans are the first people in North America. And as far as I know, they don't have a special holiday.

[sadolakced acid]

well he didnt find this country he made it official he credited it and called it america. i think he should be credited. he just made it official.

what the hell are you talking about?

he landed only in carribean islands, and never realized they we're off of the indian shore. he thought he found some islands in india.

[heyyfrankie]

obviously he didn't discover it because the native americans were already their. but i think that everyone will always credit him for it.

[DaTru KataLYST]

well he didnt find this country he made it official he credited it and called it america. i think he should be credited. he just made it official.

He never credited the continent. He didn't even know it was a new continent. All he did was cross the Atlantic, find the Caribbeans, travel back and tell everyone. To some credit, he was the one who promoted the exploration of America.

I know America is named after Amerigo Vespucci (sp) but I don't know if that means he made the continent official.

Is it for sure that the Vikings settled before Europe? There are village ruins dating before European arrival.

And there's even a growing speculation that Zheng He of the Chinese discovered America waay before the Europeans.

Of course, ultimate credit must go to the nomads who crossed the Bering Strait and settled in the Western Hemisphere. Technically, they were the one who discovered them. No?

[sadolakced acid]

amerigo vespucci was the 'first' to realize it was a new contient.

christopher columbus never realized that.

[Spirited Away]

However, he inspired further exploration of it for the civilized world, no?

Maybe we should first talk about who did discover America.

[to-devastate]

I'd give that guy atleast some credit. He did work his butt all the way to America to find it. But I think the Vikings and Native Americans discovered it. They should be credited too.

[sadolakced acid]

he is not credited with inspiring people to america. He is falsely credited with discovering america.

[Spirited Away]

I'd give that guy atleast some credit. He did work his butt all the way to America to find it. But I think the Vikings and Native Americans discovered it. They should be credited too.

I meant who discovered America for the civilized world. Who brought knowledge and attention of the Americas to those who would later make settlement?

he is not credited with inspiring people to america. He is falsely credited with discovering america.

Yes well, my first question was who should be credited for discovering America for the civilized world. Next, how did the person/group of people managed to come by discovering it? And how the knowledge of the Americas came to them.

By answering those, I will have a better understanding of why people say he is falsely accredited.

Before anyone says anything resembling "you're stupid, open up your history book" because I asked these basic questions, please don't. You'll be making an ass of yourself and I'll not pity you.

[tmauze]

I know he wasn't the FIRST one to discover it, and therefore shouldn't get full credit for doing so; however, his discovery and telling about the "New World" is what led to the civilization (sp?) outside of Native Americans that formed here - therefore, in a long stretch, yes, Columbus should be credited, at least majority, for discovering America because otherwise it probably would've been forgotten by all.

[sadolakced acid]

1. columbus was not the first european in the 'new world'
2. columbus never knew he found a 'new world'

i know who it was who first said "this is a new world!" to the europeans. He was Amerigo Vespucci.

i know the first european in the 'new world'. he was lief erikson.

so why should columbus be credited with discovering america, or inspiring others to america?

[pandamonium]

amerigo vespucci was the 'first' to realize it was a new contient. 

christopher columbus never realized that.

thats who i was thinking of. lol didnt america come from his name? amerigo yea it did .

[PinoyOtaku]

1.  columbus was not the first european in the 'new world'
2.  columbus never knew he found a 'new world'

i know who it was who first said "this is a new world!" to the europeans.  He was Amerigo Vespucci.

i know the first european in the 'new world'.  he was lief erikson.

so why should columbus be credited with discovering america, or inspiring others to america?

Ok lemme correct myself: he died with the thought that he thought he found another way to getting to East Asia. As you mentioned Americo Vespucci realized it and, thanks to German cartographer Martin Waldseemüller, Americo's first name was used for the identification of the continents we know today as North and South America. Forgive me for the errors of my last post and this one as well...due to the fact I'm depriving myself of sleep trying to correct myself..

[Spirited Away]

1.  columbus was not the first european in the 'new world'
2.  columbus never knew he found a 'new world'

This is a response I wrote in an earlier topic about hitler and columbus:

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 when Darwin wasn't the first to think of the evolutionary theory? 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? Certainly not perfection I hope.


Now then, as for Columbus not even knowing what he stumbled on. Many artists died before their paintings become famous... They wouldn't know that their work is now masterpiece worth millions because... well, they died.

In comparison, Columbus died before he had a chance to realize what we now know.

[*iNyCxShoRT*]

Psh. . .christopher columbus didn't discover america he was tryign to find a new route to Asia or something and then came across american. I think something Americo Vespuci or something like that discovered it i have no idea why they made it C.C day >=(

[Spirited Away]

Psh. . .christopher columbus didn't discover america he was tryign to find a new route to Asia or something and then came across american. I think something Americo Vespuci or something like that discovered it i have no idea why they made it C.C day >=(

Will you please read the whole thread before posting? Thank you.

[aznxdreamer]

hes the one that made it official. but i do think its kinda unfair that he took all the credit for it when the native americans were there first.

[weirdness]

I'd give that guy atleast some credit. He did work his butt all the way to America to find it. But I think the Vikings and Native Americans discovered it. They should be credited too.

agreed.
everyone deserves credit.

[Spirited Away]

hes the one that made it official. but i do think its kinda unfair that he took all the credit for it when the native americans were there first.

...
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?

[sadolakced acid]

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

so why should he be credited?

[Spirited Away]

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?

[jue]

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

[Spirited Away]

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.

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[Spirited Away]

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. 

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.

christopher collumbus was a failure.  he never got to inda.

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

also, he commited mass genocide.

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

Minda had something to say about that, too.

[XoJennaoX]

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

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[Spirited Away]

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.

[sadolakced acid]

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)

[Spirited Away]

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?

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.

((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)

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.

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[yellowgurl]

i think he should be credited.. after all i wouldnt have to go to school on that one day lol

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?

[Spirited Away]

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.

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.

[sadolakced acid]

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?

[Spirited Away]

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:

He should just be credited for discovering the new world for the civilized world. That's what I'm debating for. 

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

[rOckThISshYt]

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.

[Spirited Away]

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.

[rOckThISshYt]

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.

[Spirited Away]

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.

[rOckThISshYt]

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).

[Spirited Away]

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?

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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

[rOckThISshYt]

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.

[Spirited Away]

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.

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.

[rOckThISshYt]

It's certainly true if you had not taken the paragraph apart. But, alas, that short paragraph has only one meaning: 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?"

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?

[Spirited Away]

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.

[rOckThISshYt]

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?

[sadolakced acid]

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...

[rOckThISshYt]

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.

[Spirited Away]

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...

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.

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.

[rOckThISshYt]

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.

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?

[Spirited Away]

How do you know all tis?  

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).

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?

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.

[rOckThISshYt]

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.

[sadolakced acid]

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?

[Spirited Away]

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.

This post has been edited by uninspiredfae: May 4 2005, 10:36 PM

[rOckThISshYt]

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.

[x LUV x ALWAYS x]

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.

[rOckThISshYt]

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.

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.

[Spirited Away]

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.

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?

[rOckThISshYt]

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.

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.

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[rOckThISshYt]

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?

[sadolakced acid]

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?

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?

[rOckThISshYt]

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???

[Spirited Away]

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

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.

[rOckThISshYt]

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.

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[Spirited Away]

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.

[rOckThISshYt]

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.

[sadolakced acid]

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

he should only recieve partial credit..

[Spirited Away]

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.

[rOckThISshYt]

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.

[Spirited Away]

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.

[rOckThISshYt]

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.

[Spirited Away]

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?

[rOckThISshYt]

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.

[madchenallein]

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

[sadolakced acid]

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)

[madchenallein]

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.

[sadolakced acid]

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?

[Spirited Away]

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?

[skateforfree]

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

[demolished]

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 ..

[skateforfree]

by reading your sig i dont trust you

[Spirited Away]

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

Read the thread? Yea?

[Angel_Cece]

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

[Spirited Away]

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...

[*mona lisa*]

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.

[Spirited Away]

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.

[*mona lisa*]

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 ).