Columbus' Lost Voyage
The true story of Christopher Columbus was not only one of victorious discovery; it was also marked by disaster, accusation, and betrayal.
Ten short years after his discovery of the New World, Columbus languished in a Caribbean prison.
There, awaiting the gallows, he plotted what he called his most treacherous voyage - one that ended with the loss of all four of his ships and left Columbus and his crew shipwrecked with little hope of survival.
Now, the History Channel brings to life the perilous catastrophes and dizzying triumphs of Columbus last voyage.
Popular historian, explorer, and acclaimed author of The Last Voyage of Columbus, Martin Dugard, travels in the wake of the great explorer, visiting the key sites of Columbus discoveries and disasters, such as Panama, Jamaica, and Hispaniola, reliving one of history s most epic - and forgotten - adventures.
Interviews with local experts and dramatic recreations reveal the truth about the last, untold journey, and paint an intimate portrait of this complex and courageous hero.
this guy was a monster, a lying thief out for his own greed... he began and set forth the genocide in which other monsters would follow including hitler.... he allowed the rape and traffication of little girls, decimated entire population areas... introduced slavery to the americas... so why must we cherish this guy... he brought nothing but misery to millions of people, hated by his own men, and died almost broke...
A lot of ignorant comments above! Sigh. We are here today, not because of natives or Vikings, who also disd practiced conquest and slavery, but because of Christopher Columbus. People are , by either ignorance or dishonesty, blaming Columbus for the sins of the Spaniards. People need to take time to read the actual historic accounts in Context, and stop reading the anti Columbus propaganda!
reading comments, this video must be a moron magnet
Another crazy Christian who brought Gods love to the "unfortunate" they found God or a sword up their butts. Things never change
the only thing the Spanish invaders brought to the so-called "new world" were the Inquisition and Syphillis! The Indigenous peoples should have wiped them all out when they had the chance!!!
SPAIN EMPIRE killed 90 % of S/ AMERICANS , destroy INCA civilazation only by 157 soldiers , and SWALLOW their golds, they thought non-christan are animals, not humanbeings, we,SPANISH, decorate GOD’s cathedral with gold
Which WE stoled from american indians, thanks GOD we stole huge gold from ,,,,,GOD, give us HEAVEN TICKET,We paid it
WHITE AMERICANS mudered 95% of AMERICAN INDIANS 10 MIL, now remanined only 5% to swallow INDIAN LANDS
They thought also they mudered animals and slaves who is non-christans, they said NEW DISCOVERY of america ?
Then there was no human –residents in AMERICA before COLUMBUS?, AMERICAN INDIANS are not human?
F*** all this bulls***,,,all i thought was the thing was done well...a good tribute to the man,,and men who sailed with him,,,,that's all folks
flipinheck,arnt we all odd, to be wrighting/comenting on stuff long done and dusted,me included,interesting though....all great leaders were harsh and outrageous through our modern eyes,thats what made them....we want to think they were wonderfull hero types,well great things dont get done by being nice....and real life heroes wernt always right!...but hey,im not sure that any of it matters much
He was a sailor in a very rough business and ran into many difficulties and met them heroically. It's called real life. The Navy isn't much fun today either. I found it entertaining and informative even if it is a fictionaliZed account of the actual people and events. Well done.
I don't get. Some historians decided to dig up a few true events that happened during Columbus's conquest of the americas, as well as few character traits of a man living in a chaotic historical period, and suddenley all these opinions surface about him, debating on weather hes the good, the bad, or the ugly. You should all realise that the history your talking about spoke the same way about its history 2 hundred years before and so on. You arn't any better even though you are so convinced you are. Look around you numbskulls, check if anyone is screwing you in th arse, before you get all worked up and bash great people.
you are all prodigies of douchebaggery
well, i dont know how do you want to remember this guy.
but he surely was crazy for his dreams.
Know the funny parts of all this... we historians accept the facts that Columbus was the first to discover the new world, however in the Old world they did give the name to the new land America, because Amerigo Vespucci was the first to find out that Cristobal was not in India as expected. All of this was made in the very back of Cristobal since Amerigo himself never did visit the lands that was named after him.
People just keep spitting out the same sh*t as the person b4 them. Yes we know that others had arrived before him. But he is still credited for the discovery, for one Major reason.
When he found the Americas HE LET THE REST THE WORLD KNOW!!
If we keep pointing the finger back and back into history trying to solve this argument, then we might as well credit the mongoloid nomads who crossed the Bering Strait.
The true discovery of the Americas begins with the recognition of Europe and the rest of the world. Sparking the European colonization of the western hemisphere. And with them bringing all the baggage that Europeans worked so hard on for the thousands of years they had b4 COLUMBUS sailed for the Spanish. Its not much of a discovery if nobody outside of your longboat has any clue as to what you found on the other side of world. The major difference between the two is that when Columbus got here the WORLD followed.
It is very obvious that this is a sensitive subject. I think it is interesting, and very telling that even in a forum we see part of the problem with mankind, in general. We aren't able to come to a reasonable conclusion about this subject. What I say is simply one woman's opinion and belief. That doesn't make me right. It means that what I believe is different than what you believe.
We would all like to believe we have the right answers, myself included.
We don't even know all of the questions, so how can we have the answers?
There are points I would like to make to the entire group of people in this forum. Perhaps it is off topic, however that has happened to some degree in this forum already.
We all have our own personal beliefs about things. We are different people, with different experiences. It is a given that we are not all going to believe the same things in the same way.
What gets me is that when I read the forum comments, it always degenerates into personal insulting.
We all have a right to our opinions. We have the right to be wrong.
I do not believe we have the "right" to try to cram our beliefs down anyone's throat, so to speak and insult their intelligence simply because they have a different perspective on a subject than ours.
Having said those things, these are my observations.
We can't believe in history's portrayal of the "truth" .
There is a difference in truth, and fact.
It has often been said that the victors always rewrite history. I believe that is true.
Right is right, and wrong is wrong, no matter who does it.
The word accountability comes to mind.
My honest belief is that as a species, we are savages, period. Our civilized facade is just that. All we have to do is look at history, and look at ourselves.
Just one woman's opinion
You all need to gain an education before comments and then gain some insight.
columbus didnt discover anything! how could u discover
anything...indians were already there? how the hell does this man get this credit?
@ez2b12 Now we have come to a resolution, that's why discourse is needed even if started in a fire; it can always be resolved.
Just to point out, in that statement of mines u posted, just for argument sake, if I'm black or African (whatever is correct) and my tribe name is the New jersey Shoreman. My tribe gets taken over by another tribe called the Connecticut Soundman who look just like my tribe. They mix in with our women, kill our babies and some men. take our clothes which are better stitched than theirs. Add their beliefs into our belief system. Mix languages, etc. Before this act man seemed to have respect for the earth and one another, and this was the first of many evil acts to come.
These people being attacked are from a long line of civilized/enlightened people now their culture is being "mixed, diluted and tampered with"
I say all of that to say this. I wasn't speaking on any particular race when I typed that statement, anything representing the descending of civilized culture (knowledge, wisdom, understanding, freedom, justice, equality, food, clothing, shelter,love, peace, and happiness) is able to "mix, dilute, and tamper" the original civilized people. The original men had destroyed themselves long before European men knew what was going on, when they gained access to old world knowledge they only perpetuated the evil that already existed, it was in 10 fold, but nonetheless it was learned.
Europeans coming from an unforgiving land were naturally ready for war and conquest (Europeans are nothing but an extension of the original people) and once they learned how to build and count and expand empires it was only a matter of time before they had a crack at the world stage.
The difference here is that the descendants of Europeans worldwide continued to de-humanize the native people of that particular land long after chattel-slavery (which is slavery you can't buy or work your self out of and where humans are breed to be a certain way like horses, dogs, cattle, chickens, and pigs.) was over. This is where comparing to old world slavery doesn't work.
But again what's evil is evil and what's good is good. PEACE!(.P.ositive .E.nergy .A.ctivates .C.onstant .E.levation)
O.K. you right, I shouldn't be so condecending. I say we will have to agree to disagree on history teachers needing to proclaim moral judgements along with giving the facts. You have every right to place faith in the new theories, I did check out your link. In my opinion teachers have to stick to accepted and substantiated history, otherwise we would teach something different every other week almost. Now the theories you speak of may one day be substantiated, but right now they haven't made it that far.
Perhaps you didn't mean to accuse the whole of European men, but you did. When you say: "...for the people who think the world was always full of hate, genocide, slavery etc. you’re 100% wrong. That kind of savagery was introduced to world after the real civilized people of old was conquered and their culture was mixed diluted and tampered with."
This is not true, just ask any indian that knows their own history. Ask any African that knows the true history of their tribe. Alot of the indians and most of the African tribes practiced warfare, slavery, and occasionally genocide on other tribes. This is a proven fact and admitted by the tribes that did it.
That doesn't make what the Europeans did right, thats not what i am saying. I am saying all peoples have the tendency to be wrong, and this did not start with the Europeans. Besides this is a documentary about one man, that they did not praise at all. They simply laid out the facts, why does this require them to condemn a whole race of people? They do not talk about the colonization of the North american continent at all. This is what truly brought the conflict between the natives and Europeans. All Columbus wanted to do was discover a shipping lane to Asia. I think you are just getting way out of context and letting your passionate sympathy get in the way. That said I don't want to be condescending or aggressive toward you, what do I care really.
I have symapthy for opressed peoples the same as you, I just don't think when we talk about one man from Europe we shoud have to disccuss the sins of the many Europeans that came to America. I also do not feel like condemnation of peoples for past acts is very productive really. We all know what happened, we know it was wrong. Is it really productive to continue condemning a whole race of peoples for deeds committed hundreds of years ago? I think we should spend our time looking at what they are doing now, which has far worse and more global consequences. But like I said you are free to believe and think what ever you want, I had no right to act otherwise.
@ez2b12 you do what Bill O'Reilly does when his intellect is being threatened.
You said nothing of your Clovis claim i discredited (i sent u facts) and said nothing of the Olmec negroid people who have physical monuments in Mexico dating back to 1500 BC.
You immediately attack my opinions which obviously can be taken down. Like me saying I feel teachers should discuss moral and ethics after a lesson or when i implied that because of other triumphant astrological and mathematical feats of the ancient Africans that it is highly unlikely they didn't know of the lands worldwide.
But feel free to think you've won something or proved something all truth will eventually come to the light.
I wonder if you would be so condescending and cynical in person. Hope all is well ez2b12, until next time.
@ Tommy boy
Stop trying to put words in my mouth. I never said other cultures where not civilized, did I? I said they did not know of the North American continent. No, you do not know your history. It takes more than watching a few history channel documentaries to say you know history. You find me one credited historian that says that the Africans knew of the North American continent. If you want to say that other ancient cultures knew of the North American continent other than the Native Americans, your going to get laughed at pal. Sure they knew their was other lands, that is a far cry from saying they knew the position or nature of the North American continent.
If you can prove other wise please give all us historians a lesson, as obviousely the college educatioon we completed just isn't good enough for you. Their is always some crazy fringe that wants to make ridiculus claims that they can not back up, they are just that- ridiculus. Besides if you would read my posts you would see that I very clearly stated that he was credited for discovery of the new world by those that lived in the old.
Now I am ending this ridiculus conversation as you have proven you do not have the knowledge to discuss it intelligently. You might as well stop trying to dig your self out of the ridiculus claims you have made, you just look more and more simple.
Saying that history teahers should discuss morality is absurd and a very unpopular idea. The very first thing they tell you, educators and school boards, is NOT to discuss morality or condemn any group for their actions. You will offend someone in the class every time. Your in over head son, give it up. Or continue it is quite entertaining actually. I will not grace your pathetic excuse for an arguement with another reply however, I do not debate people that are not educated in the subject up for debate. To do so is to validate their crazy and misguided claims. Have a nice day.
@ Tommy S.
You say "follow me now" as if you where going to lay out some new and complicated idea. Thats just laughable, you are ranting the same useless point that a thousand other disinfranchised hippies have in the past. To say we must condemn history in order to learn from it is ludacris. We must first know what the facts truly where, which is why I posted what I did.
If you will notice every one kept trying to say that Columbus should not have recieved credit for the discovery of the new world, you included. The exact line you used was, "... Europeans didn’t discover anything first, all they did was re-discover what the original man has known for thousands of years." That is a false statement. First of all "original man" knew absolutedly nothing of the new world. He was from Africa. The Europeans where the first civilized race to discover the new world, whether that bothers you or not. The first peoples to find the North American continent where probably Europeans that eventually mixed with Asians to create Clovis man. Clovis man then gave rise to the Native American culture.
Watch a documentary on this very site called, Ice age Columbus: who where the first Americans, and you will see this is probably true. You will also see in the comments section me defending the Native Americans and condemning the people that killed them unjustly. If you read a little further you will see that a Native American helped me see how pointless and wrong that condemnation really was. I have learned not to condemn while presenting historical facts, as you will always offend someone, and it is not my place to make moral judgements for others. Nor is it your place. You said, "I felt what i read from you (ez2b12) was other than; That’s just my opinion, hence “how dare you”." Very perceptive it is not an opinion it is the facts. We would not be here if not for the Europeans you detest so much. I never said that was right or wrong, did I?
You also falsely place blame on the Europeans for slavery, in your last bunch of gibberish you said; "...European genocide and slavery." If you knew your history you would know that most of the opposition for slavery came from Europe and the enlightenment thinkers. Americans and the spanish did have a huge slave trade going, but Spain alone is not the whole of Europe. Voltaire, Adam Smith, Locke, Hume, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Kant, Condorcet, Beccaria all from Europe and all dead set against slavery and the exploitation of the Natives in the new world, which they saw as innocent and not corrupted by greed. The british went as far as to police the trading lanes and freed many slaves from spanish and portuguese slave vessels. Abraham Lincoln on the other hand was very indifferent toward slavery. He once said that if he could save this union without abolishing slavery, he would. How do you expect to learn by condemning when you dont even know the true history of the situation?
Finally, who are you to decide how others should speak? In my experience you will get much further by simply placing the facts out in front of someone and letting them draw their own moral judgements. To say that I, a historian not a preacher, should be required to condemn while explaining what happened, is ridiculus and dangerouse. Do we really want our history teachers telling our children what to think about what happened? Nor is it the place of a documentary about HISTORY not morality to condemn. Besides I would not say they praised Columbus at all in this documentary, they plainly showed his short comings. Besides Columbus is in no way responsible for the whole of Europe- which where not the bad guys you make them out to be.
As far as you being offended by my last post about the Native Americans, I told you that was not my arguement but a Native Americans. I have no opinion as to what the indians would or would not have accomplished. Historically it would have been a first, all other tribal based nations have remained devided- look at Africa. That is not to say it would not have happened, just that historically it has not. For you to sit onn a computer and condemn progress because it destroyed and killed befor it built and nutured, is very hypocritical. If it is so tainted why do you make use of it.
@Tommy, S: There is a vast gulf between learning from the past and self loathing, or condemnation of entire races for long past deeds. There is no single race on this planet that at no point in time engaged in warfare for self gain or expansion. I will go further than that and say no living creature on this planet. Just a few on the human side; Moorish invasion and colonization of Europe, Mongol ivnavsion, Zulu tribal expansion, The Huron and crow tribal war against the Mohawk, Japanese invasion of China. I could go on for a decade just listing them all. It has become socially acceptable to demonize those of the white race who decend from Western European ancestry. That is the peak of hipocracy coming from those who fight discrimination. If one can not and should not demonise a minority due to simple acident of birth the same applies to majority. Because logically todays White anglo saxons are as responsible for what happened in the past as an African or Hispanic or Asian is responsible for their skin tone. If you want to preach tollerance that is fine and good. But anyone of rational mind can see the gaping hole in promoting tolerance behind a wall of rage toward one group.
As to the documentary its self Columbus was not a hero he was an explorer. He did open the flood gate of European exploitation of the Americas yet he is not direnctly responsible. To lay blame look to the queen. Isabella and king Ferdinand also were all for the Spanish inquisition which was taking place in their country in the same time period. Botom line they were a "royal bloodline", who after decades of their country being ruled by the Moorish invaders, decided to take the power back through a simultaneous purging of their nation as well as plundering of a new land. The tactics employed by the conquistadores and the so called christian missionaries in the new world was copy paste of those used by the Moors during their ocupation. So why not go one step deeper and blame the moors for the demise of the new worlds peoples? Is not the teacher responsible for the way their student uses what they are taught? I say that in jest. I am sure that you already know what my stance is on the past
"Now, before you start some hippie tirade against what I have just stated..." LMAO
Follow me now.
@ez2b12 and Reasons Voice, starting a discourse with "how dare you" isn't aggressive at all, it seemed as if there was no sympathy, so the "how dare you" addressed that. I'm not even an aggressive person so that is laughable.
Furthermore if people started to condemn what our ancestors (Reasons Voice) did more often, we wouldn't repeat the same evil acts. We are responsible (all of us) for past acts because we are all one in the same and anytime we sit back and say that is just the way it "is" or "was," you're setting an atmosphere where people feel "comfortable" (for the lack of a better term) perpetuating evils acts of old.
I never said what you stated was false (ez2b12), I'm merely stating that if one talks of a person's triumphs, that same person must reveal in the same breath the heartache it caused an entire people (with feeling and conviction). I felt what i read from you (ez2b12) was other than; That's just my opinion, hence "how dare you".
I condemn all acts of evil whether native, european, or african.
But this documentary is hailing a European. If it was hailing Shaka Zulu i would talk about the tribes and land conquered under his reign and all the humans that were murdered.
Which brings me to your point about all the technological advancements that came from European genocide and slavery, does that really justify those evil acts? Seriously, you talk about the benefits that came from that. That's just unacceptable to me. You act as if human kind wouldn't have been able to advance if this European take over hadn't happened. That's also unacceptable to me.
All of the places discovered worldwide that obviously took some form of higher understanding that we have yet to attain didn't come out of murder, genocide, and chattel slavery. so it disproves your claim that we (humans) would have never attained any technological advancement.
Man has gone through many cycles of higher intelligence and savagery, for you to say some how that it was needed, implying that the native man would have never reached a point of unity and devised a plan for one culture without the help of genocide that's insane. (I know you didn't use the word genocide but we all know what happened after the Europeans had no use for those natives who helped kill the other natives). If you call that progress then I don't want progress; i mean come on, progress. Really.
@Reasons Voice i feel this discourse is healthy, you as a third party could have brought resolve, but u picked a side; that's not sophisticated. You said nothing helpful.
Whatever ez2b12 and I get into I'm sure it will come to a natural end. Communications, which is my field of study, doesn't always start peaceful but through intellectual discourse by both parties it will end peacefully if intentions are sincere.
And I feel ez2b12 is not a savage but someone who I needed to write to, why didn't I write to anyone else? because no one said anything interesting enough to challenge, its all out of respect. Knowledge is to observe AND to respect what you observe, and wisdom is only gained through the reflection of knowledge, which ez2b12 accomplished.
But i still disagree and i feel that's OK, especially now that i know ez2b12 took offense to "how dare you". SIMPLE!
@ Tommy S.
Get real, are you seriouse? You come here and start a obviousely agreesive discourse and when I stand up for what I said you try and reverse the situation. If you had of taken a little time out from your pity parade to read all of my posts you would have seen that I stated that they had no right to come here and kill anyone.
As far as being a troll, I have been posting here for quite some time with no arguements to speak of- hardly the actions of a troll. I have many friends here on this site in fact. I spent a large portion of my academic carreer studying history and I do not like to see people misrepresent the facts. As a result I often interject what I know to be the facts as they are, not as I would like them to be. If you don't like my attitude perhaps you shouldn't start your comments to me with,. "How dare you...". I "dare" to tell the truth whether it is pallitable to people or not.
Since you are so quick to condemn the Europeans for killing others to take their land, how do you defend the very indians you seem to revere so much? They constantly killed neighboring tribes and took their lands. In fact they may have been able to defeat the Europeans if they had of been willing to put aside their differences and pull together as one people to fight them. They could not accomplish this though, could they? Because much like the Europeans felt toward the rest of the world, each indian tribe felt superior to the other. Some tribes even helped the white man destroy the other tribes because they saw a chance to rid themselves of long hated enemies. If they had of pulled together and devised one language both written and spoken, learned from watching the whites, and give up the mojo worship- I think they would have won.
Now, before you start some hippie tirade against what I have just stated, know this. This is not my arguement, its one I got from a Native American on this very site. I can't remember his name but he was very wise about the shortcomings of his people. He even went as far as to say that if they had of won the country would now be divided into many smaller countries with different languages, currency, religions, and cultures. As a result it would have never made the advancements we now enjoy along with you. My question is, how dare you sit back on a computer connected to the internet and condemn progress. If you are so against it- get off line, move to a third world country, give up your car, your cellphone, etc., etc. Then I might take you seriouse, I doubt it though.
@Tommy S. "How can you say you feel bad in one breath and not condemn the oppressor in another breath." Just to interject, he does condemn the oppressor. However I hate to break it to you but those oppressors are long dead and gone. Why should he condemn himself or any group of people for past deads? What was done is past, no matter how trajic it was was not done by contemporary men. It is not the resposability of the living to ammend the sins of the dead.
As to EZ "picking a fight" that is laugable. You came onto the forum directly commenting to him with a lead in of "how dare you" You initiated the conversation and you did it agressively. If your purpose here is to troll and be confrontational with others out of the blue and then turn around to lay blame on them just post on you tube. We prefer a more sophisticated discource here. Thank you.
@ez2b12 first off relax. i can sense a tone. No one is crying, to build and destroy is just that. Negative actions aren't always the catalyst for the destruction of something, and some things are built upon, not always in place of.
And like i stated, "There should be no “buts” from anyone when speaking on what European settlement meant to the indigenous people of that particular piece of land"
How can you say you feel bad in one breath and not condemn the oppressor in another breath.
You are obviously picking an argument for the sake of it, you know what the deal is, I know what the deal is. So stop trying to show off on the internet.
@ Tommy S.
Cry me a river while your whining about injustices pal. My statement stands wether it offends your delicate sensibilities or not. I hate what happened to the natives here and everywhere else, but that doesn't change the fact as stated. We wouldn't be here if they had not of come and took the place.
A very wise man Named Randy once told me, "Nothing can be built until something is destroyed." He also said, "Not every birth is magic, not every death tragic." He is absolutedly right. I have nothing against Native Americans, or any other ethnic group, but the facts are what they are. Crying about it will not help. Changing history is not acceptable whether we agree with it or not. I merely tried to state the facts as they are, not justify them or condemn them.
This reminds me of the Bull I was forced fed in grade school. Now matter who one talks about, the speaker should expose his/her wrongs/rights, while exposing the same about the subject. That's to be fair to all. And who cares about the vikings, Europeans didn't discover anything first, all they did was re-discover what the original man has known for thousands of years. And for the people who think the world was always full of hate, genocide, slavery etc. you're 100% wrong. That kind of savagery was introduced to world after the real civilized people of old was conquered and their culture was mixed diluted and tampered with.
@ez2b12 how dare you say we wouldn't be here unless you're native American. That's very selfish If i could snap my fingers and keep the Europeans from setting foot anywhere but Europe, but it would mean the end of my existence then so be it. What's right is right, and what's wrong is wrong.
There should be no "buts" from anyone when speaking on what European settlement meant to the indigenous people of that particular piece of land; wherever on this planet. Australia, Madagascar, New Zealand, Africa, the Western hemisphere. None of the original people of these lands control the majority profit of their natural resources, education, history. The original man world wide has never been able to bounce back from European settlement to this day.
So before you hail Columbus and all his so called triumph just remember; someone's justice is someone's grief.
@Dread: That was about as insightful and well stated as your chosen tag name would imply. Your knowledge of Norse culture is about as deep as the potatos (no feet involved) you so inexplicably go off about. And as the front line proponent of political correctness, you should know that "Red Man" is not quite kosher. Keep up the good fight though. Minorities of all kinds depend on your eloquent defense.
Are the VIKINGS Better OFF than Columbus??????? All 'em murderous thieves.
Now they put Colvis!!! to say they got something common, as they are ashamed of the Potatoes they picked which ironically have become The Old world thieves main staple food....
Stop Fairy tallin's And Respect the RED MAN who has sacrificed for your food and generations to come.......
The Vikings were here first, no one says they wern't. But they died soon after coming here because they refused to adapt their diet among other things. They never truly knew what they had found, nor even guessed the size of the North American continent. They never reported the find to the "Old World" of Europe, which is why they do not get credit for the discovery from the Old World. These distinctions go to Columbus, wether we like it or not.
Ever heard the phrase "new to you" often used when reffering to used cars, well the concept is the same. The Americas where to the Old World considered a New World. To the Europeans Columbus was the one that found this New World, so they credited him with the discovery- makes perfect logical sense.
Yes they knew that their were already inhabitants called indians, who very well may have had a European ancester according to archaeologists studying Clovis man, the first inhabitants of the North America. Nothing in this documentary is false or misleading, and most Americans know this stuff contrary to popular belief.
Yes the knowledge was slow to come and we did think for a long time that he was first to ever be here from Europe, until we found out about the Vikings. Like I said though they can't be credited for returning to the Old World with news of the New, only Columbus can. They can't even be called explorers as they moved here out of desperation, not in the spirit of exploration, and then refused to adapt and died. No one is praising Columbus, I think the guy left alot to be desired, but he is the discoverer of the New world in the eyes of the Old, and should be.
The Vikings discovered the “Americas” hundreds of years before Columbus. Let’s get it right. There are Viking settlements in Newfoundland that are pre-date Columbus in “America” by hundreds of years.
Indeed, well said. In fact the celestial navigation that Columbus used on his fourth voyage was a result of the star charts recovered in Spain after running out the Moores.These along with the Greek knowledge found spurred on the Enlightenment and eventually the Scientific Revolution. Which seems odd as the entire premise of the Scientific Revolution was to not base new knowledge on the old, but to start over with the scientific method. A new attitude that man was able through the scientific method to discover the hidden workings of nature and somehow control it, brought optimism through out Europe. This type of new thinking in turn brought about the French Revolution which along with the newly founded American colonies help bring about changes in government- more participation by the people and less absolutist rule. Changes in law, punishment were made to suit the offences and exhibited more religiouse tolerance than ever. The idea of capitolism began to replace merchantilism. In short the world we know today started coming together. A very interesting time in history in my opinion, despite the cruelty and greed that are still so prevalent today- just in different forms.
Literally from the dawn of time, history is little but slaughter, rape and looting. Columbus was a man of his time. Back home, they were busy burning 30,000 "witches" and sweeping the "moors" out of Spain (not very gently).
He was credited with discovering the new world by the guys that live in the old world, makes sense to me. They never claimed he was the first to find these lands, just the first from the old world of Europe, which he was sort of. He found a "new" place, for people who claimed themselves to be the only "civilized" peoples of the world, to exploit and even move to. Moving here didn't really become a popular thing to do until the french revolution and the little ice age hit.
I agree that these people from Europe were pompas and had no right to kill the natives they found here, or to the south. But wether we like it or not the indians didn't write history books and were not responsible for the old world finding the Americas. The Vikings were here first as well, before Columbus I mean. But they died soon after coming here and never understood completely what they had found. Nor did they introduce this world to the old.
As someone before me said we can't look at this subjectively. We are so quick to condemn the Europeans because they were pompas and brought the ills of civilization here. But without them I wouldn't be here right now and neither would any of us really, unless your Native American. Even if you are I suppose you owe your existance to clovis man, who was also European mixed with Asian (we think, Im not sure they have proven this yet.) As Randy says, something has to be destroyed if anything is going to get built.
I think all of you are looking at this very subjectively, although I agree he was in some regards a tyrant but in on the otherhand he was an ambitious explorer and his plunder was only fueled by his need to convince his masters, who pretty much held his life in the palm of their hands (letting him out of jail solely for these voyages). His talent is very great and his abilities should be noted and respected and not disscriminated against since we all know where that leads. Bottom line is every side has good reason for their actions as well as wrong reasons thats just the way we learn and evolve.
Columbus didn't ever set foot on North America I don't think. He landed in Columbia (thus the name). As to the pillaging he only pointed the way for the conquistadores that followed. By no means is he a hero but his discovery was Navigation over open seas not a new world. The Clovis people from France in the ice age, The Mongol peoples as the ice age declined, the Vikings...the "new world" was quite old by the time he got there.
This is one of those comfort videos for the American masses. Brainwashed til the end of time
Columbus was a very wicked nasty man, and I wish the historian's would get thier fact's right before maling these false claim's. He was a plundering looting mental case.
How does one claim to have discovered lands "North America" when it was already inhabited by people? WTH? "Columbus, Cabot, and all the other murderous thieves who came here to try to claim (discovery) and make us their slaves" All their claims are based upon murder and lies!!
Columbus was a monster, like all the other creeps who claimed to have discovered Indian lands! Blasphemy!
The Vikings discovered the "Americas" hundreds of years before Columbus. Let's get it right. There are Viking settlements in Newfoundland that are pre-date Columbus in "America" by hundreds of years.
Why does murdering and robbing the people who were there first, earn heroic merit? In my opinion, he was a predator.
Why does history still credit this man as being the one that discovered the new world? I am appalled by a false claim that has been disproved again and again being made the mainstream historical narrative.
Why does history still credit this man as being the one that discovered the new world? I am appalled by a false claim that has been disproved again and again being made the mainstream historical narrative.
Why does history still credited this man as being the one that discovered the new world? I am appalled by a false claim that has been disproved again and again being made the mainstream historical narrative.