There has been numerous posts in various threads recently citing the "discovery of America by CC"

I'm wondering if this is factual or myth.

The maps I've seen of his voyage of 1492 show him island hopping in the Caribean and the Bahamas. He certainly got to Cuba but that is about as close as I can get him to what is now the USA.

Why is the Columbus myth so strong when there is ample evidence that other Europeans were on the North America continent a long time before CC was even a twinkle in his old man's eye?

On a similiar note - Why is the story of the pilgrims in the Mayflower given such prominance since there were permanent English settlements on the East coast well before the self -righteous group set sail?

Any authoritive and scholarly answer would be appreciated.

This continuously amazes me. It has been proven that the Indians have been in North America for 17,000 years plus. And yet, Columbus is credited for discovering American some Five hundred and eleven years ago.

I have heard that the vikings were here in the 1000ad - 1200 ad range, I don't recall what year. I've also heard it suggested that the Chinese were here in the early AD years, maybe 500. All the years are guess, I'm trying to pull them out of my memory. I think that archeologists think that the Russians were in California before Columbus came over here, but I'm not sure.

I guess this thread will be sent to the history forum.

Anyway. Columbus did bring contact with 'America' to the European powers.

Originally posted by Stapel
I guess this thread will be sent to the history forum.

Anyway. Columbus did bring contact with 'America' to the European powers.

Stapel- I'm more interested in answers to the social myth aspect than I am in the historical correctness- ( I know CC didn't discover America). Hence I put it in OT where pretty much anything goes rather than in the history thread where I would get a dry disatation as a reply.

Originally posted by warmonger


Stapel- I'm more interested in answers to the social myth aspect than I am in the historical correctness- ( I know CC didn't discover America). Hence I put it in OT where pretty much anything goes rather than in the history thread where I would get a dry disatation as a reply.

I think it is a simple need of human beings: having myths!
People need heroes. If there aren't any, they will be created.

The maps I've seen of his voyage of 1492 show him island hopping in the Caribean and the Bahamas. He certainly got to Cuba but that is about as close as I can get him to what is now the USA.
Columbus never stepped foot on mainland America but he did open the continent up to Europe so from a purely European perspective he did "discover" it.
Why is the Columbus myth so strong when there is ample evidence that other Europeans were on the North America continent a long time before CC was even a twinkle in his old man's eye?
Those previous European voyages to America did not bring the continent to the mindset of Europeans. After Columbus no one would forget America was and is there.
Why is the story of the pilgrims in the Mayflower given such prominance since there were permanent English settlements on the East coast well before the self -righteous group set sail?
Trying to escape religious persecution makes a better story than trying to make a quick buck. It should be remembered that the pilgrims were in the minority on the Mayflower and were perhaps the most useless colonists ever.

Originally posted by MrPresident

Columbus never stepped foot on mainland America but he did open the continent up to Europe so from a purely European perspective he did "discover" it.

Those previous European voyages to America did not bring the continent to the mindset of Europeans. After Columbus no one would forget America was and is there.



This confuses me. How could he raise the continent to the mindset of the Europeans when he didn't know it was there. He didn't land on it, didn't chart it, and probably didn't even see it? It was some long forgotten sailor chasing the same islands that CC described that stumbled over continental America

Originally posted by warmonger


This confuses me. How could he raise the continent to the mindset of the Europeans when he didn't know it was there. He didn't land on it, didn't chart it, and probably didn't even see it? It was some long forgotten sailor chasing the same islands that CC described that stumbled over continental America
He found lands while many people in Europe thought he'd fall in the void when reaching the "end of the world".
He found lands when people in Europe thought he would find nothing.

So people in Europe where surprised that there was land here, and latter discovered it was a whole continent in fact. But they looked for it because he discovered land.
So he's the one who "discovered America".

Originally posted by Akka

He found lands while many people in Europe thought he'd fall in the void when reaching the "end of the world".

This, I can accept


Originally posted by Akka

He found lands when people in Europe thought he would find nothing.

The common contention was that he ( and others) thought that he would find India - a quicker and safer route to the riches of the East by heading West.

Originally posted by Akka

So people in Europe where surprised that there was land here, and latter discovered it was a whole continent in fact. But they looked for it because he discovered land.
So he's the one who "discovered America".

He only discovered a few islands. Why has the name of the person who actually found the continental land mass been lost?

The earlier answer of a need for heros seems to fit


edit 100th post :)

Well obviously he wasn't the first to discover America. The ancestors of the 'natives' discovered it thousands of years ago.

But I think It would be okay to say he re-discovered it.

Originally posted by warmonger
He only discovered a few islands. Why has the name of the person who actually found the continental land mass been lost?


Amerigo Vespucci?

Originally posted by warmonger

He only discovered a few islands. Why has the name of the person who actually found the continental land mass been lost?


Because he isn't important, whoever he is. Columbus found the land, the new world, the new continent that nobody knew about. So what if he only landed on a couple of islands? Is that important? No. He found the place, there's nothing remarkable about the guy who found the main land - he was just following up, nothing special at all, really not. Columbus led the way.

Amerigo Vespucci?
Amerigo Vespucci didn't discover anything. He was a second-rate Italian businessman with good PR.
He only discovered a few islands. Why has the name of the person who actually found the continental land mass been lost?
Because there was not one man who found the contiental land mass. Many different voyages discovered many different areas of North and South America at pretty much the same time. And Columbus didn't just discover a few islands, he was the cataylst for future discoveries.
How could he raise the continent to the mindset of the Europeans when he didn't know it was there.
Luck.
He didn't land on it
The Caribbean is considered as part of the American continent, like Britain is part of Europe.

Originally posted by Dralix


Amerigo Vespucci?

Thank you Dralix. This is the guy I was looking for. He did all the hard work - just didn't get any of the credit.

I found this in an on-line encyclopedia:

The successful voyages of Christopher Columbus increased Vespucci's desire to take a part in the general European movement to seek a western passage to the Indies. Having obtained three ships from Ferdinand, King of Castille, Vespucci was able to undertake his first voyage. Accordingly, he set sail from Cadiz on 10 May, 1497, sailing toward the Fortunate Islands, and then laying his course towards the west. After twenty-seven or thirty-seven days, on 6 or 10 April, he touched the mainland (Guiana or Brazil?), and was well received by the inhabitants. In this first voyage he may have entered the Gulf of Mexico and coasted along a great portion of the United States, as far as the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Then he returned to Spain, and landed at Cadiz on 15 October, 1498. There is no other relation of this first voyage than that contained in the first letter of Amerigo Vespucci concerning the islands newly found in his four voyages, addressed to Piero Soderini, Gonfaloniere of Florence.

On 16 May, 1499, Vespucci sailed from Cadiz on his second voyage, with Alonzo de Ojeda and Juan de la Cosa. He directed his course to Cape Verde, crossed the Equator, and saw land, on the coast of Brazil, at 4° or 5° S., possibly near Aracati. From there, he coasted along the Guianas and the continent, from the Gulf of Paria to Maracaibo and Cape de la Vela; he discovered Cape St. Augustine and the River Amazon, and made notable observations of the sea currents, of the Southern Cross and other southern constellations. He returned to Spain in September, 1500. There two expeditions were undertaken in the service of Spain; the third and the fourth, in that of Portugal. In consequence of the long fatigues of his second voyage, Vespucci was taken ill of the quartan ague. When his health was re-established, he wrote an account of his voyage to Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco de' Medici.

On 14 May, 1501, he sailed from Lisbon to Cape Verde, and thence westward, until, on 1 January, 1502, he came to a gulf at 13° S., to which he gave the name of Bahia de Todos Santos, and upon the shores of which the city of Bahia now stands. From there he coasted along South America, as far as the Plata. On his return, he discovered the island of South Georgia, at 54° S., and 1200 miles east of Tierra del Fuego. He arrived at Lisbon on 7 September, 1502. On his fourth voyage, he sailed with Gonzal Coelho from Lisbon, on 10 June, 1503, touched land at the Cape Verde Islands, and bent his course towards the Bay of All Saints. At Cape Frio, having found great quantities of brazil-wood, he established an agency, exactly on the Tropic of Capricorn. Thereafter, he coasted along the continent, nearly to the Rio de la Plata, and then returned to Lisbon, where he arrived on 18 June, 1504. Vespucci made a fifth voyage with Juan de la Cosa, between May and December, 1505; they visited the Gulf of Darien, and sailed 200 miles up the Atrato River. During that voyage, they collected gold and pearls, and received information of there being a great abundance of those substances in that region.

Erik the Red and Leif Garrett, of course. :ack:

Originally posted by warmonger
Thank you Dralix. This is the guy I was looking for. He did all the hard work - just didn't get any of the credit.


Maybe we should name something after him, like a street somewhere. Amerigo Avenue?

Nah, that'll never work ...

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
Erik the Red and Leif Garrett, of course. :ack:

Wasn't Erik the Red a teeny bopper hearthrob? ;)

The US was already populated. Therefore the importance of discovering europe is by making the europeans aware of it's existence. The importancy is of discovering there's land, far away across the atlantic. Columbus was the one who did it.

Originally posted by Dralix
Wasn't Erik the Red a teeny bopper hearthrob? ;)

He was made for raidin' aw-aw-aw-all night long! :evil:

If I can attempt to be serious for once in this thread, you also have to keep in mind the European mindset at the time.

First of all, as others have pointed out, the Americas were "discovered" in the sense that the Europeans didn't know about them at the time. To them it was, a new world.

Second, the fact that it was already inhabited was not important to them. As far as they were concerned, these people were not civilized. They were savages. They had no right to the land that they occupied. It was the god given duty of the Europeans to convert the heathens. The Pope (Clement maybe? not sure which one) went so far as to divide the world in half. Everything to the west of the line belonged to Spain, everything to the east belonged to Portugal. It mattered not if it was already inhabited. There was now a papal bull saying this was your land.

So when saying that you can't discover a land that was already inhabited, you have to keep in mind that the inhabitants were not relevant during that time period.

EDIT: edited to more clearly convey that the views of the natives portrayed in this post are those held by the Europeans at the time, not by myself at this time :)

Originally posted by Dralix
If I can attempt to be serious for once in this thread, you also have to keep in mind the European mindset at the time.

First of all, as others have pointed out, the Americas were "discovered" in the sense that the Europeans didn't know about them at the time. To them it was, a new world.

Second, the fact that it was already inhabited was not important to them. These people were not civilized. They were savages. They had no right to the land that they occupied. It was the god given duty of the Europeans to convert the heathens. The Pope (Clement maybe? not sure which one) went so far as to divide the world in half. Everything to the west of the line belonged to Spain, everything to the east belonged to Portugal. It mattered not if it was already inhabited. There was now a papal bull saying this was your land.

So when saying that you can't discover a land that was already inhabited, you have to keep in mind that the inhabitants were not relevant during that time period.

I agree on the fact that Columbus "discover" America but you go far when you say the people on it has no right and were uncivilized. They didn't eat each other at random you know.

A very good point, Dralix, one which most Indians fail to realize. Myself included.

Part of the reason the New World colonization was so successful from the European standpoint was that the Indians had a different mentality of how to live than the Europeans. It would be interesting to find out how it would have turned out if the Indians were less likely to be pushed aside so easily.

Part of me doesn't know, or want to try and figure it out. Another part guesses it would be a lot like living in Europe when everyone was trying to expand.

Originally posted by tonberry


I agree on the fact that Columbus "discover" America but you go far when you say the people on it has no right and were uncivilized. They didn't eat each other at random you know.

I didn't say that they were uncivilized and hat no rights to their lands. The Europeans of that time did. So keeping that in mind, it helps to understand why they said that it was "discovered."

Columbus didn't discover America. He discovered India. Or so he thought. He never knew he discovered a new continent, as that was discovered after his death. Actualy, Columbus didn't only sailed tto cuba and the bahamas, but also the island now knows as Hispania (Haiti and Dominican republic) and settled Santo Domingo. And he sailed to the coast of nowadays venezuela, whis got his name from columbus, who saw housed on poles in the water, and called it after Venice.

I feel the need to point out that the name "America" is derived from Amerigo Vespucci's given name.

Amerigo = America.

The new world was named by a prominent mapmaker of the early 16th C, who labelled it w/ Amerigo's name (not Columbus' -- although the nation of Columbia, the US capital Washington District of Columbia and many of our institutions have been named after Columbus.)

(I for one am grateful that the mapmaker named it Amerigia, and not Vespuccia.) :) (And that future language butchers were lazy enough to rename it America. It's a good name. And the fact that it's origin is obscure adds credibility to it -- if you don't know why you call something what you call it, your sub-conscious thinks of it as God's name for it.)

Since Columbus is MUCH better remembered, you could argue that Columbus had superior PR.

But I would give him credit for taking a journey few had seriously contemplated. He deserves at least as much credit as the Vikings et al before him for taking the chance, and when he "discovered" it, is STAYED discovered. F/ a European POV.

Originally posted by Mojotronica
I feel the need to point out that the name "America" is derived from Amerigo Vespucci's given name.

Amerigo = America.


There's fresh debate about that now.

It's obviously Columbus who deserves the credit. He found land. Anybody can just follow, but he was the leader.

Columbus discovered Cuba. Ponce De Leon discovered America when he found Florida.

Originally posted by Mojotronica
I feel the need to point out that the name "America" is derived from Amerigo Vespucci's given name.

Amerigo = America.


And here's a link:

http://www.britannia.com/celtic/wales/facts/facts1.html#americaname

Originally posted by sween32
Columbus discovered Cuba. Ponce De Leon discovered America when he found Florida.

Cuba is part of America. And the point is, Columbus discovered that there was land there. That was the important part, not the part played by the people who followed up. He opened the way for them. It's nothing to do with who discovered the most land, simply who discovered the land.

I don't think that re-naming the New World "Columbia" is going to catch on.

I think that "America" is better, BECAUSE the origin of the name is more obscure. Less baggage. Columbus, after all, is called "the father of genocide in the New World" in some circles. A controversial man.

Sidebar: when I travelled abroad, I was scrupulously careful about calling my nation the "US" or "United States." People I met were not having it (unless they were from Canada, Mexico or S. America.) I was asked numerous times why I was avoiding calling the USA "America."

They didn't understand or thought I was being too PC.

(Although I still go out of my way to make the distinction.)

History topics belong in the history forum...moved.

@Mojotronica,
I don't think anybody suggests that America should be named Columbia. I also don't think you should call it "Columbia", let's not forget Columbia is a country and using those marks may be a little disrespectful.

No offense intended. I used quotation marks because it's a proper name. :)

(And I am too lazy to italicize)

I wouldn't have had a problem w/ naming the New World after Columbus in some form a few hundred years ago, but you have to admit "America" is catchy... I say we should stick with it.

What is being proposed/debated?

The first European to actually "discover" the Americas was an Icelandic explorer named Bjarni Herjulfsson. Around 985 a.d. his ship was blown off course and he sighted what was was probably the coast of Newfoundland. He made his way back to Iceland, where he described a "hilly, forested land west of Greenland". This captured the interest of Leif Ericson, who made his voyage about 15 years later.

We shouldn't take any credit from Columbus, though. Even though he always insisted that the land he reached was India, after his death all of Europe came to realize that he really had discovered a new world.

Columbus expedition was not as controversial as many seem to believe. Educated people knew that the earth was round at that time. They knew Columbus would find India by sailing westwards, but they believed the eastern route was much shorter, which was true. Columbus did not believe them and he insisted that he had discovered the western shortcut to India. He never realized that he had discovered a new continent:p.

So why did he become a hero? Because he made Europeans aware of new land relatively close to Europe. This motivated other Europeans to explore and colonize this New World. That eventually led to the formation of USA, and that's all Americans care about. Those who discovered America before Columbus did nothing for USA so we should forget them:cool:.

The 'natives' of America were originally from Europe so they were the first Europeans to discover it.

I agree with phoenix_night, but im pretty sure native americans came across the alaskan, russian sea when it was frozen.

P.S
Why?!! - 'cenedlaetholwr cymraeg' ah you think we english have forgotten all of the old celtic tongues don't you, you'd be suprised how many still recognise a little! But seriously why? its never like we've EVER been seperate countries like Scotland?

Columbus was the first showing evidence that a new continent existed. At that time no one else in Europe, Asia or Africa new for certain about the existence of the continet. That's why he is the discoverer of America.

Also note that he was wrong about the continent he discovered. He had made calculations about the size of the world (at that moment it was already known that the earth was not flat) and he thought it was much more small. That's why he thought he had arrived to Asia. But many scientist at that time had more accurate calculations, and that's why in Portugal they didn't support him. Also in Spain he had problems to get the money for the trip for this reason, but at the end they took the risk.

"Chris Columbus" did not discover America. He directed Harry Potter.

Chris Columbus (http://us.imdb.com/Name?Columbus,+Chris)