ooooh la la! zie soup may now be served! (in gay-paree voice)

Thanks, Booklady!

andrew
:wq

Real_megia, yes you are right, when I red it my "sensors" light up.

For me it doesn't mind if it is anti-castilian (the case), pro-catalonian, anti-catalonian or pro-castilian, or any other historic nationality. What minds for me is that the facts are clearly manipulated, that figures are presented in a partial way, and that the whole context is presented in a very perfidious way.

I don't mind if Colon was catalonian, castilian, genevese or chinese. He was an important figure of his time, point.

But I think the site is worth visiting if you want to see where people can reach when trying to present their region/nation/country as the best and most magnificent, and the others as a bunch of crap.

Fernando

This is an interesting observation. Fernando, I bring it up because you caused me to remember quite a few comments at my friend's wedding. Friends of mine from Spain are pretty evenly split from four regions (Madrid, Cataloyna, Pais Vasco, and Andalucia), and this last winter in Madrid generated some interesting remarks. The friends from Barcelona kept talking on and on how superior their city and region were. Likely only gentle rivalry, but I sensed something more.

ERT,

You're absolutely right about Antonio Meucci being the inventor of the telephone. That's fairly well documented through court records, and various other documents that have existed for years. This information has been gathered by scholars, intent on straightening out what seems to be a glaring error in history. But, regardless, Bell was the inventor of the first telephones used in a commercial venture, and that part of history stands. Whether or not Meucci was treated unfairly doesn't change that fact.

But, what does that have to do with Columbus? If you had documentation that rivals the Meucci documents, you'd have a case. But, alas, you don't, and neither do the people who are expounding their theories.

So, who was the first person to the North Pole? Cook, Peary, or Henson? Personally I believe it was Cook, and the second one was Henson. I'm not even certain Peary ever reached it. But that has nothing to do with Columbus either, does it?

Documentation and facts. Not inuendo and wishful thinking. That's what sways opinions.

Wolf (Checking his drivers license to make certain he is who he is.)

real_megia,
I´m not saying 100% that the site I cited is necessarily the 'oracle' of all things academic and therefore correct, but what I´m saying is that I believe 100% the documents they have in their site that proof that Colon was from Barcelona. The ones that haven´t read any of those documents in that website are the ones like Booklady that are not believing what that website says just because it doesn´t come from a reliable source. That is the reason (for Wolf) that I have compared the situation in that website with the situation of Antonio Meucci (102.000 reliable sources were wrong and a few questionable sources were finally right).

"But, regardless, Bell was the inventor of the first telephones used in a commercial venture".
It is strange... if Meucci was the inventor of the telephone why 100% of the people until know have believed that Bell was the real inventor. I think Bell didn´t invent the telephone at all, he just took the real invention of the telephone from Meucci and aplied it to commercial venture, so Bell didn´t invent the commercial telephone because the telephone was already invented.

Damn! I thought Al Gore invented the telephone! I thought I had the chronology down, too:

1: Denim trousers, 1956 Al Gore
2: Telephone, 1957, Al Gore
3: Internet, 1974, Al Gore

Now I don't know what to think!

As a Californian, I could not disagree with you more. "Christopher Columbus" is a dirty word in many parts of the state, and progressive school districts in California that refuse to lump together the good and bad he has done.
A brave explorer, yes. Accomplished sailor, yes. but let's not forget that there were people in North America who suffered because of him: disease, slavery, cultural elitism, religious persecution, and the roots of white, Christian superiority. I never had Columbus Day holidays at school or work in California, and now that I live out-of-state I am very surprised and uncomfortable at Columbus Day celebrations. In California, that date in October is Indigeous People's Day, in support of their 500+ year struggle for equality.


As a history student in college, we never assigned any country to Columbus, instead I found evidence that he was Jewish most convincing. That Columbus was Jewish neatly explains his lack of a nation, his imprisonment for which there is no historical evidence, his constant wandering (presumably to escape further persecution), his presence in Genoa which was a merchant town, since Jews at the time were a merchant class.

Wendy,

Nobody has said Columbus was a perfect person. What we were indicating is his role in exploration to the West. As for his being Jewish, that's been brought up throughout history because he worked for Jews in Spain. As for the imprisonment factor, that was after his exploration. Isabella would have never offered support to him had he been Jewish. Not when they were expelling Jews in the first place.

As for California's views on Columbus, it really doesn't change the fact that the majority of people in the US look to him as what he was. An explorer. Someone who opened up travel from Europe to the Americas. Someone who made it possible for countries like our own to exist. That is the part of Columbus we honor. As for what followed, it's a part of history too, but I'm certain Columbus didn't stand before Isabella and proclaim that he was going west so he could bring disease, conquest, and slave labor to the people. He was part of an era. As for his bringing Christianity with him, wasn't that what Christian Europe was about? They explained away a lot of their attrocities by saying they were spreading the word of God.

I do agree though - Columbus shouldn't be held up as a godly person. He was human. Recognize what he did, but also recognize what followed - just don't hold him accountable for what others did later. That doesn't make sense.

Wolf

I'm not sure about this statement. Christian Europe was a lot more about other things than spreading Christianity. And I don't know if they had to, in their era, explain away their attrocities. Therefore, hindsight is not always 20/20.

toddy, who appreciates the foggy historic mirror

Wendy, it's "Día de la Raza" not "Indigenous Peoples" day out here. It's also a revisionist crock of crap. It makes me happy to be a history teacher so that I can open the minds of the students to knowing both sides of Columbus, but as Wolf pointed out, to not blame him for what others did.

The other night in the locker room after my hockey game, one of my teammates went off with the old rhyme "in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue". I made sure to add to that, "in 1492, Spain kicked out every Jew". With the Moors defeated January 1, 1492, and the expulsion of the Jews (and subsequent confiscation of their properties), Fernando e Isabel had extra "liquid assets" on hand which allowed them to even finance Columbus. Remember who he was "working for" in order to understand any of the things he did when he arrived in San Salvador...or whatever the name the place was given by the "indigenous peoples".

We seem to all agree that Colón was no saint...let's not vilify him for what Cortés and Pizarro or even the Portugese slave trade did years later. Let's punish him for his own sins, and not those of you and I.

And let's still take the 12th off if nothing more than for a great day of golf!