Talk:Christopher Columbus

Request for info: what is "columbus' egg"? -- Tarquin 10:14 Jul 28, 2002 (PDT)

As far as I know it is the way in which Columbus made an egg stand up straight: smashing it so hard on the table it had a dent, allowing it to stand straight. This is probably just an urban legend or so, I don't know about that. In Dutch, the term "Het ei van Columbus" is used to describe a simple solution for a difficult problem (sometimes a too easy solution). Hope this helps. Jeronimo 14:06 Jul 28, 2002 (PDT)

Columbus was not an explorer, he was a slave trader who got lost.

He wasn't??? -- ZxAnPhOrIaN 23:16 Oct 15, 2002 (UTC)

Adding factual info on Columbus's connection to the slave trade would be welcome. Simply changing the article from saying "explorer" to "slave trader" doesn't make it more informative.

Well it does make it more informative. Because Columbus wasn't an explorer. He was a slave trader. He was a guy who floated between Africa and Europe trading slaves. Thus he was a slave trader. How do you think he got so good at sailing in the first place? Nobody gives you a grant to go "explore" for Indian slaves, gold, and spices unless you have experience in "exploring" for slaves, gold, and spices.

- No, it doesn't make it more informative-- There were thousands of people engaged in the slave trade; I suspect few of them warrent encyclopedia articles for that reason alone. If you have documentation about Columbus's working as a slave trader before 1492, that would be interesting; I hope you'll share it, as that would be a contribution to the article. However, Columbus's making Europe aware of the Americas is what he's most remembered for. If Columbus's only purpose was the slave trade, he would have simply sailed down the cost of Africa, as other slave traders were doing, rather than heading out on a risky uncharted course west across the open ocean.

- Yes, it does make it more informative, "Columbus was a slave trader who found a new continent" is far more informative than, "Columbus was a guy who found something new (ie. explorer) that found a new continent" The dude was a slave trader by profession. If you asked him he would say, "Im a slavetrader. I capture slaves and sell them."

I assume you can back that up with documents that you are about to cite. --Brion 00:42 Oct 20, 2002 (UTC)

Im getting kinda sick of the attitude of certain members of wikipedia. They seem to think that anything they don't already know is very dubious and they constantly demand "proof".

(I'm amazed that it surprises you that people are dubious when given "information" with no sources or evidence that is contrary to their current beliefs. If you ever looked around you, you would have long ago noticed that that's exactly what human beings do on a regular basis. --Brion 04:31 Oct 20, 2002 (UTC))

If you don't know Columbus was a slavetrader its a pretty good guess you don't know much about Columbus and I wish those who haven't done much study of such things would just admit it and back off. And when they do find something objectionable, I wish they would leave a note in talk, NOT CHANGE THE TEXT, and go do some homework. Lir 02:26 Oct 20, 2002 (UTC)

http://www.2think.org/ah.shtml

http://www.transformcolumbusday.org/faq.htm

http://home.earthlink.net/~krazhawk/Columbus_Day.html

http://www.geocities.com/amawek/HeroBarbarian.html

http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/columbus1.html

http://www.indiancountry.com/?595

http://www.trinicenter.com/kwame/2001/Jul/20010713.htm

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/explorers/mexico.shtml

http://www.csindy.com/csindy/2001-10-11/yourturn.html

They would even take Indians from place to place with them -- as dog food -- as a kind of mobile dog food. When they got to where they were going for the night, they would allow the dogs to tear one of them apart and eat them.

Wake up u idjits

Please try to remember that there are people here who know a LOT more than you on these topics. It is beyond ludicrous to object to stating that Columbus was a slavetrader. Lir 02:26 Oct 20, 2002 (UTC)

129.186.80.118 insists on putting "slave trader" as Columbus's occupation. This has been reverted more than once, but 129.186.80.118 won't leave it alone. --- Zoe

Well, there is at least a necessity for some discussion of Columbus' brutality towards the Arawaks, his enslavement of Indians, and his violent pursuit of gold, which are all documented in his own diary and are not in any dispute. The fact that Columbus is treated like a hero is extremely insulting to a great many millions of people, and the lack of any discussion of it in this entry is appalling. Will add it shortly. Graft 23:39 Oct 19, 2002 (UTC)

Hmm, so what is "Before he left on his second voyage he had been directed by Ferdinand and Isabella to maintain friendly, even loving relations with the natives. However during his second voyage he sent a letter to then proposing enslavement of them, specifically of the Caribs on the grounds of their aggressiveness. His petition was refused by the Crown. In February, 1495 Columbus authorized shipment of 500 Arawak slaves to Spain. Rounding up the slaves resulted in the first major battle between the Spanish and the Indians in the new world."? Only a small beginning, to be sure, but hardly "treating like a hero". --Brion 00:05 Oct 20, 2002 (UTC)

Possibly "The Myth of Columbus" or "Perceptions of Columbus" might be a good subject for a seperate article. There certainly was a lot of heroic mythologizing of him, especially centered around the 1892 anniversary. Infrogmation

Columbus was enslaving on his FIRST trip. He was enslaving before his first trip. There is not "at least a necessity for discussion of Columbus' brutality" there is a WHOLE LOT OF NECESSITY for it.

Re-reverting... Lir, if you can present evidence/sources showing that Columbus was not an explorer, this would be extreemly interesting, and I'm sure many people would be interested in seeing it. That Columbus advocated enslaving indiginous Amerinds from at least his 2nd voyage to the New World seems not to be in dispute. If you can show he was a slave trader before 1492, this would be of interest as well.

when you have a question-take a little time to do some work instead of bashing everything. Lir 02:32 Oct 20, 2002 (UTC)

This is a subject about which I know very little, but if I go to http://www.xrefer.org and search for Columbus I find two substantial articles on him, one from the Market House Books Encyclopaedia of the Renaissance and the other from The Macmillan Encyclopedia - neither of them mention slave trading, but Macmillan says he was a pirate in his youth. As I say, I'm pretty ignorant on this subject, but keen to learn - if you, Lir, or anybody else can point me towards a source that says he was a slave-trader, I'd be grateful. --Camembert

pirates tend to be slavers Lir 03:11 Oct 20, 2002 (UTC)

I'm new in this debate, but I do remember reading something about Columbus dealing in slaves. The question is how relevant it is. He was captain of a merchant vessel, and the merchandise included slaves (as well as gold and spices-slaves were just another merchandise). He sailed west looking for new trade routes. In that sense he was an explorer. He is remembered in history as an explorer, not as a slaver, so the introductory paragraph should reflect that. The role of the slave trade in his voyages could make an interesting new paragraph, but it has to be put in context of the times--slaves were one of the "items" he traded. Danny

oh i think thats a horrible idea. he wasnt just trading wool. he was trading slaves.

Simply posting a link or a source of that information would end this debate. It's not that hard. I don't know one way or the other myself. But if it's true, there should be some (respectable) websites out there that mention it with sources listed. In my opionion, negative things like this should not be included about people without some source listed. -jazz77

Okay, I've poked around online (it's 11 p.m. Saturday, the library is closed) for Columbus information, and the one clear fact is that Columbus's wife was the daughter of a navigator who worked for Prince Henry the Navigator. Various sources found by googling have him exploring around Thule, or trading to Madeira, or otherwise exploring or working on a sailing ship.

The slave trade is a long and continuing stain on human history; unless there's evidence that Columbus was particularly complicit in this, it might be worth mentioning, but shouldn't be in the first sentence. Vicki Rosenzweig

http://www.2think.org/ah.shtml

http://www.transformcolumbusday.org/faq.htm

http://home.earthlink.net/~krazhawk/Columbus_Day.html

http://www.geocities.com/amawek/HeroBarbarian.html

http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/columbus1.html

http://www.indiancountry.com/?595

http://www.trinicenter.com/kwame/2001/Jul/20010713.htm

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/explorers/mexico.shtml

http://www.csindy.com/csindy/2001-10-11/yourturn.html

I followed a few of those links. Here are some comments:

I have no faith in the Kwame page (that's at trinicenter.com), after the first paragraph:

" At the outset, it must be stated quite clearly that we Afrikan people, are the original, majority people with original ideas. Europeans are only an inherited, transmitting global minority people. Europeans did not invent, create or discover culture nor civilisation; they just inherited them and in some cases, stole them. Afrikans never lived in caves and in the icebox during the Ice Age for 20,000 years." This is not history, it's myth, and racist myth at that. (In some sense we are all Africans, yes--but that's not what he's saying.)

actually I agree with that page and Im not african. Europeans did not invent, create, or discover culture. it was all imported and stolen and moved there. Lir 03:17 Oct 20, 2002 (UTC)

"csindy.com" appears to be an alternative newsweekly, longer on editorials than reporting, and certainly not any kind of scholarly source. enchantedlearning.com tells us that Columbus enslaved some of the natives when he got to the Americas, but describes him as an explorer. Vicki Rosenzweig

lol-i donno-if not everyone, just about everyone of those links pretty clearly says, "Columbus was a slavetrader". Not a whole lot I can do if you people don't take the time to read anything. Lir 03:17 Oct 20, 2002 (UTC)

OK, we're getting off the subject here - the point is not whether Columbus traded slaves or not, the point is whether we should describe him as a "slaver" or an "explorer". As Danny and others say, he is remembered as an explorer, so should be described as such in the first paragraph - the opening of the article is to introduce the subject, and introducing Columbus as a slaver is missing the point somewhat. To make a musical analogy (something I do know a bit about) - the famous conductor Herbert von Karajan was a member of the Nazi party, but if I was going to write an article on him, I would write "Herbert von Karajan was a German conductor" not "Herbert von Karajan was a German Nazi". Of course, if Columbus was a slave trader, the article should talk about this, but it's not what he's famous for, and so putting it in the first paragraph as if that's his claim to fame is misleading. --Camembert

Is a celebrity's life decided by what the majority of the populace thinks his life was like? --Ashibaka

Of course not, but it's surely true that the source of somebody's fame is decided by that. Anyway, I'm not talking about that - what I'm saying is that the first paragraph of an article should concisely sum up the subject, and if the article is on a person, it should state why the person is deserving of an article (there is a policy page which says just this). In this case, I believe that means saying that Columbus was an explorer who was the first European to stumble across the Americas. As I say, it's obvious that if he traded slaves, that should also be talked about in the article, but the fact is that slave trading is not what he is famous for. --Camembert

But see, he wasn't an explorer. He didn't hike the Himalayas before he went to America. No, he traded slaves. Now granted, he traded other things. If you want to say he was a trader of wools and slaves, that is fine. Maybe he traded nayls too. Who knows. But the fact that he was a slavetrader kinda explains why all those Indians died and so it should be mentioned. He was a slavetrader who did some exploring in the search for slaves. Above all, slavery was on his mind, which is why he didn't do a whole lot of exploring beyond, "Where is the gold and why aren't you mining it for me? Lir 03:37 Oct 20, 2002 (UTC)

Thank you, you just refuted your own claim. According to what you just said, his primary interest was gold, not slaves. Slaves were a means to get the gold. As for his trading history, he was NOT collecting slaves in Iceland, but he spent considerable time there. Danny

Should we call him a goldcollector instead? Lir 03:43 Oct 20, 2002 (UTC)

I don't understand this assertion that Columbus "was'nt an explorer" - just what was he doing going across the Atlantic if not exploring? You must have a different definition of exploration to me. --Camembert

Just cuz u discover something by accident doesnt make you an explorer.

Well, since he was exploring new routes to get slaves to dig up gold, why not just call him an explorer. Danny

wut do you think he was exploring? the water? by his reckoning it went straight to somewhere that was already known. you dont explore by taking a new route to the gas station. you don't get to call yourself an explorer if you find a gold nugget while you are out driving around selling slaves in your slavemobile.

Yeah, Unfortunately in this debate, we have to sacrifice our sacred cows for the facts. Columbus the explorer is good enough for the second grade book report, but not here. we dont have his W2 forms to find what his main occupation was, and therefore, we go by how he made his money. Westernised concepts of discovery are not entirely false, theyve just been sanitized(add to my new stub here by the way). so keepit up, people and dont let any ignorant propagandist accuse y'all of revisionism. -Sv

Stevertigo, you confused me. Which side of this debate are you on? -- Zoe

Columbus the explorer is good enough for the second grade book report, but not here. Lir 03:50 Oct 20, 2002 (UTC)

Glib rhetoric will get you no where. The second grade book report gives a bibliography of websites, rather than real sources accepted in an academic setting. Danny

Danny, its strange that you state this when you know he was a slavetrader.

It's interesting. If you go to yahoo and type, "Columbus traded slaves" you get all these sites that say he was a slavetrader. Pages! Then if you type "Columbus didn't trade slaves" you get all these sites that say he was a slavetrader. Heh.

Funny, when I do that on Google, I get ZERO sites returned. And funny enough, when I do that at yahoo, I also get ZERO sites returned. -- Zoe

give it some thought zo, sleep on it and get to it manana. dont rely on web sources, until the wp has 12M entries and takes over everything --Sv

Well said, if the internet is good enough as accurate sources, we don't need scholastic comments on specific topics. Claiming the internet as the primary sources by some wikipedians over years of scholastic research by the experts was probably the reason driving some contribtors away from wikipedia, like JHK.

Everyone has to agree that slave trading for digging gold was part of Columbus' career though he is not remembered as a slave trader. So in the first paragraph there should be few words about this. Only "explorer" is not enough of accurately describing his career. Gold explorer and trading slaves to dig new ores could be an option. Ktsquare

Excuse me, but I was replying to Lir's comments that, in her words, It's interesting. If you go to yahoo and type, "Columbus traded slaves" you get all these sites that say he was a slavetrader. Pages! Then if you type "Columbus didn't trade slaves" you get all these sites that say he was a slavetrader. Heh. I tried that, and did not get the results she claimed I would get. -- Zoe

I know you are but you have obviously misunderstood my point. I'm just trying to read the page as if I don't know anything about Columbus, which would be the case for many web surfers. If he didn't trade slaves, why in the first paragragh: searching for a new route to the Indies where he hoped to obtain slaves, gold and spices. and in a subsequent paragraph: In February, 1495, Columbus authorized shipment of 500 Arawak slaves to Spain. Doesn't that suggest he could be trading slaves in his career? If Lir's claim is false, the paragraphs should be rephrased to take away any hint on slave trading or make some clarifications that he was not a slave trader. My query was just to possibly get you thinking about a logical way that this can be done. Kt2

When Columbus went out on his second voyage he brought with him quite a few ships and men with the expectation that there was substantial gold on Hispaniola. There wasn't and in order to have something to send back he sent slaves. As to Columbus' involvement in slavetrading prior to his voyage to America, likely he had some contact with it, but I'm not up on the details. Any coasting voyage south along the African coast would have brought him in contact with it.

Perhaps we should refer to him as Cristoforo Colombo?

Even better, let's write the whole article in Spanish! Oh, wait a minute, this is the English wikipedia. I suppose we'd better carry on writing it in English. And using the name that English readers use for him. Too bad.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (anglicization)

Now hold on. Are we going to take Germans named Franz and rename them Frank? Grow up.

I think the guidelines are clear. We would only rename Germans named Franz as Frank if they were well known by the name "Frank" in the English speaking world. I think there should be a redirection page though ... ah someone has just added one -- Chris Q 10:10 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)

And I think the guidelines should be changed. People should learn the proper names of places and things, not the bastardized English hack.

I have removed the following text:

The mediterranean island of Corsica, birthplace to Napoleon, was for centuries part of the Genoese empire. Some Corsicans claim that Columbus, who was indeed Genoan but perhaps did not necessarily come from the city of Genoa, was in fact a native of Corsica, but because the often subversive elements of the island conferred its inhabitants a negative reputation, masked his exact heritage.

The reason I removed this, is that there is quite a number of non-standard theories on Columbus's origins. The Corsican one is one of them (I assume), but certainly not the most important one. This could probably return once we discuss those theories, but I think it is slightly misleading to add it without such a mention. Andre Engels

Hmm.. I've no issue with you changing it or adding other details. But to simply delete this because you "assume" it's one among many theories indicates (1) you're not so familiar with the theories as to know which is a "leading" theory (if you've ever been to Corsica, the people of Calvi are pretty convinced, and it's not that obscure of a theory), and (2) you're not willing to place it into a larger context, which I would certainly welcome and appreciate.

I tacked it onto the end of the article as an alternative, with some slight explanation. If you wish to add a portion about alternative theories, that's one thing. But I think summarily deleting, because you're simply not willing or able to place it in such a context, it is just slightly rude. In no way is this theory purported as the only, and I think I treat the theory with a rather neutral point of view, explaining its somewhat circular logic. And certainly this active debate about the real birthplace of Columbus does have a place somewhere, no?

I agree. I think its really rude the way some people just go around deleting stuff. Lir 10:51 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)

Well, while I appreciate your support, Lir, I think you're wrong on this one with your slave debate. I think you made very little attempt to promote what you said in an neutral way... I don't like the article the way it is now about slaves, and I think that it should, if anything, be treated separately, with an examination of the evidence.

---

Christopher Columbus should be re-direction to Cristoforo Colombo-NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND

I understand your point; however, the standard practice is to use the name by which the person, place, or thing is most commonly known in English, not vice-versa. For example, the article on Castilla-León is at Castile-Leon, the one on Rheinland-Pfalz is at Rhineland-Palatinate, etc. Besides, one of Chris' few authentic signatures says "Xpoual Colon" - should we move it to Cristóbal Colón? -

It's true, we do call him Johann Sebastian Bach (not John Sebastian) and Juan Carlos I of Spain (not John Charles). There is no general rule as to which foreign persons and things have their names imported into English and which don't (Horace but Catullus). But the fact is that some are more commonly referred to by some names and others by others. And I fully expect that the French article on London is at "Londres" and the Spanish article on Queen Elizabeth I is at Isabel I. -- Montréalais

Herein, I grumble: I know we are disagreeing about a lot of things, but can people please try not to introduce random errors (like "an penninsula" instead of "a peninsula"). In other words, take the time to proofread your chances. (Or leave a note on my talk page asking me to look it over--but if you do, I'll apply my own ideas of what ought to be there.) Vicki Rosenzweig

I've run into a number of people who intensely despise Columbus. They accuse him of genocide, torture, slavery and generally being a BAD GUY -- not a hero, who should have a holiday like Martin Luther King.

Until today, I assumed these people were merely the dupes of demagogues; that without bothering to check source they just swallowed whatever propaganda was fed to them, because of a generalized anti-Western bias. (Reminds me of Prof. Jeffries and his theories of ancient Egypt.)

But here are a few quotes from on-line sources I dug up today.

Genocide

American Indians and other ethnic groups have complained that Columbus was a slave trader who committed genocide. [1]
"We, the Taino people, know Cristóbal Colón very well. He called our people Indio. The word sounds like In God one with God, yet he committed mass genocide against 8 Million of my family members." [2]

Slave trade

Jack Weatherford is an anthropologist at Macalaster College in St. Paul, Minn. His most recent book is "Indian Givers."
In Examining the reputation of Christopher Columbus, Jack Weatherford says that Columbus "seized 1,200 Taino Indians from the island of Hispaniola, crammed as many onto his ships as would fit and sent them to Spain, where they were paraded naked through the streets of Seville and sold as slaves in 1495. Columbus tore children from their parents, husbands from wives. On board Columbus' slave ships, hundreds died; the sailors tossed the Indian bodies into the Atlantic." [3]

--Ed Poor

- Yes. I'd said earlier I thought that Columbus's enslaving Amerinds from his 2nd voyage on was well known, and the topic of dispute was if he'd been a slave trader earlier, but I guess his actions from the mid 1490s on are news to some folks here. -- Infrogmation

I plan to start a page on perceptions of Columbus-- the mythologizing of him as a hero in the late 19th century, and use of him as an archetype for either good or bad in different contexts. I'd like feedback on what the best name for this page might be. Possibilities: Myths of Columbus; Christopher Columbus/Mythology; Christopher Columbus, Perceptions of etc. Others?

I've put a rough draft at Christopher Columbus/Mythology so you can get an idea of what I'm talking about. I'm very open to moving it to a different name if people think something else would be better. -- Infrogmation

Edit conflicts

This next section of talk is just for fixing inadvertent deletions amoung cooperating contributors.

Flat Earth digression

Many sailors in Columbus's time believed in a flat earth and thus feared falling of the world's edge during the proposed journey, this was not an obstacle to his getting the financial backing he needed for his voyage. The Earth's spherical was no longer disputed among educated people of his time. What was disputed was Columbus's estimate of the distance needed to reach the Indies travelling westward. According to the calculations of contemporary experts, the Indies were too far away to make Columbus's plan worth considering.

Ironically, the experts were right about the distance of the Indies, but what neither Columbus or the experts knew was that there was an intervening continent, which Columbus was extremely fortunate to find.

--Ed Poor

Infrogmation: I think your idea is very good. To my knowledge, Columbus was only mythologized, and Columbus Day was established, in the late 1800s as a way to honor Italian Americans in particular and Catholics in general. It is a shame that these groups have been victims of discrimination in the US, and also a shame that Columbus and Columbus Day have become such important symbols of their pride, because it makes it hard to discuss Columbus critically, and to criticize Columbus Day, without offending many Italian Americans. Hopefully, distiinguishing between the "real" Columbus and the myth will help make it easier to do the former without doing the latter.

Ed: Sailors did know that the earth was round, it really is very obvious to anyone living near an ocean or large sea. You seem to want to make an historical claim, what is your historical evidence? As far as I know the "flat earth and Columbus" claim was only first made by Washington Irving, who wanted to establish the New World as a symbol of the triumph of reason against European supersticion. What was your evidence?

Zoe, in a similar vein can you provide the evidence people have for claiming Columbus was Basque or a converso? The claim that we are not exactly sure of Columbus's origin is fairly uncontroversial. But specific claims about his origin are. After all, people can claim anything they like. In my opinion, simply including the claims just clutters the article. But if youcould provide the reasons/evidence people cite for these claims, that would really add important substance to the article, Slrubenstein

I don't have the book handy right now, but I remember reading this in something called "Lies My Teacher Told Me" which was about (factual) errors in high school history textbooks. The point was that most of the textbooks claimed he was Italian and ignored the controversy. I remember it said he could have been Spanish, Basque, Sardinian, Corsican, Sicilian, Genoese and Greek (IIRC). Obviously, this isn't a source but if somebody could find it (I'll look in the local library tonight or tomorrow), it's a reputable, well-documented book that is about the very subject of the mythologization of Columbus (he calls it heroification). The author is James Loewen and here's his homepage (which is at uvm.edu--a university, so he'd be a good source)

Infrogmation, I think Heroification of Christopher Columbus might be a better title (though Mythology of Christopher Columbus isn't too bad) and you may want to check out the same book. The entire opening section is entirely about how and why people forget the bad things in Columbus' life. An article on heroification in general might be interesting; the same book discussed the process as it applies to Helen Keller and Woodrow Wilson (because people forget she was a radical, revolutionary socialist and he was a vicious racist). Tokerboy 21:28 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)