View Topic

Credit to @TGN who posted this as an Icebreaker on the RMB.

I just thought I'd bring it to the forums for those who don't regularly check out the RMB.

No, the man only did it because he was bad at math and a sufficiently able con artist as to convince someone with money that his bad math was actually right and everyone else was wrong.
And then he was an incompetent, sociopathic governor, recalled from his post for being incompetent and sociopathic, and, of course, indirectly responsible for genocide on two continents.
To say nothing of how astonishingly western-centric this perspective is, since implying that only when Europeans found the continent could we consider it 'discovered' completely negates the millions of people who lived and died here millennia before he ever showed up.
He can be a footnote in a history textbook or something and attributed the same vague curiousity as 'huh, I wonder who was the first person who looked at a cow's teat and thought 'maybe I can get milk from that like a baby does from a woman's breast', what a weirdo', or better yet treated exactly like history has treated that guy: total obliteration of his name from all historical record. (In fairness, the cow guy's only failing was probably that he was born before we'd discovered writing, whereas Columbus was a total psychopath.)

I think it's like Steve Jobs and the tablet...the tablet existed before the iPad, but Steve Jobs made it popular. We now know that the Vikings had discovered and colonized the New World hundreds of years prior (and of course there's the natives), but that knowledge had been forgotten...it was Columbus's rediscovery, as accidental as it was, that etched it back in the Old World's collective memory permanently. I think that deserves some credit, even if he wasn't the first to discover it.

He was certainly an incompetent administrator who didn't care about the natives, and that should be part of the story too, as it should be with many historical figures. We have this thing in history where we want to put notable people on a pedestal like they were perfect when in fact they were just notable people, and now we're going in the other direction where we want to downplay their role because of those other things they were. I think we can acknowledge that his re-discovery was historically important without endorsing his actions, beliefs, mindsets, etc.

I guess I wouldn't frame it as "credit" in that context then. We definitely should acknowledge his actions and the role he played as historically notable and important, but "credit" has a positive connotation (it doesn't always in all contexts, but it still does and framing it as crediting him will have that implication). (Though as an aside, history should be focusing less on individuals and more on wide-scale processes, so how important really Columbus or any individual people at all for that matter is questionable, but that's a different topic entirely.)

Wouldn't acknowledging his actions and the role he played as historically notable and important be crediting him?

I'm not sure I agree with you about minimalizing the role of individuals in history, either. The stories of historical figures, the circumstances and the thought process of what they did, and the impact it had in their lifetime and beyond is where history comes alive and makes it relatable to the people studying it. I think most people would find history more interesting if schools focused on those stories rather than giving a bland summarization punctuated by dates and events. The problem is how we put those figures on a pedestal and tend to whitewash their lives and minimalize their flaws, where we should be giving a more balanced perspective.

As I said, the word "credit" has positive connotations which I think are best avoided by rephrasing.

And summarizing dates and events would be even worse. Certainly I'm not a fan of rote memorization of what happened; that's not really history IMO. I think it's far more interesting to focus on wide-scale processes and events, theories and patterns, looking at models and ideology and the role of historiography, things like that. People and events definitely play a role in that, and you have to study those to be able to get the bigger picture, but I do think that they're overemphasized.

When someone does something noteable and important, people tend to assume that's a positive thing.

I'm not saying we shouldn't focus on how concepts and mindsets have evolved over time as well, but when you say theories, models, the role of historiography, etc, that sounds more like a college-level history class than something that people with more ambivalent interests in history are going to relate to. When I mentioned the study of history I was thinking more on the K-12 level plus study geared toward an average layperson more than toward people that have an interest in history. Theories and concepts can be represented by people, which makes it easier for most people to relate to.

Yeah, I think the wording could be improved (I'm not the best writer out there) but the general idea of rephrasing I think still holds.

You make a good point that representing concepts through people and narratives can be good. I do think we have to be careful not to fall prey to the traditional representations of history as the actions of great men, though, since if we just say to focus more on individual people then it's easy to fall back on those ways of thinking.

I agree, and I think historians and the public at large are going in that direction, which is why we're having this discussion right now.

I'm kinda in that mindset that just because he was the popular one to remember doesn't mean he's the proper one to credit.  If the vikings discovered it first, they should be the ones given proper credit...or the natives who have lived and died here for god knows how long should be given credit since they technically "discovered" it first.

Columbus was a scumbag that doesn't deserve the credit above others who found it first just because he's the one people remember.  It just means that we need to remember better people.

The thing is, his discovery was the one that impacted future events the most...the natives that crossed over from the land bridge were never remembered to start with, and the Viking discovery was forgotten until the 20th century. It's Columbus's discovery that started the chain of events concerning the New World that brought us where we are today, for better or for worse, and that's why he's the one that people remember. You can say they discovered it first and be technically correct, but you can't ignore the impact of Columbus's discovery without distorting history.

The thing is, his discovery was the one that impacted future events the most...the natives that crossed over from the land bridge were never remembered to start with, and the Viking discovery was forgotten until the 20th century. It's Columbus's discovery that started the chain of events concerning the New World that brought us where we are today, for better or for worse, and that's why he's the one that people remember. You can say they discovered it first and be technically correct, but you can't ignore the impact of Columbus's discovery without distorting history.

Yes, and despite being an absolute psychopath, people like Hitler and Charles Manson and the like had an impact on future events due to their choices and the like...does that mean they deserve to be remembered for shaping history?

There needs to be a point where we're willing to forget the bad people, or remember them as reminders of what not to be, rather than recalling them in any sort of positive light.

While Columbus wasn't at that psychopathic level, he was a bad person, and giving him the pedestal of rememberance just because he was the more convenient darling to be remembered is an absolute disservice to those who did the work before him.

How do you even explain, much less study, things like the Holocaust and World War II without remembering Hitler? At that level, you have to remember them as a warning for one others try to follow in their footsteps. But Hitler is historical specifically because of the evil he brought to the world, where Columbus is historical for something good he did (subjectively, obviously his rediscovery wasn't good for all) despite that fact that he did bad things too. I think it's more comparable to some of the debates on historical figures going on now...should the founding fathers be celebrated since many of them owned slaves? Should Woodrow Wilson be recognized since he was an open and blatant racist?

We should be as objective as possible when it comes to history, and part of that is recognizing that people can be overall bad but also happen to do things that have a positive impact on future events. If we try to erase them from history, we risk distorting that history in the process. Without Columbus, how do you explain European colonization and all the things that came afterwards? Again, we can remember and recognize the role they played in history without celebrating who they were.

Would agree that we should remember important bad things that happened and consequently the people that did them. Of course, it seems like humans find it very easy to put people that we remember onto a pedestal, and that may be even worse, simply because by choosing the celebrate them, that sends a very clear message to those that have suffered as a result of them and what they represent, and has a tangible effect on helping perpetuate harmful ideologies and systems of inequality and oppression.

(As an aside, European colonization as a whole was very much a bad thing, but that's a very different argument for a different time I think.)

Would agree that we should remember important bad things that happened and consequently the people that did them. Of course, it seems like humans find it very easy to put people that we remember onto a pedestal, and that may be even worse, simply because by choosing the celebrate them, that sends a very clear message to those that have suffered as a result of them and what they represent, and has a tangible effect on helping perpetuate harmful ideologies and systems of inequality and oppression.

(As an aside, European colonization as a whole was very much a bad thing, but that's a very different argument for a different time I think.)

Yeah, the colonization and afterwards even heading today was definitely not all memorable for right reasons, and outside of technologically, debatably we're still exactly the same people we were when we first came here...we just shift who we hate/almost oppress to a different group under a different guise as time progresses.  First it was folks of differing beliefs, then different color, then different sex (though women have always been somewhat oppressed as being considered nothing but domestic baby makers), then different orientation, and now anyone who isn't cis-gender, and after that it'll be something else...maybe even working backwards with the roles switched...and that wasn't even getting into how these lands were basically stolen from the natives as they were tricked and then forced into some of the worst parts of the land where they're still living today, and how we've done the same to places like Hawaii for our own political gain and how we have no intention of giving it back since it's our own personal vacation place now (and many native Hawaiians still hate us for all of that to this day).

But yeah, that's definitely a different topic for discussion.