Cristoforo Colombo

[Cybermat47]

520th anniversary of a guy arriving in a place that a Greenlander found hundreds of years before and said guy going around chopping of Native's hands when they said "I don't want to be christian"

[soopaman2]

Cortez is seen as an even bigger hero, and he massacred millions willingly, with guns and cannon.

Columbus did most his damage through disease the natives lacked immunity to.

It is what it is, I just wish folks would stop harping on the past, considering none of us had anything to do with it.

[Jimbuna]

When you consider it was 520 years ago then consider how recently America gained independance it brings into perspective just how young a country she is.

[Oberon]

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I hated that movie, and the other one that came out the same year. Much better was the joint Spanish-American miniseries that came out in 1985, with Gabriel Byrne as Cristoforo Colombo (they used the real names), Faye Dunaway as Isabella, Nicol Williamson as Ferdinand, Max von Sydow as King John of Portugal, and Oliver Reed as Martin Pinzon.

It was an absolutely spectacular historical piece, with most of the major players portrayed, and spanning five hours.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088916/

The bad news is that it has never been released on DVD, at least not to the American market. There is a Region 2 release from Denmark, in English with Danish, Norwegian and Swedish subtitles.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

520th anniversary of a guy arriving in a place that a Greenlander found hundreds of years before

I also did a timeline of Leif Erikson's voyages. The problem is that the Norwegian/Iceland/Greenland folks didn't stay. It's like saying the Wright Brothers weren't really the first to fly. They weren't, but they were the first to repeat the experiment and show how it should be done. No, Columbus wasn't the first, but he was the one who made it stick and showed the rest of the world how to do it.

and said guy going around chopping of Native's hands when they said "I don't want to be christian"

Do you have any evidence for that claim? Surviving records indicate that Columbus tried to stop the abuse of the natives, and it was the Hidalgos who perpetrated it. If you don't know who they were I'll gladly explain.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Do you have any evidence for that claim? Surviving records indicate that Columbus tried to stop the abuse of the natives, and it was the Hidalgos who perpetrated it. If you don't know who they were I'll gladly explain.

I think his point was we eventuallly stole from and killed most the natives we couldn't convert. Course our diseases killed as much. I agree this was not so much during the period of Columbus.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Armistead

I think his point was we eventuallly stole from and killed most the natives we couldn't convert. Course our diseases killed as much. I agree this was not so much during the period of Columbus.

I agree, and I think it started right then and there. My point is that the best evidence indicates that Columbus himself wasn't involved.

I read a lovely book a couple of years ago (I can't remember the name offhand) that explained how English traders and military men tried to "free" the natives from Spanish abuses, then turned around and did the same things themselves. They didn't really care; it was just an excuse to get the natives to rebel. All they were really after was their piece of the pie.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I read a lovely book a couple of years ago (I can't remember the name offhand) that explained how English traders and military men tried to "free" the natives from Spanish abuses, then turned around and did the same things themselves. They didn't really care; it was just an excuse to get the natives to rebel. All they were really after was their piece of the pie.

Like the American-Spanish war!

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Do you have any evidence for that claim? Surviving records indicate that Columbus tried to stop the abuse of the natives, and it was the Hidalgos who perpetrated it. If you don't know who they were I'll gladly explain.

This is what I love about subsim.
The ability for a bunch of intelligent people to have debates with each other!

[Onkel Neal]

Thanks for the write up, Steve, I enjoyed reading it. It's amazing that it took years for CC to get his funding and voyage set up.

[CCIP]

Very informative! Admittedly this period and topic is one of my weak areas in history, so I've learned something very good indeed here

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I agree, and I think it started right then and there. My point is that the best evidence indicates that Columbus himself wasn't involved.

I read a lovely book a couple of years ago (I can't remember the name offhand) that explained how English traders and military men tried to "free" the natives from Spanish abuses, then turned around and did the same things themselves. They didn't really care; it was just an excuse to get the natives to rebel. All they were really after was their piece of the pie.

Sadly, missionary work then was more about economics, first came explorers, soldiers, traders, then missions followed. One large recent debate I got into was how the gospel was spread based on economics, makes the more fundy believers rather upset.

However, there were some missionairies that were furious how the natives were treated and knew it would take decades if not generations to convert them, but that wasn't acceptable to the overall plan. Many of these were replaced by more political religious figures that pushed more a convert or die plan.

Ending, how can you blame the natives for refusing our culture and beliefs, we were killing them and taking all they knew, so they stuck with the old ways and most fought to their deaths through the 1800's.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Sadly, missionary work then was more about economics, first came explorers, soldiers, traders, then missions followed. One large recent debate I got into was how the gospel was spread based on economics, makes the more fundy believers rather upset.

I'm right in the middle of reading a whole series of books by naval historian Peter Padfield, making the case that virtually all exploration and all naval combat from 1450 through 1800 was about economics, and trying to get the big share of the pie. Vasco da Gama made the Portuguese trade to India work, mostly facing opposition from and waging war against the Muslim merchants who already had a monopoly on the trade in the area.

Those believers might be even more upset if they knew the real causes behind the Spanish Armada and the attempted invasion of England in 1588. King Phillip II of Spain had been married to Mary Tudor, daughter of Henry VIII. Mary was the daughter of Catherine of Aragon (herself the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella!), and she was trying to restore Catholicism as the primary Faith, at sword's point, of course. When she died her younger sister Elizabeth became Queen, and being the daughter of Anne Boleyn she was of course a good Protestant. At that time if she married she would likely relinquish all her power to her husband, so she played several Royal suitors off each other, promising to marry several, or at least promising to think about it. Phillip got so annoyed that he petitioned the Pope to give him men and money to subjugate England. The Pope told him he would get nothing, because his enterprise had nothing to do with religion and faith, being rather about greed and revenge. When Mary Stuart, "Queen of Scotts" was executed for plotting against her cousin Elizabeth, then the Pope started demanding that Phillip go and attack England.

Then there were the Anglo-Dutch wars of the 1600s, but in that case both sides freely admitted that they really were wars to control trade by sea.

Ending, how can you blame the natives for refusing our culture and beliefs, we were killing them and taking all they knew, so they stuck with the old ways and most fought to their deaths through the 1800's.

Sure Cortez and others killed the kings and chiefs, and wiped out major civilizations, but mostly the Spaniards weren't so much interested in killing the natives as enslaving them. After all, free labor was needed to mine all that silver so "good" Englishmen like Drake and Hawkins could steal it from them on the way home. On the other hand I'm not sure if the colonists at Jamestown did anything to deserve being slaughtered by locals in 1607. Details are sketchy at best, and the Europeans never had a monopoly on killing people to get their goods and land.

It's a cruel world.

[u crank]

Very good stuff Steve. It's funny how much more complicated the story is than what you learn in school. So much personal and political intrigue.

One thing that always amazed me was the time line. From the landing on San Salvador in Oct. 1492 to the conquest by Cortés was a little over twenty years. This to me seems like a very short time considering the lines of communication and supply. And again a lot of intrigue and personal ambition to stir the pot. Rather than a conquest by Spain, it was a group of very ambitious individuals looking for fame and fortune. And there was a lot of competition as to who would lead this adventure.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Sure Cortez and others killed the kings and chiefs, and wiped out major civilizations, but mostly the Spaniards weren't so much interested in killing the natives as enslaving them. After all, free labor was needed to mine all that silver so "good" Englishmen like Drake and Hawkins could steal it from them on the way home. On the other hand I'm not sure if the colonists at Jamestown did anything to deserve being slaughtered by locals in 1607. Details are sketchy at best, and the Europeans never had a monopoly on killing people to get their goods and land.

It's a cruel world.

Yes and it's not at all strange that it was about money and religion.

A book I read a few years ago that I found interesting.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...t_of_New_Spain

A first hand account of Hernán Cortés' conquest by one of his conquistadors, Bernal Díaz del Castillo. Amazing and controversial story. And yes, it is a cruel world.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

520th anniversary of a guy arriving in a place that a Greenlander found hundreds of years before and said guy going around chopping of Native's hands when they said "I don't want to be christian"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse_c...f_the_Americas

It is unclear why the short-term settlements did not become permanent, though it was in part because of hostile relations with the indigenous peoples, referred to as Skrælings by the Norse.

Vikings hostile to outsiders? Never.