Do you think it’s correct to say Columbus discovered the Americas? (1 Viewer)

[Ahsoka]

I think it isn’t incorrect, but I do think it’s misleading to exclusively say “he discovered the Americas” and leave it at that. He did discover the Americas for Spain. After all, discovery isn’t a word that is absolute, it can be relative. For example, if you get an MRI for a knee injury, and the doctor tells you at the next appointment that you have an ACL tear, it is perfectly correct imo to say you discovered you have an ACL tear, even though the radiologist and doctor already knew. So to me it’s not incorrect to say he discovered the Americas, but it is misleading to not clarify that it was for Spain and various other European countries.

 

[athenaaa]

I can definitely see your point. I feel like the argument is did he or or didn’t he, not how, so that makes it quite misleading as you pointed out

 

[catonkatonk]

No.

When I got on a plane and went to South Africa, on touch down I didn't claim to have discovered South Africa for my household.

Important to remember that the discovery wasn't even for the "European" nations, unless we want to exclude the Nordics from Europe.

 

[Ahsoka]

No.

When I got on a plane and went to South Africa, on touch down I didn't claim to have discovered South Africa for my household.

Important to remember that the discovery wasn't even for the "European" nations, unless we want to exclude the Nordics from Europe.

You had never heard of South Africa before you landed there and nor had anyone in your family? You landing there was the first time you had ever heard of its existence?

I never claimed it was for Europe as a whole. I claimed it was for Spain and various other European nations. Nowhere did I say it was for all of Europe, I am aware than Lief Erickson and his crew got there first.

 

[catonkatonk]

You had never heard of South Africa before you landed there and nor had anyone in your family? You landing there was the first time you had ever heard of its existence?

I think that's an irrelevant distinction.

Why should the discussion be framed from the position of one nation? Why is it important that this dude didn't know something was there, and then he did?

Why do we not venerate "discovery" when it goes the other way? If someone from a previously uncontacted tribe finds their way to Sao Paolo, the history books are not shook.

The reason is the discovery doctrine, a thought process that existed long before it was codified into a disgusting law that states that a European nation "discovering" land takes ownership of it. The concept of res nullius (later terra nullius), itself deeply racist, is core to the principle. You may know about Leif Erikson but he is rarely venerated as a discoverer (which he also wasn't) for the precise reason that his discovery wasn't part of the discovery doctrine. When people say Columbus discovered America, what that are saying is that he began the colonial claim over it, nothing more.

 

[Belgizen]

Nope
The Americas were already discovered when people crossed the frozen Bering Strait.
This statement is just very eurocentristic

 

[Ahsoka]

I think that's an irrelevant distinction.

Why should the discussion be framed from the position of one nation? Why is it important that this dude didn't know something was there, and then he did?

Why do we not venerate "discovery" when it goes the other way? If someone from a previously uncontacted tribe finds their way to Sao Paolo, the history books are not shook.

The reason is the discovery doctrine, a thought process that existed long before it was codified into a disgusting law that states that a European nation "discovering" land takes ownership of it. The concept of res nullius (later terra nullius), itself deeply racist, is core to the principle. You may know about Leif Erikson but he is rarely venerated as a discoverer (which he also wasn't) for the precise reason that his discovery wasn't part of the discovery doctrine. When people say Columbus discovered America, what that are saying is that he began the colonial claim over it, nothing more.

The reason isn’t discovery doctorine. I never said anything about ownership being a requirement. I never said Lief Erickson was less of a discoverer than Columbus either, to me he’s at the same level. The reason I put what I put in the op is because I thought more about what discovery means. And given that people are always using the word for any aspect of life, not just colonialists or politics. I just fail to see why it’s wrong to say Columbus discovered the Americas for a chunk of Europe, but it’s okay for you to discover you’re ill, or discover a bird species you’ve never seen, or discover that the world isn’t flat, or discover that Korean food tastes good. Would you say that those are wrong to say? After all, someone knew you were ill if they diagnosed you first. You’ve never seen the bird species, but others have. The world being round it’s something that’s been known for ages. So if you’re a flat earther and are convinced that it is round from the information, then you haven’t discovered anything for yourself. For food many people like Korean food you have made no personal discovery that it tastes good, because other people thought it tasted good before you.

If an uncontacted tribe who did not know São Paulo was there came across it then from the tribes perspective they absolutely discovered it. The reason it wouldn’t as talked about has nothing to do with them not being European, and everything to do with that that discovery is less likely to change the history books because it’s a small tribe, and their information that they’ve gained is not likely to majorly change human history because of the sheer number of people who knew São Paulo exists vs the number of people who just learned it exists. Let’s look at an example that had a major historical effect. When China “discovered” East Africa and was able to set up trade routes, which grew the economy of both areas, while being able to bring items that could not be found in their own lands, fostered innocation, this was not a discovery in any way shape or form. China did not discover East Africa for the Chinese and East Africa did not discover China for the people of East Africa. They gained new information, they learned something they had not known about before, but they discovered nothing.

The discussion is framed from the perspective of one nation/Columbus because it fits this topic well. People have differing opinions about it, and it’s something most people on here will have heard of. If you’d like, I can add an example that isn’t European, the issue is that people may be less familiar with that and will need background on the topic before they can decide anything about it.

Also for the record it’s not even framed from the perspective of one nation. The rest of the op is about what discovery means, and the fact that discovery (to me) is relative, thereby being from the perspective of absolutely everyone. Columbus is an example, but Columbus isn’t the only person allowed to make discoveries in my book. But, do you think the fact that Columbus discovered the Americans for most of Europe had no effect? It doesn’t have to be positive. It just has to be an effect. Without this discovery, the world would be exactly the same?

 

[Ahsoka]

Nope
The Americas were already discovered when people crossed the frozen Bering Strait.
This statement is just very eurocentristic

Can you explain what you think about the other example in the op? The current day example about you discovering you have an ACL tear. To you you did not in fact discover you have an ACL tear right? Despite not knowing about it before at all and now knowing?

Also if this statement is wrong then the Chinese or Indians (for example) discovered much less than they would have otherwise, because they have a lot of discoveries where they learned something the whole region did not know about and now they knew about (and many times changed history by a large amount) but someone from a completely different part of the world with no relation to them knew about it. Correct?

 

[catonkatonk]

The discussion is framed from the perspective of one nation/Columbus because it fits this topic well. People have differing opinions about it, and it’s something most discovered the Americans for most of Europe had no effect? It doesn’t have to be positive. It just has to be an effect. Without this discovery, the world would be exactly the same?

But this is the exact point I'm making. That was the end of my last post: When people say discovery, they absolutely are referring to the discovery doctrine, because that is the material difference between Columbus' "discovery" and Erikson's.

In relation to your comparison with East Africa and China... There is not, as far as I'm aware, a single moment of "discovery" in this context. For example, when did China discover East Africa? Who did the discovery? It wasn't Quian iirc, but I'll confess to being out of my depth here, but I think the murkiness if the point: The thing with this example is that we're talking about a different cultural context, from a culture with a different value system. The European conception of "discovery" is fundamentally unique BECAUSE of ideas like the Discovery Doctrine and Terra Nullius.

For example, you can cite Lewis and Clark as bloodless explorers who journeyed for the sake of it, but an explicit goal of their expedition was to meet Jefferson's desire to declare sovereignty over yet more Native American land. There is an inherent link, culturally, between discovery and ownership. I'm not saying YOU'RE the one that's made that requirement. I'm saying that is the context in which modern Europe operates. It's about dispossession through "discovery", the nullification of entire civilisations. And this is materially distinct from empire building. The Roman Empire was multicultural, whereas Spain immediately set out on a course of cultural elimination and conversation. Not to rule, but to own.

That is why Columbus is the stock answer to "who discovered America", and not Leif Erikson. You have to narrow the parameters to make it make sense, because the "discovery" wasn't even from a European perspective more broadly. The concept of discovery in the context of Columbus is absolutely used in the unspoken frame of colonialism because that is the true distinction of his achievement over the various others who came to America before him. Including those who settled it, which you would think would count as significant.

One can say "well, in the strict dictionary definition of the word it's true IF YOU LIMIT IT to Spain", which, sure, but that is avoiding the very reason why he is cited more strongly as a discoverer in the first place.
Your proposal is to add a qualifier that the discovery is in the context of Spanish history. My proposal is that the discovery is in the context of a bloodstained legacy of colonialism that gave rise to the worst crimes in recorded human history. I don't want people to say "Yeah... He discovered it... For Spain". I want people to admit that the reason the discovery is uniquely celebrated is BECAUSE of the hundreds of years of exploitation that followed, leading eventually to European world dominance. A word isn't just a word. It has weight. Claiming to have discovered something for people like Columbus was to declare ownership. We should refuse it.


Edit: just saw some of your edits. The thing is, you might consider Erikson to have equally discovered America. And you're right! But that is not true for many people. There are no holidays in America celebrating Erikson as far as I know. Right? He is not the stock answer. This is why the issue is contentious, and why it's considered "wrong". You have to zoom out. You're using the word discovery in a strict sense, but I assure you, the broader culture is not. It just isn't. That's why you consider them to be equal explorers but the American elementary schooling system does not.

 

[Ahsoka]

But this is the exact point I'm making. That was the end of my last post: When people say discovery, they absolutely are referring to the discovery doctrine, because that is the material difference between Columbus' "discovery" and Erikson's.

In relation to your comparison with East Africa and China... There is not, as far as I'm aware, a single moment of "discovery" in this context. For example, when did China discover East Africa? Who did the discovery? It wasn't Quian iirc, but I'll confess to being out of my depth here, but I think the murkiness if the point: The thing with this example is that we're talking about a different cultural context, from a culture with a different value system. The European conception of "discovery" is fundamentally unique BECAUSE of ideas like the Discovery Doctrine and Terra Nullius.

For example, you can cite Lewis and Clark as bloodless explorers who journeyed for the sake of it, but an explicit goal of their expedition was to meet Jefferson's desire to declare sovereignty over yet more Native American land. There is an inherent link, culturally, between discovery and ownership. I'm not saying YOU'RE the one that's made that requirement. I'm saying that is the context in which modern Europe operates. It's about dispossession through "discovery", the nullification of entire civilisations. And this is materially distinct from empire building. The Roman Empire was multicultural, whereas Spain immediately set out on a course of cultural elimination and conversation. Not to rule, but to own.

That is why Columbus is the stock answer to "who discovered America", and not Leif Erikson. You have to narrow the parameters to make it make sense, because the "discovery" wasn't even from a European perspective more broadly. The concept of discovery in the context of Columbus is absolutely used in the unspoken frame of colonialism because that is the true distinction of his achievement over the various others who came to America before him. Including those who settled it, which you would think would count as significant.

One can say "well, in the strict dictionary definition of the word it's true IF YOU LIMIT IT to Spain", which, sure, but that is avoiding the very reason why he is cited more strongly as a discoverer in the first place.
Your proposal is to add a qualifier that the discovery is in the context of Spanish history. My proposal is that the discovery is in the context of a bloodstained legacy of colonialism that gave rise to the worst crimes in recorded human history. I don't want people to say "Yeah... He discovered it... For Spain". I want people to admit that the reason the discovery is uniquely celebrated is BECAUSE of the hundreds of years of exploitation that followed, leading eventually to European world dominance. A word isn't just a word. It has weight. Claiming to have discovered something for people like Columbus was to declare ownership. We should refuse it.

I am aware that there are people who view Columbus as more of a discoverer but this debate is about whether it’s completely wrong to call him one for my view of the word. Your main point seems to be that some people use to word to mean a certain thing, whether correct, incorrect, or in between, and to you the only solution to having a word that varies in meaning in the English language isn’t to have it mean one thing and make clarifications if needed, but instead to set a new meaning completely, so different themes in English use the same word in different ways. I don’t really see how that’s better, English is wild enough as is. A word does have weight. That doesn’t mean that it will have to always and forever mean the exact same thing, with the exact same connotation, and that the only solution is to make it completely exclusive, instead of making it inclusive and able to be used for all kinds of people.

The first time Chinese travelers are recorded to make direct contact with East African people in the 15th century. Zheng He was the one who led these voyages. China knew there were people there, but had no direct contact because any trade was done through India. Zheng He set up direct trade routes with various countries in the Indian Ocean Basin.

My view of what discovery is is different from all the things you’re saying about Europeans so I don’t really see why my definition of the word and my usage of the word must be viewed not the way I am explicitly describing it but instead has to be viewed the way that I explicitly said I am not using it as. If a European decides to subscribe to discovery doctorine and uses the word in such a way, that now means that the way I view the word and describe it as being used is replaced by another persons idea? I am aware that some people may interpret it differently, which something that happens no matter what language you use. Misunderstandings happen. And, for the record, would you say the same to someone isn’t European and uses discovery to mean someone who learned something, whether it’s a rediscovery or not? Also, I am not saying that anyone is required to use the word my way or any other way. It’s a question is whether it is correct or incorrect to do so in the English language. Even if you agree it’s correct usage, you are under no obligation to use it in daily or not so daily speech. You more or less seem to agree with me anyways, the objection seems to be not about whether it is correct English usage but about other people’s interpretation of the word, which isn’t something I was asking.

 

[catonkatonk]

You more or less seem to agree with me anyways, the objection seems to be not about whether it is correct English usage but about other people’s interpretation of the word, which isn’t something I was asking.

Not quite.
The thread title is,
"Do you think it’s correct to say Columbus discovered the Americas?"
The answer is no. It was occupied land first of all, and he wasn't even the first person in his continent to go there.
Did he discover it for himself, or for Spain or whatever? Sure but that's a fundamentally different thing.

If I discovered a new kpop group for myself yesterday, it would be weird for a history book to say that I discovered them. Because in THAT context, the meaning is widely understood to be different - it's taken to mean, "the FIRST person to discover something".

Here is the Oxford English Dictionary entry for the word:

The action of finding out or becoming aware of something for the first time; the action of being the first to find (a place); the action of bringing to light something (as a substance, scientific phenomenon, etc.) which was previously unknown.

This is WHY people say that it is incorrect to say Columbus discovered America. They are using the word in a different way to yourself, and neither is incorrect.

What is incorrect, however, is to say that he discovered America, not in your sense of the word, not with any qualifiers, but in the way to say he was the first person to discover America. And that had been, up until recently, a very common way of teaching the subject. There has been a lot of revisionism on this. But I'm old. I remember what I was taught in school. And my teachers did not mean "he discovered it in the same way I discovered kimchi yesterday." So why were they saying something objectively wrong? Well, that's what my posts are getting at.

 

[Ahsoka]

Not quite.
The thread title is,
"Do you think it’s correct to say Columbus discovered the Americas?"
The answer is no. It was occupied land first of all, and he wasn't even the first person in his continent to go there.
Did he discover it for himself, or for Spain or whatever? Sure but that's a fundamentally different thing.

If I discovered a new kpop group for myself yesterday, it would be weird for a history book to say that I discovered them. Because in THAT context, the meaning is widely understood to be different - it's taken to mean, "the FIRST person to discover something". This is WHY people say that it is incorrect to say Columbus discovered America. They are using the word in a different way to yourself, and neither is incorrect.

What is incorrect, however, is to say that he discovered America, not in your sense of the word, not with any qualifiers, but in the way to say he was the first person to discover America. And that had been, up until recently, a very common way of teaching the subject. There has been a lot of revisionism on this. But I'm old. I remember what I was taught in school. And my teachers did not mean "he discovered it in the same way I discovered kimchi yesterday." So why were they saying something objectively wrong? Well, that's what my posts are getting at.

Yes I know the school system is trash, I was also taught that he was the one to discover the Americas (but we had some students who were plenty willing to share that Lief Erickson was there first). There was plenty they got wrong but don’t think that the whole stuff about discovery doctrine was really all that relevant, especially after I explicitly described my meaning. I get that it’s something that some people don’t know about and should consider but I understood plenty well and at no point was saying I disagree that it existed or that I don’t understand the concept. But discovery doctrine isn’t a built in aspect of definitions of words, its interpretation of the word in a way that isn’t in the definition. I specifically was talking about how the word discovery is used, not just in history, but in general.

The rest of the op points out that it’s at best misleading to say that. I still disagree that it’s completely wrong to say so, but I do agree that with people’s interpretation of the word (not actual meaning, interpretation) it would be misleading if it hadn’t been clarified before. If the op isn’t enough, which would be fair enough, I don’t know the direction replies would go so I wasn’t overly specific, but I did say that my meaning was not discovery doctorine based a fair number of times later on so there was no reason to keep viewing my usage as if it was discovery doctrine based.

Anyways, I suppose it could be viewed at the start as the first one. It’s just that I’ve clarified that that wasn’t my meaning.

 

[catonkatonk]

Yes I know the school system is trash, I was also taught that he was the one to discover the Americas (but we had some students who were plenty willing to share that Lief Erickson was there first). There was plenty they got wrong but don’t think that the whole stuff about discovery doctrine was really all that relevant, especially after I explicitly described my meaning. I get that it’s something that some people don’t know about and should consider but I understood plenty well and at no point was saying I disagree that it existed or that I don’t understand the concept. But discovery doctrine isn’t a built in aspect of definitions of words, its interpretation of the word in a way that isn’t in the definition.

The rest of the op points out that it’s at best misleading to say that. I still disagree that it’s completely wrong to say so, but I do agree that with people’s interpretation of the word (not actual meaning, interpretation) it would be misleading if it hadn’t been clarified before. If the op isn’t enough, which would be fair enough, I don’t know the direction replies would go so I wasn’t overly specific, but I did say that my meaning was not discovery doctorine based a fair number of times later on so there was no reason to keep viewing my usage as if it was discovery doctrine based.

At no point did I believe your usage was based on the doctrine. But I'm saying that was the historical context to this entire conversation. Those teachers were not ignorant. They were right, but only because they were using a third definition of the word. Why does it matter? Because that third definition is an offense to humanity, frankly.
But it is because of the third meaning of the word that Columbus has his place in history. And that is the idea that you inevitably have to reckon with when you bring up the subject.

 

[Ahsoka]

At no point did I believe your usage was based on the doctrine. But I'm saying that was the historical context to this entire conversation. Those teachers were not ignorant. They were right, but only because they were using a third definition of the word. Why does it matter? Because that third definition is an offense to humanity, frankly.
But it is because of the third meaning of the word that Columbus has his place in history. And that is the idea that you inevitably have to reckon with when you bring up the subject.

I know enough of the history though, and if I don’t know the history I would have learned the first time you said it. As for the teachers not being ignorant sorry but I think most are at that grade level, to them it’s more important to know how to work with kids than know correct information. Like in 3rd grade I knew more about the Cold War and Alaska purchase than my teacher. She didn’t even know what the Cold War was. I don’t think they’re bad people for being ignorant, I think it’s just how they’re taught and what skills are needed. As for the topic of discovery doctrine coming up sure, it can make sense to make a post, but I just feel like I said that this post isn’t about that enough times throughout.

 

[Belgizen]

Can you explain what you think about the other example in the op? The current day example about you discovering you have an ACL tear. To you you did not in fact discover you have an ACL tear right? Despite not knowing about it before at all and now knowing?

Also if this statement is wrong then the Chinese or Indians (for example) discovered much less than they would have otherwise, because they have a lot of discoveries where they learned something the whole region did not know about and now they knew about (and many times changed history by a large amount) but someone from a completely different part of the world with no relation to them knew about it. Correct?

I honestly read the op diagonally, but I do still think that the view is eurocentric.
Discovered would be if it was inhabited.
Sure the Americas would've looked different without Europe's ruling, but there were already people there

 

[Ahsoka]

I honestly read the op diagonally, but I do still think that the view is eurocentric.
Discovered would be if it was inhabited.
Sure the Americas would've looked different without Europe's ruling, but there were already people there

Do you mean uninhabited?
I can’t really see the Eurocentric claim. I’m talking about the usage of the word discover in all cases, not in cases of white people discovering anything. Columbus is an example. Columbus is not the only example. Another example would be when the Chinese voyages led by Zheng He made first direct contact with the people of East Africa. To me, if I use the word the same as in the op, it was a discovery from the perspectives of all people involved. Is that Asian centric? You don’t have to be white to make a discovery and I never claimed you do have to be.

 

[dark_tranquility]

If it has its sources then sure whynot

 

[Belgizen]

Do you mean uninhabited?
I can’t really see the Eurocentric claim. I’m talking about the usage of the word discover in all cases, not in cases of white people discovering anything. Columbus is an example. Columbus is not the only example. Another example would be when the Chinese voyages led by Zheng He made first direct contact with the people of East Africa. To me, if I use the word the same as in the op, it was a discovery from the perspectives of all people involved. Is that Asian centric? You don’t have to be white to make a discovery and I never claimed you do have to be.

yes i meant that
that's not what i meant, just the view that people have about the statement in the title is a eurocentric view.
same, i never claimed that either

 

[Ahsoka]

yes i meant that
that's not what i meant, just the view that people have about the statement in the title is a eurocentric view.
same, i never claimed that either

To me that doesn’t mean that what I said is Eurocentric. It means that with the interpretation some use it’s Eurocentric. Calling it Eurocentric as a blanket statement just seems incorrect to me because it depends on the interpretation. I in no way disagree that a lot of the people who use the phrase are looking at it from Eurocentric view.