I've read in a couple of places that he was a conman and a terrible sailor. Basically things that make him less that an exploratory hero and more of a guy who did it for money and prestige. I was wondering if these shadows were accurate, according to your guys' knowledge.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Well, I don't know about "terrible sailor". For one thing, he actually knew how to swim, which most sailors of the era didn't.
But it's also true that he falsified his information when trying to convince Queen Isabella to let him take the voyage. Most scholars believed the world to be very large; more or less its true size, actually. Columbus ignored them and searched for any classical writer, however unreliable, who disagreed with that. His opinion was that the world was much smaller, and that Asia was just a short trip west from Europe, and instead of accepting all the evidence that it wasn't true, he grasped at anything that backed up his theory.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
Let's be careful how we phrase things.
1. He did not "falsify" his information. He found sources for all his miscalculations - but he did select the sources that justified his obsession with sailing west. But why would he lie? After all, HE WAS SAILING ON THE EXPEDITION. If he was wrong, he would DIE for his mistake, quite possibly. So how can it be called "falsifying" the information if he bets his own life and future on its accuracy?
2. Columbus had enemies. They said terrible things about him. But it is obvious that the idea he was a bad ship's captain and a bad navigator is false. For one thing, people were able to follow after him, based on his logs. And the people who denied his abilities were the ones determined to take away the credit from him (or to refute charges made against THEM by blaming HIM).
3. There was a truly revolting anti-Columbus movement during the years before and after the quincentennial of the European discovery of America, and a lot of evidence that real historians would have dismissed as unreliable or treated only as a footnote was elevated into irresponsible character assassination as part of the politically correct assault on Western civilization. So these days it's actually hard to find reliable information on Columbus that isn't hopeless tainted or ... here's where the word fits ... FALSIFIED.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Okay, "falsified" was too strong a word. And I suppose it would be absurd to criticize him for bad science, in that the scientific method hadn't been developed by his time. But still, it always kind of annoyed me that he ignored all the compelling evidence that the world was large and searched for any writer at all who said it wasn't, just because he didn't want it to be. He believed fanatically that the world was small, and he refused to be swayed by real evidence. I just can't respect that.
I think actually vilifying Columbus is excessive, but it's not like all the stories we grew up on about him are accurate, either.
[ April 20, 2005, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: Verily the Younger ]
Posted by Bretagne (Member # 7852) on :
No stories about any historical figure famous enough to be considered on par with Columbus are going to be entirely accurate. We tend to simplify things to make them easier to remember. Washington never told a lie, for example. Not a likely truth, but it's still something people cling to.
I think that's why historical fiction is so popular. It takes people like Colubmus and Washington and makes them human again. That's why I enjoyed reading stuff like OSC's Women of Genesis books, or The Other Boelyn Girl.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
If Columbus hadn't bumped into a big island on his voyage, we would remember him (if at all) as the biggest dumbhead in history.
But instead he changed the world - because of his raw ambition, his absolute certainty that the westward voyage would lead to inhabited lands that would be the source of enormous wealth.
The line separating annoying idiots from world-changing geniuses is a very thin one.
Most of us never come near that line, of course, but instead reside safely within Annoyingidiotland.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
You mean The Annoyingidiot Republic, right? Or Annoyingidiotway, or Annoyingidiotmark?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The Glorious United People's Republic of Annoying Idiots?
Posted by Syrjay (Member # 7706) on :
/lives in annoyingidiotland and knows it /is too big of an idiot to leave annoyingidiotland /reads books by others who live in annoyingidiotland /decides annoyingidiotland isn't horrible /takes the blue pill
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
/is in awe of those with the selfknowledge to know who they are and where they live.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Posted by RedHddBoy (Member # 7561) on :
And let us not forget the point that OSC made in the book. The simple fact that someone touched land wasn't the boom for the Europeans. It was Columbus' conviction. There was something more there and he convinced them. Even after his other two returns to the Annoyingidiota Supercontinent he still had nothing special to bring back. Nothing, anyway, more than what the Portuguese were already accomplishing safely along the African coast. Columbus was special. Not a saint, but special.
Posted by Verai (Member # 7507) on :
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)